The old evolution debate

[Ipecac Drano]

Let me refrase my question: don´t you think culture is part of reality?

No.

however, if he tells you not to be jealous, while refusing to confront his own jealousy, then yes, I would call it hypocritical.

Well, since he failed to do that, then he's a hypocrite.

sorry, responded this way, because I thought you asked if me or others could see the purpose behind everything

I wasn't anywhere near there...

claims that they know God's will? Better than me, yes. In absolute terms, no.

talk to God? No(or yes, but god doesn´t talk back)

Claim to witness things beyond what mankind is capable of witnessing?

Yes, but they never claimed to fully understand it.

Things from other dimensions?
never got this specific.

from Heaven or Hell?
No

So, how can they know that these things are from places beyond man's experience and knowledge if they are bound to the same limits the rest of mankind are?

[SkullKing]

So, how can they know that these things are from places beyond man's experience and knowledge if they are bound to the same limits the rest of mankind are?

I don´t know

[Ipecac Drano]

I don´t know

That's okay. It was a rhetorical question; one that needs to be pondered by everyone.

[Nyoibo]

The government is not god. Bad example.

How about that God commands to not kill, but then decides that wiping out cities or scouring the planet clean of almost all living things?

To be a Christian is not to follow the bible, but to follow the teaching of Christ, the old testament which "Christians" use to justify numerous things, are not the teaching of Christ and in many cases go against his teachings, but they still call themselves christians.

[Ipecac Drano]

How about that God commands to not kill, but then decides that wiping out cities or scouring the planet clean of almost all living things?

Yep.

To be a Christian is not to follow the bible, but to follow the teaching of Christ

Which can be found in what major tome?

the old testament which "Christians" use to justify numerous things, are not the teaching of Christ and in many cases go against his teachings, but they still call themselves christians.

The only purpose of the Xtians using parts of the Tanakh was to give this new person a history. Granted, Jesus wasn't mentioned by name in the OT, but the Xtians were saying that all allusions to a Messiah or new prophet were about Jesus.

As I had mentioned elsewhere before, comedian Lewis Black, who is Jewish, once commented on watching TV on Sunday mornings. Occasionally, he'd catch either a pastor or priest reading from the OT, and getting it wrong. "But," he says, "It's not their fault. It's not their book."

[FArchivist]

How about that God commands to not kill, but then decides that wiping out cities or scouring the planet clean of almost all living things?

Speaking from an Old Testament viewpoint, God did all that before issuing the 10 Commandments. Also, the 10 Commandments only applied to the Jews. Mind, that's pre-Jesus.

To be a Christian is not to follow the bible, but to follow the teaching of Christ, the old testament which "Christians" use to justify numerous things, are not the teaching of Christ and in many cases go against his teachings, but they still call themselves christians.

You are correct! And I am about to post something with permission from the original author that has to do with that.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh Sky Cake, why are you so delicious?

I see we're having another one of our merri-go-round religious debates that give me a headache by page 4.

I do have one honest question here though: Why is Christianity not allowed to evolve with the times? There's this weird trend in these discussions where the people arguing against Christian bizzarrely insist that Christians adhere entirely to the Bible or they're not real Christians, while also arguing the Bible is a flawed product of man.

There isn't proof for any religion, nor am I a follower of any cause they're all horrible deities that care nothing except their own power. I belive in my own beliefs, because frankly I despise and activally hate all other /deities/.

No offence, but I don't think you know of many deities outside of the Vengeful Sky Pixie if that's the case. On a side note that's my new favourite term, thank you Raps.

[Ipecac Drano]

I do have one honest question here though: Why is Christianity not allowed to evolve with the times?

Who's restraining it?

There's this weird trend in these discussions where the people arguing against Christian bizzarrely insist that Christians adhere entirely to the Bible or they're not real Christians, while also arguing the Bible is a flawed product of man.

So, you're saying that it's okay to ignore some of your God's rules when they get to be too inconvenient for you?

[Nyoibo]

I do have one honest question here though: Why is Christianity not allowed to evolve with the times?

Because EVOLUTION IS A TOOL OF SATAN!!!

[Rapscallion]

I do have one honest question here though: Why is Christianity not allowed to evolve with the times? There's this weird trend in these discussions where the people arguing against Christian bizzarrely insist that Christians adhere entirely to the Bible or they're not real Christians, while also arguing the Bible is a flawed product of man.

Unfortunately, for me it's a reaction to the way that many christians will choose to follow one bit or another, yet still proclaim that the entirety of the text is the divinely inspired word of their deity, and therefore infallible, but this bit doesn't actually say what it apparently does, oh and that bit doesn't mean that and it means that I can eat shrimp and pork while denouncing homosexuality and...

From my perspective, there's a whole slew of different people saying different things, justifying different elements of nastiness or niceness (and you never know which sort they're going to be until it's too late), and all claiming to be christians. Mostly, my attitude is borne out of frustration at a number of groups under the same banner who use word games to justify certain biases or positions they take. Then there's been a number of occasions where some claiming to be christians have said that other groups aren't actually christian for not believing the same bits - usually the reall whacko fringe elements, I'll grant.

Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to get them to stick to a standard amongst themselves so you know what's going on. If the entirety of the christian bible is the word of their deity, it should be followed.

No offence, but I don't think you know of many deities outside of the Vengeful Sky Pixie if that's the case. On a side note that's my new favourite term, thank you Raps.

Stolen blatantly from a colleague of mine, I have to admit. It's gone around the 'net and at least one other board has adopted it as official phraseology. I can only claim to be the messenger.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to get them to stick to a standard amongst themselves so you know what's going on. If the entirety of the christian bible is the word of their deity, it should be followed.

No religion on the planet sticks entirely to a standard ( The one's that do are called "cults" >.> ). Hence all the different denominations and schools. I personally don't know a single Christian that seriously believes the Bible is the word of God. Not even my mom, and she's in church every Sunday. To her, the Bible is just a moral teaching tool full of stories and fables. One in which many sections are simply outdated thanks to modern society and understanding.

So again, why should a Christian not be able to move forward with the times? This is what perplexes me about these discussions. People rail against their preconcieved image of a Christian, then in the same breath insist all Christians should adhere to that fundementalist image or they can't possible be "real" Christians.

It's silly and I can see why people like Andara get so damn frustrated in this forum.

[BlaqueKatt]

I personally don't know a single Christian that seriously believes the Bible is the word of God.

just because you personally don't know any does not mean they don't exist-I have the displeasure of knowing several......

[Gravekeeper]

just because you personally don't know any does not mean they don't exist-I have the displeasure of knowing several......

I never said they don't exist and you frankly missed my entire point with that comment.

[Hyena Dandy]

What GK said

That's what I've tried to say a lot. I'm a Christian, but I don't think the Bible is the literal word of god. And when I say that, I get told I'm picking and choosing, and I shouldn't call myself Christian.

Its really frustrating. People on this forum seem to have an idea of what a Christian is, and when there are Christians who differ from it, rather than accepting that some Christians aren't fundamentalist idiots, we just got told that we're not good Christians and we're being dishonest.

I get this from both sides and I'm frankly sick of it. I feel insulted almost every time I log on. My main thesis, over almost all my posts, is that there are rational, reasonable, intelligent Christians. People who acknowledge that the Bible is not the literal word of god. People who respect that some people make other choices. Respect is what I've tried to get across. That I respect people who are different than me. I know other Christians don't, but I do. Andy does. There are Christians who do. Not all Christians are amoral evil people.

I am a Christian. I am a devoted, faithful Christian. I pray daily. I know there are other Christians who think I'm not Christian enough. Because I'm gay, or because I read Tarot cards, or whatever. I'm fine with that. Those people share a label with me, and they have an idea of what that label should mean And because it applies to them, I get that they might be upset that someone who calls himself Christian isn't the same sort as them. But why are there people who essentially seem to think only fundementalists are real Christians who AREN'T Christian?

If I'm being perfectly honest, stometimes it feels like (some) of the atheists on this forum have decided that Christians are evil, and when they encounter Christians who aren't evil rather than reconsider whether all Christians are evil, they decide those people aren't Christians.

[Rapscallion]

So again, why should a Christian not be able to move forward with the times? This is what perplexes me about these discussions. People rail against their preconcieved image of a Christian, then in the same breath insist all Christians should adhere to that fundementalist image or they can't possible be "real" Christians.

It's silly and I can see why people like Andara get so damn frustrated in this forum.

Frustrated? Try it from this side.

Speak to one christian, get one story. Speak to another, that bit doesn't matter, because of a bit of word play. Still, both are christians, despite disagreeing over what that means.

I don't see it as unreasonable to say that there should be defining standard for that faith. Stray from it, and you don't qualify.

Rules for Fred's Gang Membership:

1: Don't fight.
2: Don't fart.
3: Don't eat anything bigger than your head.

Person A follows all the rules and is a member of Fred's Gang. Person B follows all the rules barring the second. Are they really a member of Fred's Gang? How can they be? They broke the rules of membership.

So, why should christianity move with the times? It's based on the word of the jewish and christian deit(y/ies), and until such a time as they come down to say things are now different, the laws and customs should really stay the same.

The concept of the christian faith is that god is perfect and man isn't, from what I can tell. That deity is infallible, from what I remember, so there shouldn't be an issue with what was originally decided. That's the whole deal about infallible. Doesn't get it wrong and all that good stuff.

As to Hyena Dandy's post, I actually think that dragging christianity out of the howling barbarism of the times that spawned it isn't a bad thing. While I can't stand for the beliefs of a religion, I can honestly say that the christian faith in my experience has performed many great things (as well as some really shitty ones). I don't think that christians who don't believe in all the tenets are necessarily evil, but I can't count them as christians.

Fine, if the leader of the gang (see my example above) declares the rules to have changed, then sure that's not an issue, but then you've got to appreciate that said leader hasn't been around for a couple thousand years or so, and that was someone claiming to be his son. Apart from a few guest appearances in cheese sandwiches or avocadoes, with what can be best described as 'artists impressions', then there's never really been any guidance on this from a credible source. If there has been such guidance, something that an omnipotent being capable of wiping cities out could do quite easily, then I'm afraid I've missed the bulletin.

I don't think it's wrong to do what we would generally term as 'good' in this world. I would only want to do it for the right reason. A divinity spoken of in a tribal history from a desert region is not good reason for me. I can do good because it's the right thing to do, and I don't need the threat of unending punishment once I'm dead to motivate me, nor do I need the promise of major rewards for that matter.

Rapscallion