Is Christianity inherently discriminatory

bbracken677

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa

 

Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.

You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.

His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.

I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.

Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.

Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.

I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.

Isn't it crazy how religious folk support a 7000 year old earth idea. Can you blame any rational person for pointing out how dumb that is. Sounds like you want to blame science for that. Weird thought process IMO.

First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.

It is just a bunch of stories not even close to reality.

ArtemisE
reply to post by bbracken677

 

It's in order if you consider this an analogy for that and so forth. Either the bible is mans attempt to explain what at the time was unexplainable or it's a divinely written text that should be infallible. If let there be light is an analogy for the Big Bang. Then wouldn't that insinuate all the stories are analogies instead of hard historical fact?

Wouldn't it be more likely to be a combination of both? Stories to convey concepts as well as historical tidbits here and there? Just an opinion, but that is my thinking at any rate.

More and more cities that no longer exist but are referred to in the Old Testament are being discovered. Sort of a confirmation of some of the historical facts at least.

As far as being a divinely written text that is infallible...the only problem with that is how many times it has been interpreted, re-written and reorganized. Man's handiwork is indisputable.

I do find it odd, though, that the chapters in Genesis that relate the creation of the cosmos seems very accurate by today's Big Bang theory, and the sequence of events in the creation of the creatures of the sea, land and air, culminating with man is spot on as well. Einstein believed that the order in the universe, the existence of laws of physics was highly indicative of the existence of God.

I think we are getting off topic though. The OP asked if Christianity is inherently discriminatory. I maintain (and supported by all the anti-christian rhetoric) that man is inherently discriminatory.

If you are Christian there are several views you may take regarding non-christians. Some are rather discriminatory, but not all Christians are discriminatory...this is self-evident.

By the flip of the coin, if you are non-Christian, there are several views you may adopt regarding Christians. Some are rather discriminatory in nature. Not all non-Christians are discriminatory...this is also self-evident.

What I truly find disheartening is the lack of tolerance by supposed progressives and Christians when it comes to people who think differently.

Bye

Grimpachi

bbracken677

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa

 

Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.

You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.

His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.

I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.

Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.

Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.

I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.

First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.

.

edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

This is totally bogus. Seems clear that you have never actually read Genesis.

bbracken677

Grimpachi

bbracken677

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa

 

Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.

You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.

His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.

I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.

Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.

Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.

I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.

First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.

.

edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

This is totally bogus. Seems clear that you have never actually read Genesis.

Seems pretty clear you don't read these threads.

Jump in here on the discussion of genesis impossibility

There is also a thread that shows light speed theory debunks the creation story. Just use your search engine.

As of today the creation story has probably been debunked yet another way. The bible creation story is no better than the Sumerian creation story or the Aztec creation story. They are all full of holes and inconsistencies there is only one reason why people try to defend the bibles creation story and it isn't because of its accuracy.

reply to post by windword


Please quit with the attacks. IMHO you have science on your side you don't need attacks. Use facts and reason or don't reply to them... People attack when they get logic trapped. Which looks like you feel like your losing.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Could some one post the 7 day story sequence. I should remember it but don't.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Let's focus on Genesis 1 for now. Genesis 2 has a completely different and contradictory creation story.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forthabundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (1:30) To every beast ... I have given every green herb for meat.
All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as created by God.
(1:31) Behold, it was very good.
God purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

7th day concludes at start of Genesis 2 -

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Notes -

1:1 Heaven (generally accepted to be the cosmos) and Earth were created at the same time, when according to science there is about a 9 billion year gap between the two.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3) and the sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales are created (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants are created (1:11) before any animals (1:20). This is exactly opposite to science.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19).

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun (1:14-19), yet they require sunlight for photosynthesis.

According to 1:30 All animals were originally vegetarian. This is completely at odds with science as many animals are dependant on a carniviorous diet. Can you imagine a vegetarian mosquito, lion or piranha?


Now comparing what we have learned in recent times with what these illiterate bronze age goat herders knew in ancient times may seem unfair, and I quite agree that it is - but when people claim, dew-eyed and awe-struck, that "there are amazing parralells with modern science" and that the "bible got the sequence of events exactly in line with science" they are fooling themselves.

reply to post by ArtemisE

Please quit with the attacks.

It wasn't an attack, it was a defense.

IMHO you have science on your side you don't need attacks.

What? I haven't used a scientific argument in this thread. My arguments have all been around scripture and doctrine, and calling out obvious discrimination in the meantime
.

Use facts and reason or don't reply to them... People attack when they get logic trapped. Which looks like you feel like your losing.

This thread is about "discrimination" not if the Bible is scientific. It's about: "Is Christianity inherently discriminatory", and that isn't a losing argument in this thread. Isn't that the point?

reply to post by olaru12


LEt me ask you a counter question instead. Is Science unquestionable?
The answer to BOTH questions is No. God provided free will and the ability to make up our own minds And ask questions.

yuppa
reply to post by olaru12

 

LEt me ask you a counter question instead. Is Science unquestionable?

Ever heard of the scientific method? Of course science is questionable. The whole concept of denying ignorance and verification thru repeated experimentation and questioning the results.

teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...

Now if religion could follow the same methods instead of just acting on "faith"....we might get somewhere.

I have no problem with people exercising their "faith" until it gets discriminatory, holier than thou and a method for control freaks to exercise their arrogance.

Need to feel special and one of the chosen? fine....keep it to yourself!!

Grimpachi

bbracken677

Grimpachi

bbracken677

Grimpachi

ketsuko

ArtemisE
reply to post by yuppa

 

Science has no clue if there's an afterlife. But they have discovered that the earth isn't 7000 years old. That the creation story isn't the correct sequence of events. The flood myth was obviously stolen ( or borrowed, didn't mean stolen as a bad thing.) from the sumarians. All while we can use Hubble to watch new solar systems and planets form just the way science predicted. There was even a court battle over weather ID and creationism was science... Guess what it isn't. If creationism was true. Then gene theropy and cloning wouldn't work, but it does. Science hasn't disproved all of religion..yet. But as tech has advanced. We're constantly debunking creation type myths. That's the problem with the evangelical scientists. The latch on to something unknown and say its proof of religion. Ignoring the things that wouldn't work if there theory was applied to the rest of the world.

You know what?
All of your diatribe has just disproved a bunch of humans ... not God.

His "diatribe " wasn't aimed at God it was aimed at religion. It certainly disproved a religion.


The idea of God and the constructs of religion are not the same thing nor are they interchangeable.

I like how those supporting science like to use 20th century science against 17 century religious dogma (7k year old earth) and then cheer..?? Seems rather weird to me.

Regarding Artemes's reply regarding the sequence of creation in Genesis...it is in the correct order of events, both cosmologically as well as evolutionary. And this is a book that is how many thousands of years old? Just a few hundred years ago scientists thought the earth was flat.

Seems that you are taking to task a multi-millenia old book for not getting it just right vs 21st century science. hmmm.

I, for one, think they got it just right sequentially. Oddly right.

First of all genesis is scientifically impossible. Big problem having earth and living organisims before the sun and stars. Another big problem is light speed theory once you start thinking about the time it takes for light to travel through space to reach us. So no the genesis story is incorrect no matter how it is spun or interpreteded.

.

edit on 23-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

This is totally bogus. Seems clear that you have never actually read Genesis.

Seems pretty clear you don't read these threads.

Jump in here on the discussion of genesis impossibility

There is also a thread that shows light speed theory debunks the creation story. Just use your search engine.

As of today the creation story has probably been debunked yet another way. The bible creation story is no better than the Sumerian creation story or the Aztec creation story. They are all full of holes and inconsistencies there is only one reason why people try to defend the bibles creation story and it isn't because of its accuracy.

Doesnt change the fact that you apparently have not read Genesis to make the out of sequence claim you did. You are fighting a straw man here. I have not supported any theory. The only thing that I did was remark on the odd similarity between Genesis and modern theory.

I do not know, nor do I care what the pertinent parts of any of the theories are, quite honestly. I have not been a church member in decades, simply because I dislike hypocrites. Any church run by man is doomed to hypocrisy and fraud.

I maintain, once again, that you have never actually read Genesis to have made the statement you did. No need to toss in all the other crap seeing as how, like Rhett Butler: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

I have seen so much bigotry here, so much closed minded thinking, so much intolerance on the part of supposed progressive thinkers that it makes me want to puke.

bbracken677

I have seen so much bigotry here, so much closed minded thinking, so much intolerance that it makes me want to puke.

I think the feeling is mutual, or collective or whatever way you want to put it. This thread has just become a chaotic argument and hardly addresses the op.

I still enjoy reading all the nasty bickering though. But that's just me.

reply to post by bbracken677

I do not know, nor do I care what the pertinent parts of any of the theories are,

OK in other words no need to use science. Which has been my whole point that scientifically Genisis is BS.

But you don't give a damn.

I don't give a damn if you think I read genesis either it is not something I can prove here. But I will say it read like a story should and even contradicts itself. If you would like to debate it line by line I have already provided you a link to do so.

BTW I have never claimed to be a progressive thinker but I do claim to be a free thinker that is not bound by a dogmatic closed minded religion that denies evidence to the contrary of said religion at every turn.

Grimpachi
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I do not know, nor do I care what the pertinent parts of any of the theories are,

OK in other words no need to use science. Which has been my whole point that scientifically Genisis is BS.

But you don't give a damn.

I don't give a damn if you think I read genesis either it is not something I can prove here. But I will say it read like a story should and even contradicts itself. If you would like to debate it line by line I have already provided you a link to do so.

BTW I have never claimed to be a progressive thinker but I do claim to be a free thinker that is not bound by a dogmatic closed minded religion that denies evidence to the contrary of said religion at every turn.

I was not clear, I suppose, in my reply. You mentioned various faith based theories that had nothing whatsoever to do with any of my posts: hence the "I dont give a damn"...not particularly interested in them. I am interested in scientific developments.

I made a comment that Genesis was (let me quote myself here) "Oddly close" to modern theories.

How, assuming you have any modicum of reading comprehension, do you interpret that? Do you interpret that as I am saying that a thousands of years old book is exactly on the mark? Or do you interpret that exactly as it is written? Really? You want to compare the most advanced scientific theory to a book written thousands of years ago and then thump your chest because it isn't up to date? Depending on how you interpret it, it may be closer than you are representing even.

You seem to put great store in the fact that light was created before the sun. Mr. Free Thinker...don't you suppose that in the initial second of the Big Bang that a huge amount of radiation (per existing theory) was expelled? Would this not also be represented by the word light?

I am not going to go into each and every point and make any attempt to debunk anything. But, Mr. Free Thinker, since you know it all, and know how it was in the beginning beyond any shadow of a doubt, I will leave it to you. You should write a paper and share your original theories with the world.

I made it clear before that I am not a "Religious person" and even defined what I meant, but apparently you seem to want to dump me into that category anyway.

I dumped you into the "progressive thinking" category simply because you seemed to fit the bill. If you are, indeed, a conservative then I sincerely apologize. Otherwise, wth?

This is truly an ignorant and pointless argument. Mr. Free Thinker...if you were so free thinking perhaps you would let those who want to, believe as they choose. It's called freedom. It's called liberty. It's called tolerance. People are also free to be jerks. Apparently this is the right you have chosen for yourself to exercise. One possibility is that you have extreme self-image issues and use this subject to pump yourself up...if so, then I am sorry and apologize sincerely.

I will add one thing: I have known quite a few people who were deeply religious with strong faith. I may not agree with their views on things such as science, but I most assuredly respect them and their faith. Those who seek to belittle them, I have no respect for. They merely come off as small minded (not because they back science, but because they get some kind of rush out of trying to shake their faith) people who are extremely insecure in their selves.

I am done. I will tell you that most likely in 10 years you will look back at yourself and claim "what a dumb-ass I was then"....cause I do it about every decade or so. One thing I do know is that the older I get the more I realize that I do not have all the answers. Perhaps one day you will arrive at that realization and will be a bit kinder to those who also do not have the answers but seek them in ways you do not.

I will look for your response, but will not reply to this thread anymore, given that it has been completely derailed and is no longer material.

reply to post by bbracken677

I made a comment that Genesis was (let me quote myself here) "Oddly close" to modern theories.

How, assuming you have any modicum of reading comprehension, do you interpret that?

I find your idea of "close" to be extremely odd.

It's called freedom.

LMFAO

Well thanks for your insight Mr Old Dude (you did say you are getting older apologies if you aren't actually old)

I have no reason to be apologetic if someones faith was shaken because a modicum of reason slapped them in the face. Honestly I couldn't care less if someone believes in a deity or deities however religions have and still are ravaging the earth causing more problems than they could ever be worth. Religion is fundamentally collective, and since time immemorial has served societies in the fostering union, but also in inciting xenophobia and violence (especially against “unchaste” women and “impure” minorities), often on a mass scale. Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is.

As far as when I get older perhaps in dotage anything is possible, but this turn of events is unlikely. Aging and the prospect of dying by no means enhance the attractiveness of fictitious comforts to come in paradise, or the veracity of malicious myths about hellfire and damnation. Fear and feeblemindedness cannot be credibly pressed into service to support fantastic claims about the cosmos and our ultimate destiny.

For those trying to hush criticisms of religion those are declarations that aim to suppress free speech and dialogue about a matter influential in almost every aspect of our societies. No one has a right to make unsubstantiated assertions, or vouch for the truthfulness of unsubstantiated assertions on the basis of “sacred” texts, without expecting objections from thinking folk.
(in other words FREEDOM) Still LMAO from you throwing the freedom card.

I have never had any faith to lose, but from what I have seen losing one's faith isn't really the big dark awful negative thing religious people seem to think that it is. From my conversations with and reading/listening to the de-converted, it's actually a much more liberating thing than they realise - opening their eyes to the real world, removing the threat of eternal torment and vastly enriching their view of life and the universe.

Now sure, they may miss the social club, sing-a-long aspect of their church meetings. And depending on where they live, they may have to face the routine bigotry and shunning by their society that many atheists face on a daily basis and for this reason I don't blame those who choose to keep quiet about their non-belief.

But by and large it's a very, very positive thing.


OT but I have to comment on this -

Grimpachi
Honestly I couldn't care less if ....

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone who is in America actually using this phrase correctly. Almost all of them instead say "I could care less" which drives me up the wall and back.

David Mitchell explains my frustration -

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Questioning my faith was a horrible experience, mostly because I always had that hope of being reunited with loved ones, I cling to that hope.

Letting go is like letting go of everything that ever really mattered.

Text Let's focus on Genesis 1 for now. Genesis 2 has a completely different and contradictory creation story.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


SonOfNothing,

Not meaning to criticize you but only to show you a difference in understanding. The 1611 KJV bible states that the Creator created this world and this world’s heaven in the Genesis 1:1 account. It did not say the cosmos was created at this time. The cosmos or universe was created and this world placed in that universe. (Note that Gen. 1:1 refers to only one heaven) Now you may be correct in assuming that there are 19 billion years between the creation of the universe and this world but for the life of me I do not understand how you can prove that statement in an observational and provable science. I thought physicists and cosmologists must have an observational and provable model unless yon are talking about theoretical science which is actually nothing more than changeable theology.

My understanding of time is that you must have a clock or starting point. Now if that is correct then please tell me just how it is provable that existence did exist 19 billion years ago. Is that an assumption of theoretical science or do we actually have a provable model? If science would say that we believe the difference was 19 billion years then that would be more honest in their own assumptions but still not provable. Can you set us straight on this?

It is believed by the first century Christians, who did have Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy and no new testament of Greek, that before the fourth day of creation we had a primeval light which was in a form of a pillar of heavenly light. Even though there was a world and a heaven of this world during that first day, it was not divided or separated from the waters which engulfed both heaven and earth. The atmosphere of this earth was created on the second light of creation when the firmament was created to give space between this world and its first heaven. During those first three eras and into the forth era A day was simply and unknown era. If solar time did not exist till in the forth era then time was not known. This would be the same as before you were, you were not. You cannot exist before you existed.
So in all reality all science is doing is trying to date our existence in our misunderstanding of pre existence. So lets be honest and call it for what it really is. It is nothing more than plain ole theory.

I find it quite amusing when I hear people infer that somehow they are so intelligent as to call the ancients derogatory names such as you have declared. Those bronze age goat herders were so stupid that all they knew was how to pile rocks on top of rocks and come up with a pyramid and yet all of the most brilliant of sciences cannot do the same feat today. So who do you think has the last laugh? Those goat herders may have had a better life that we have today and one thing is very clear and that is that they had to die and now it is your turn and my turn to do the same. Then what? Who is going to be the next cow chip in the barnyard?

olaru12

yuppa
reply to post by olaru12

 

LEt me ask you a counter question instead. Is Science unquestionable?

Ever heard of the scientific method? Of course science is questionable. The whole concept of denying ignorance and verification thru repeated experimentation and questioning the results.

teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...

Now if religion could follow the same methods instead of just acting on "faith"....we might get somewhere.

I have no problem with people exercising their "faith" until it gets discriminatory, holier than thou and a method for control freaks to exercise their arrogance.

Need to feel special and one of the chosen? fine....keep it to yourself!!

edit on 23-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Listen here. If you are going to quote me Quote the entire post if it isnt long or not at all. Cherry picking is one of the quickest way for me to ignore you and your opinions. I could go back and re edit your original post to be funny if you want to start misquoting.

My how bigoted you are to tell someone to keep their opinions to themselves. And it is hypocriticical as well since you are expressing your so openly is it not? ANd You State "I have no problem of people exercising their faith till it get discriminatory"
Ironic then that you are defending science liek its your religon and being discriminatory yourself toward anyone who does not agree. JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE YOU DISLIKE DO. DO as I say not as I do right?

As for being Chosen. Are you upset that you are not one of them? seems you might be having some feelings of jealousy toward them? IM a Baptist myself(southern baptist are too much like catholics for my liking) Still I at least respect their view points and let them do as they will,and not complain about their quirks.

The only reason People think it is dicriminatory is because they do not truly understand it and do not WANT to understand it. Every group out there has jerk who will make i t seem like its is but for the majority its not true.

I do not even know why i typed this reply though because all you are going to do is look at a few lines than post soem Inane reply.

reply to post by Seede


First off seede, I said 9 billion, not 19 - not that it really matters.

The thing is, we were discussing how genesis and modern science compared. That was all.

It is not my place or responsibility to defend science - I do not have to prove the age of the universe to you or anyone else. If you are truly interested in finding answers to your questions do some reading.

I am not a cosmologist, but I imagine that the age of the universe is calculated by measuring the rate of the expansion of the universe revealed by the doppler shift of distant galaxies, along with the measurements of the cosmic background radiation to infer the cooling time of the universe.

And I have no problem at all with calling it theory, as that is exactly what it is.

However, it's theory in a scientific sense. Not in the layman's use of the word. i.e it is an explanation for a part of the natural world which is backed up by evidence. To this date it has not been successfully falsified. If it ever is, the theory will be modified to accomidate any new evidence, or a new theory altogether may be needed. But at the moment, Big Bang theorum has not been disproved.

I'm sorry you took offense at me calling bronze age goat herders "illiterate" but in fact thats what most of them were. I did not mean it as a slur. Most of these people re-told these stories and myths orally for generations before they were eventually written down.

I'm not sure I can agree they would have had a better life. Perhaps if you were a rich man with many slaves, but still I couldn't enjoy my life if I was a slave owner, so I'll take modern life anyday thanks.