It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surely this will silence a lot of you...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 





It does not matter if the Church or some priest accepts evolusion because in the end its against what the Bible and their faith teaches. This is a form of adultary in seeing God they way they want to because this is not part of the scripture's and in no part does the Bible describe evolusion. If that was the case they can break another Commandment in which to worship on Sundays or every other seventh day if the creation issue is no longer believed. It does not matter what I think or say, the whole thing is breaking Church rules of their faith concerned. If they want to accept Christianity with evolusion they may as well be Budhists or Hindu's and believe we recarnated to Human God like form in the process of behaviour paterns.


Is the study of our solar system, even the entire universe, against or unmentioned in the Bible? I could be wrong, but I don't think it is. So why is it that our predecessors and greatest minds of the past were condemned or punished by presenting the theory and proof of the world not being flat and the earth not being the center of the solar system? They were condemned and punished because it argued with church doctrine. But what happened eventually? The churches accepted these facts and people were no longer condemned because, through their observations, these great minds put forth radical ideas and proved them to be correct.

The point is that these observed truths became accepted because they were observed truths. Is it breaking "Church rules" by accepting these truths? Because if it is, every last member of these churches is going to hell.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Posted by The Time Lord, "It does not matter if the Church or some priest accepts evolusion [sic] because in the end its against what the Bible and their faith teaches."

Actually no it doesn't.

What it does is go against their misinterpretation of the Bible. Or actually someone elses misinterpretation.


Creation and evolution are one and the same. The Bible should not be taken so literally, it shows a lack of understanding and wisdom. It's part of the test, do you seek to understand? Or do you just want to take the label of 'Christian' without doing the work that actually makes you a Christian?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Hi All
Just my $.02 worth
I find it difficult to accept that the bible should not be taken literally. How does one know which parts to accept literally and which to believe verbatem. In my humble opinion this is one of the largest problems when dealing with religious material. For me to become a theist the bible would need to be far more accurate than it is. There would be no ambiguity had it been written by an all knowing god. The existence of many religions in the world today seems to me to be proof enough that there is no "God". Humans have the capacity to learn, over the last several thousand years we have been exposed to a variety of religions that all profess to worship the one true god. How can 3 or 4 or more religions claim this, at best only one of them is correct. It would seem to me that over all these years the followers of the "untrue religions" would realize that the followers of the true religion get their prayers answered much more often, and over time every human would be the same religion, just because they want their prayers answered.
I applaud the churches for correcting their past errors regarding evolution and natural selection, and look forward to the day when humans act in a way that is just and moral because it is the right way to act, not because some imaginary being will punish us if we don't.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


So was Jesus the son of God? Which parts do we take literally, and which ones are the demented dreams of bronze-age farmers?

As soon as you stop taking one part literally, you can't take any of it literally.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
All I gotta say is this. All those scientists say "Oh yeah we know everything about anything!"

Okay buddy stfu and gtfo. Where'd the first Single Cell organism come from?

The day science has a explanation for that, I will renouce my faith.

But it won't happen. So I am not holding my breath XD



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NeverSurrender
 


You Nonce! Science has nothing to do faith, when will you people learn that. After all most scientists are theists.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once again, I see an incredible misunderstanding of evolution. If you did your research, you'd know that evolution has nothing to do with making un-life to life. That's Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Look it up and deny ignorance!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
God brought forth life from the Earth, never noticed if he said how.
According to studies, life came from the Earth, not a real good way to say why.
How long is a day to God, and who am I to judge how he may do things?
Then ultimately, isn't the who ineffable plan supposed to be... well... ineffable?
Trying to say what God did or did not do, and ascribing how or how he didn't, does not seem to be the place of man to decide.
Trying to discover how he may have done it, that seems much like being a child learning from their parent.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


You are assuming God exists, a wholly illogical presumption to make. Trying to be logical when you admit you are being illogical is an exercise in utmost futility.

But please be my guest - it's the single core tenet of your religion.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Tell you what, mate. I'll my own illogical opinions, you keep yours, and we'll go our merry ways then, eh?
People are illogical beings, love 'em or hate 'em for it, but it's true.
Properly managed, it's a good thing, let the crzies in and we all suffer.

Now, I have my own reasons for believing in God, they're mine and no one else's. As such, I don't expect you to understand.
Though, if you're willing to be patient with backward bumblers like me, I'll be ever so greatful.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, this is science, not theist debate. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural. Even the pope says that scientific findings do not conflict with ones faith.

The latest pope said that evolution should be considered more than a theory.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Agreed.
Anyway, this will never shut up the true believers. Fundies are Fundies, and the last I checked, many are Catholic. Despite the Freakin'a Pope's statements, many of them didn't change their minds. (And yes, the Freakin'a Pope was a Family Guy reference, and not menat as a offensive comment. )



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, this is science, not theist debate. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural. Even the pope says that scientific findings do not conflict with ones faith.

The latest pope said that evolution should be considered more than a theory.


Exactly!! ...Little blue star for you

One of the biggest misconceptions of the opponents of evolution is that evolution contradicts the existence of a creator.

It does not and has never tried to.

As Good Wolf says, it is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution how life began. Evolution is the study of how life progresses

Evolution only contradicts the dogma presented by these opponents and therefore their means of control over their flocks.

And they will embrace even the most irrational ideas to keep their sheep.

As an example, the following from Answers in Genesis. A web-site that champions Creationism:


No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainG0705
 


So the perfect and infallable word of God is still subject to editing I see. I am not sure how a church changing a part of it's core ideology is going to make anyone quiet or happier.

"So, let's tear out another page we do not like, put it in a vase and hide it in the side of a cliff. All better now. This is really what God said. That was just his rough draft."



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, this is science, not theist debate. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural. Even the pope says that scientific findings do not conflict with ones faith.

The latest pope said that evolution should be considered more than a theory.

The pope just before him played musical chairs with pedophiles for his entire reign. Just what are the Pope's qualifications according to the bible anyway? I am really having a hard time finding anything about any pope being able to change and bend the word of God to fit the times. Anyone that can help, please do. In fact, if I am reading my bible correct, the idea of believing in the pope as mouthpiece for god is antithetical to Jesus' teachings but hey, I will settle for anyone who can just point out why what the pope says would mean anything in the bible. Thanks in advance.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
That's Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Look it up and deny ignorance!


Oh, and by the way, I need help finding what God had to say about this too. My bible must be missing lots of pages.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   

The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas.



i think everyone is missing 2 major points here

1) the church of england is like a cucumber sandwich, great with a cup of tea with a mild taste barley filling at all and wont get in the way when you eat somting properly. its none impossing and so moderate its less a church more a politically correct society in a dog collar

2)The head of the CofE beleived god created life and used natural selection to get it where it is anyway. he was in a Richard dawkins 3 part bbc series looking at darwin and his work discussing it

its appologising for how it reacted back when the thoery first arrived, my guess its a distancing exercise from the crazies that took the blue pill and went back in time to literal bible land as they have started to appear over here feeling the need to demand we teach religeon in science class

the CofE is one of the oldest breakaway churches from catholosism, i guess they have both had long enough to sit back and work out stratergy for over coming things that dont fit nicely

its the little upstart newbie churches that rain down the fire and brimstone and creationism that casue all the noise,

imagine them as the guy stuck with his loud abnoxious little brother when a cute girl walks by, he is just making sure there is an extra foot of empty air so the noisy kid doesnt make him look less cool


Darwinism the sexy girl of creation thinking lol

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/9/08 by noobfun]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420

So was Jesus the son of God? Which parts do we take literally, and which ones are the demented dreams of bronze-age farmers?

As soon as you stop taking one part literally, you can't take any of it literally.


Exactly


As soon as you take some of it as metaphor or an abstraction, then you have to take it all that way.

I mean, God didn't leave *keys in the Bible designating which parts are or are not literal. So you choose a direction: Believe it as it is? Or do you find an interpreter?


Thus, I think this apology is silly. That Church should also apologize to its followers, since the Church apparently promoted something that is now decidedly not Gods' Words.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The church of England and the Roman Catholic church are like pencils.They are slowly being whittled down to nothing and losing their point.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 666Azrael666

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, this is science, not theist debate. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural. Even the pope says that scientific findings do not conflict with ones faith.

The latest pope said that evolution should be considered more than a theory.

The pope just before him played musical chairs with pedophiles for his entire reign. Just what are the Pope's qualifications according to the bible anyway? I am really having a hard time finding anything about any pope being able to change and bend the word of God to fit the times. Anyone that can help, please do. In fact, if I am reading my bible correct, the idea of believing in the pope as mouthpiece for god is antithetical to Jesus' teachings but hey, I will settle for anyone who can just point out why what the pope says would mean anything in the bible. Thanks in advance.


Just becuz you don't like the pope doesn't mean that other people don't. The majority of the christian world follow the aforementioned churches and considering that they are supposed to be the religious authorities (at least to their followers) that certainly counts as significant when they turn on their heels on something like doctrine.


Originally posted by 666Azrael666

Originally posted by Good Wolf
That's Abiogenesis, the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

Look it up and deny ignorance!


Oh, and by the way, I need help finding what God had to say about this too. My bible must be missing lots of pages.


Even if the bible hadn't been constantly edited since day 1, you'd still be looking in the wrong book! Go find a scientific book on Abiogenesis.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



When I was a christian, I resorted to interpreting what was literal and fable myself, of course I had to understand that I could not be 100% accurate and THAT was why I had to rely on reason and logic.

More people need to do the same.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


Talk about selective reading. I never said that I did not like the pope, I simply asked why he has any authority and you did not answer that.

Secondly, my point would be that the bible would be the wrong book to find any real answers about anything in.

Fail and fail but thank you for playing.


You seem to be playing both sides of this fence and that is all good and fine. I am just asking one of the people that thinks this is ok, why we get to keep changing the infallable word of God all the time. If you want to reply without answering and miss the point, please feel free to skip right over me this time.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by 666Azrael666]




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join