Creationism Will be the End of Cristianity.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: JohnFisher

The crusades and witch trials were the faith streaching there muscles, not being debunked then taken over by yahoos. 2 completely different issues.

Communism was atheism stretching hers, then on to killing the old and infirm, not to mention unborn children and those who have mental illnes

Eugenics they call it, survival of the fittest.

Same issue.

Survival of the fittest only becomes a problem when you're not the fittest. And if Christians were at the top of the food chain, I'm pretty sure they'd be sorely tempted to quash paganism and wicca and Buddhism and atheism and any other form of spirituality that didn't subscribe to the One God of Abraham. If Christians were the dominant governing entity in this nation, I'm not sure they'd be so different from the way radical Islam runs things.

Or if your kids not the fittest. If the some of the strong didn't care about the weak we would really have crazyness

We'd be Spartans. Maybe the same thing.

a reply to: ArtemisE
I guess you are referring to a very specific group of Christian Creationists...being, the '6,000/7,000 years and no more, group'.
For your premise, however, I know that many ministers with loud voice and international influence/s have been stating, since at least, the mid-1980's, that "There is room, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 for a lot more time...and even earlier civilizations and 'eras'".
So - while some of the younger generation/s may choose to cast off their Christian beliefs in favor of Science...I don't see a significantly greater impact than was evident in decades preceding the Internet.

I definitely agree. Young earth creationism makes all Christians look bad, and any Christians supporting this view should stop setting a bad example for other Christians. Not only does it directly contradict Jesus' teachings to attack what you don't understand, it has also been debunked and is scientifically impossible. Jesus was about good deeds, and empathy, not promoting lies to draw in followers. Every religion on earth since the beginning has vanished with the ages. Christianity will follow the same path unless they reform it and stop having such a hard nosed literalistic view of texts that have been translated dozens of times, with hundreds of interpretations that used simplistic language that cannot equate to the complex verbiage today. The knowledge is out there, and you can learn virtually anything at the click of a button. YECers used to rely on ignorance to promote their views but it's not like that anymore. Any knowledgeable person can debunk those claims without even looking it up. It's especially bad that people still cling to these views today in this era of science and discovery.

a reply to: GetHyped

Creationists are a good target for those who are arrogant enough to think anything under our scope of comprehension can conceivably exist without some kind of creator. The majority of the world believes in creation. We don't all agree on who that creator is. In Christianity there is only creationism. We have old-earth and young-earth creationists, and you have many more like myself who don't care about the specifics. I figure we are kidding ourselves if we think we can grasp the fullness of creation and time. a day to God is like 1000 years to man (not literally; more of a gist). In any case, in my opinion, carry on with the research evolutionists because all you're doing for this guy is providing "in your face" evidence of the workings of a creator. In reality, your science simply reaffirms my faith in God.

a reply to: Barcs

I have to correct you on one point friend. The bible has been translated many times in many languages, true, but it is always translated from actual manuscripts. The accuracy rating of all 1500+ new testament manuscripts of antiquity is 99.5%.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Creationists are a good target for those who are arrogant enough to think anything under our scope of comprehension can conceivably exist without some kind of creator. The majority of the world believes in creation. We don't all agree on who that creator is. In Christianity there is only creationism. We have old-earth and young-earth creationists, and you have many more like myself who don't care about the specifics. I figure we are kidding ourselves if we think we can grasp the fullness of creation and time. a day to God is like 1000 years to man (not literally; more of a gist). In any case, in my opinion, carry on with the research evolutionists because all you're doing for this guy is providing "in your face" evidence of the workings of a creator. In reality, your science simply reaffirms my faith in God.

And your faith simply reaffirms my opinions on the subject of human stupidity. But by all means, carry on. In a thousand years, no one will care anyway. No one will remember you, or me, or anything we said to each other. How does that make you feel? Your existence is ephemeral. There's millions, billions of people you've never even known existed, but they had families and friends and jobs and houses and dreams and hopes just like you. They're dead now, but they were very real once. Just not to the general public of today. And one day, that's how everyone else will think of you. You'll be a name carved on a rock in the ground. That's it.

So really, it doesn't matter at all.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Barcs

I have to correct you on one point friend. The bible has been translated many times in many languages, true, but it is always translated from actual manuscripts. The accuracy rating of all 1500+ new testament manuscripts of antiquity is 99.5%.

How could they all be 99.5% accurate when there are so many different bible versions? They can't all be that accurate, when there are so many differences between them.

I've read many different translations, from the literal versions based more word for word directly, and the "accurate" versions that estimate the meaning in our terms for readability. The direct meaning of many lines is difficult to interpret in either one. That may possibly be true for the new testaments in comparison with the originals that we know about, but that's certainly not the case for the Old testament, most notably the Torah which, like the testaments of Jesus, had multiple versions of the story until they decided on the one to roll with. The problem is that the majority of people were illiterate when those stories first originated and many were originally spread word of mouth. That should also have a bearing on the accuracy and whether or not to take book literally. Even if the accuracy really is 99%, do you know for a fact that the manuscripts are the absolute originals? Even Sumerian tablets and Egyptian Hieroglyphics refer to some of the events, yet that language predates any on the earliest found tablets. We might have to dig even earlier than that to figure out where they originated from.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Barcs

I have to correct you on one point friend. The bible has been translated many times in many languages, true, but it is always translated from actual manuscripts. The accuracy rating of all 1500+ new testament manuscripts of antiquity is 99.5%.

How could they all be 99.5% accurate when there are so many different bible versions? They can't all be that accurate, when there are so many differences between them.

I've read many different translations, from the literal versions based more word for word directly, and the "accurate" versions that estimate the meaning in our terms for readability. The direct meaning of many lines is difficult to interpret in either one. That may possibly be true for the new testaments in comparison with the originals that we know about, but that's certainly not the case for the Old testament, most notably the Torah which, like the testaments of Jesus, had multiple versions of the story until they decided on the one to roll with. The problem is that the majority of people were illiterate when those stories first originated and many were originally spread word of mouth. That should also have a bearing on the accuracy and whether or not to take book literally. Even if the accuracy really is 99%, do you know for a fact that the manuscripts are the absolute originals? Even Sumerian tablets and Egyptian Hieroglyphics refer to some of the events, yet that language predates any on the earliest found tablets. We might have to dig even earlier than that to figure out where they originated from.

Like pointing at a tree and declaring it to be as straight as an arrow.

Pfft. Yeah. Okay.

im not a christian.

but if you are reading the bible for the stories, you are doing it wrong.

nvm

www.telegraph.co.uk... on-faith.htmla reply to: TerryMcGuire

Actually the government is really cracking down on the Chinese christians.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

I believe the present "young earth creationist" movement will be the end of Christianity.

I do not know the percentage of Christians that believe this, but it is very small.

The bottom line is the whole science/religion debate is stupid since they are not even remotely related to actually debate.

1. Science tries to explain the how
2. Religion tries to explain the why

They are like apples and oranges....

a reply to: Xtrozero

42% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's not very small by any definition.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

That's fine. I don't need to be remembered here on Earth. But what I'm having trouble understanding is why some people are so cynical. What a miserable existence to view the world (& life) in that way. I'm sorry, friend, that you cannot see what is right in front of our eyes. I'm sorry that your perception on life is so bleak. I'm not so concerned over your hostility because I've been taught that I'll suffer for my faith. I've been taught that people will mock me because of it, and that's fine. You can respond in any way you wish, e.g., hateful, pitiful, etc, but you can't change that I love you friend. I won't reply to any further responses because it may lead to an escalated, emotion-based response. But regardless of whether you want it, my prayers will be with you. Enjoy your day.

a reply to: JohnFisher

When I said pitiful, I meant spite... auto-correct.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Xtrozero

42% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism. That's not very small by any definition.

I don't think it's quite that big. If you look at it by denomination it's like 25% of Christians.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: AfterInfinity

That's fine. I don't need to be remembered here on Earth. But what I'm having trouble understanding is why some people are so cynical. What a miserable existence to view the world (& life) in that way. I'm sorry, friend, that you cannot see what is right in front of our eyes. I'm sorry that your perception on life is so bleak. I'm not so concerned over your hostility because I've been taught that I'll suffer for my faith. I've been taught that people will mock me because of it, and that's fine. You can respond in any way you wish, e.g., hateful, pitiful, etc, but you can't change that I love you friend. I won't reply to any further responses because it may lead to an escalated, emotion-based response. But regardless of whether you want it, my prayers will be with you. Enjoy your day.

You don't need a god to not have a "bleak" view of the world. Most scientists are atheists and they all are amazed by the universe! Only those who need an invisible child's blanket to be ok with themselves and there world need a god to be happy.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: AfterInfinity

That's fine. I don't need to be remembered here on Earth. But what I'm having trouble understanding is why some people are so cynical. What a miserable existence to view the world (& life) in that way. I'm sorry, friend, that you cannot see what is right in front of our eyes. I'm sorry that your perception on life is so bleak.

It's not bleak at all. It's actually liberating. It's the equivalent of forming your own opinion instead of letting people tell you what to think and feel. If there is no predesignated meaning or value, that leaves plenty of room for me to provide my own. And I prefer it that way, particularly where my own life is concerned.

I'm not so concerned over your hostility because I've been taught that I'll suffer for my faith. I've been taught that people will mock me because of it, and that's fine. You can respond in any way you wish, e.g., hateful, pitiful, etc, but you can't change that I love you friend. I won't reply to any further responses because it may lead to an escalated, emotion-based response. But regardless of whether you want it, my prayers will be with you. Enjoy your day.

I'm not sure that pride in suffering is as great a virtue as you seem to think it is. It strikes me as potentially self-destructive, because the more you suffer, the greater your honor. Kinda the polar opposite of Islam. And not necessarily better, either.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Barcs

I have to correct you on one point friend. The bible has been translated many times in many languages, true, but it is always translated from actual manuscripts. The accuracy rating of all 1500+ new testament manuscripts of antiquity is 99.5%.

How could they all be 99.5% accurate when there are so many different bible versions? They can't all be that accurate, when there are so many differences between them.

I've read many different translations, from the literal versions based more word for word directly, and the "accurate" versions that estimate the meaning in our terms for readability. The direct meaning of many lines is difficult to interpret in either one. That may possibly be true for the new testaments in comparison with the originals that we know about, but that's certainly not the case for the Old testament, most notably the Torah which, like the testaments of Jesus, had multiple versions of the story until they decided on the one to roll with. The problem is that the majority of people were illiterate when those stories first originated and many were originally spread word of mouth. That should also have a bearing on the accuracy and whether or not to take book literally. Even if the accuracy really is 99%, do you know for a fact that the manuscripts are the absolute originals? Even Sumerian tablets and Egyptian Hieroglyphics refer to some of the events, yet that language predates any on the earliest found tablets. We might have to dig even earlier than that to figure out where they originated from.

Ps. Unbelievable but the .5% the bible got wrong strangely fits his preferred world view! What are the chances?!? Lmao

a reply to: Barcs

I made no claim about anything but the new testament. And for the new testament, it's true.