How I See Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2012, 04:06 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 03:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-12-2012 03:09 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Ok, I see.

If Evolution is true
Perhaps I am nit-picking at this point, but I think it should be clarified that evolution itself is an observational fact; there is absolutely no dispute about whether or not it happens. A more accurate wording of the argument would be "If the theory of evolution is valid [...]". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is what you meant to say.

Yes, that's fine. It's best to be as "nit-picky" as popssible when talking about these things. It matters because I guess it's a matter of true and false, right and wrong, reality and fiction (important).

So yeah, that's what I mean "If the theory of evolution is valid."
Since this is another thing I cannot bluntly say I believe is a certainly certain truth about reality, I can only say for now that I believe evolution is currently the best and most potentially accurate explanation for human life (among other things).

Since understanding more about evolution and how viable it is, my belief in the necessity of God was immediately challenged. Somehow I held onto the belief in God and was able to understand why evolution does not detriment the existence of God, but more so the validity of the creation account in the Christian Scriptures.

(29-12-2012 03:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-12-2012 03:09 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  then I wouldn't really say that Adam and Eve never existed, but we could say that they never existed as the first man and woman.
If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what I said in my last post. Consider

Actually, I believe we were saying two different things.
You were saying that basically evolution would seem to show that Adam and Eve never existed and I was saying that we could say that they never existed as the first man and woman. In other words, it could be possible that they existed, but that they were among many other humans that existed during that time. But what is different is that it's possible that Adam and Eve could possibly have been the only people mentioned in the story and written as they were the first man and woman. Although, as A2 has just mentioned, the Bible clearly is not grey about the fact that it bluntly states that Adam and Eve were the first created humans.
I believe I have been bested and corrected. I don't mind Smile

(29-12-2012 03:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I've talked to KC about this before. He thinks that the Genesis account isn't meant to be read literally and as an evolutionary creationist, he doesn't dispute the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. In his view, the origin of original sin is not the fall of Adam and Eve; it was a necessary part of "god's perfect plan" so that Jesus could sacrifice himself for the sake of humanity. It should be noted, however, that this solution only works if you subscribe to a strictly deterministic theology such as Calvinism, which you, as far as I know, don't do.

I am sort of back and forth with this issue.
I really don't have the research background in order to make a better stance.
As far as I can tell, KC's stance makes sense so far.
I used to consider myself a Calvinist, and I still somewhat do. I just don't say it anymore because of how far backwards I've gone in Christianity. I stopped going to church and have since been on an intense search for more answers.
But yes, I would agree mostly with the more subtle version of Calvinism (No, I don't believe babies go to hell when they die lol).

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 04:10 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2012 04:14 AM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 03:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF Paul. Just wake up and go, gee, lemme stick my head in this here shark tank, see what happens? Angel

That Christianity is some bad joss, make you feel all guilty/crazy/stupid, and now you got no head. Laughat

hoc, I really don't know why I do it.. I guess I'm a sucker for punishment lol

Que the intense electro music:





Let's get it started! xD

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 04:18 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 04:06 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Actually, I believe we were saying two different things.
You were saying that basically evolution would seem to show that Adam and Eve never existed and I was saying that we could say that they never existed as the first man and woman. In other words, it could be possible that they existed, but that they were among many other humans that existed during that time.
I still think that we at least meant the same thing. I said that "based on our scientific knowledge, the theory of evolution to be specific, we can safely rule out the existence of a first man and a first womenas they are described in the Genesis account of the Bible." I do agree with you that Adam and Eve could have existed alongside other humans, but they most certainly weren't the first members of the human species.

Then again, if they weren't the first humans to walk on earth, then we're not talking about the biblical Adam and Eve anymore, are we? Consider

(29-12-2012 04:06 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I am sort of back and forth with this issue.
I really don't have the research background in order to make a better stance.
As far as I can tell, KC's stance makes sense so far.
I used to consider myself a Calvinist, and I still somewhat do. I just don't say it anymore because of how far backwards I've gone in Christianity. I stopped going to church and have since been on an intense search for more answers.
But yes, I would agree mostly with the more subtle version of Calvinism (No, I don't believe babies go to hell when they die lol).
You'd have to elaborate more on your version of Calvinism, as I can't imagine yours to be anywhere near that of KC. After all, he himself has admitted that the foundation for his theology is not rationality or critical thinking, but his personal experience, faith and scripture. As far as I remember, you accept neither of those as evidence for your beliefs.

On an unrelated note, did you notice how easy it is to have a civil conversation when both of us are calm?

Also, I'm going to watch the video now.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 04:25 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
Don't do it, Vo. Video is horrible. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 04:32 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 02:29 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  How I see the struggle of mankind in this world in relation to what is claimed in Christianity is bit like what is depicted in this Youtube video.

I'm fully aware that I'm posting this in an Atheist Forum. I'm just sharing something that sort of reflects my views on the matter.
I may not agree with everything that this person believes, but I still resonate with most of the video.



All right, so the entire video relies on two things, namely the validity of the Gospel accounts, especially the resurrection of Jesus and his divine status, as well as the existence of original sin.

Now, what you should be doing is giving us an insight into the reasoning that goes behind your acceptance of these two premises. In other words, why do you think that the Gospels have any merit and where do you think original sin came from?

(29-12-2012 04:25 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Don't do it, Vo. Video is horrible. Tongue
Too late. Confused

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-12-2012, 04:44 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 04:18 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I still think that we at least meant the same thing. I said that "based on our scientific knowledge, the theory of evolution to be specific, we can safely rule out the existence of a first man and a first womenas they are described in the Genesis account of the Bible." I do agree with you that Adam and Eve could have existed alongside other humans, but they most certainly weren't the first members of the human species.

Then again, if they weren't the first humans to walk on earth, then we're not talking about the biblical Adam and Eve anymore, are we? Consider

Well lets look at the account itself and see what we come up with right now:

Genesis 2:5-7 (NASB) Wrote:"5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So far it looks like there was no one ("there was no man to cultivate the ground") and then there was a man ("Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.").
Looks like we have an instant man. This and evolution look like two totally different theories so far.

Genesis 2:20-23 (NASB) Wrote:"but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Then woman was later created from the body of Adam. Totally controversial in light of the theory of evolution (given we do take it literally).

I have to admit it..
You Sir Vosur, seem to be correct here.

However, there are still some choices to be made:

I can either say that this is a fraudulant document that is telling lies, or I can continue to investigate the circumstance and see if there is another way to read that material.
KC may be on to something with not reading the account as literal.
If it's possible to viably do so, then I should find out. I think that's a lengthy investigation though.

(29-12-2012 04:18 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You'd have to elaborate more on your version of Calvinism, as I can't imagine yours to be anywhere near that of KC. After all, he himself has admitted that the foundation for his theology is not rationality or critical thinking, but his personal experience, faith and scripture. As far as I remember, you accept neither of those as evidence for your beliefs.

I use rationality and critical thinking in order to drop false beliefs and adopt reality. I do that a lot more so with the issue of Gods existence. As far as the reliablity of Scripture, it seems that I can't fully pursue that tast until I've dealt with the issue of Gods existence to an acceptable amount.
In-between all of this, I am trying to understand Theologies more.
My approach in researching Theology is that of rationality and critical thinking but it is also an investigative process. I look at everything from culture and history to science and psychology.

(29-12-2012 04:18 AM)Vosur Wrote:  On an unrelated note, did you notice how easy it is to have a civil conversation when both of us are calm?

I think I just overreact to criticism sometimes. I am this way with my wife as well. When she gives me a dirty look, I get filled with rage inside and I get nast in my conversations with her.
I already know I've got an attitude problem. I just need to snap out of it..

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 04:50 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 04:32 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-12-2012 02:29 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  How I see the struggle of mankind in this world in relation to what is claimed in Christianity is bit like what is depicted in this Youtube video.

I'm fully aware that I'm posting this in an Atheist Forum. I'm just sharing something that sort of reflects my views on the matter.
I may not agree with everything that this person believes, but I still resonate with most of the video.



All right, so the entire video relies on two things, namely the validity of the Gospel accounts, especially the resurrection of Jesus and his divine status, as well as the existence of original sin.

Now, what you should be doing is giving us an insight into the reasoning that goes behind your acceptance of these two premises. In other words, why do you think that the Gospels have any merit and where do you think original sin came from?

I don't believe the video was intended to convince people of the validity of the Gospels.
Also, my Thread is not meant for that purpose either. I'm just giving a visual for what I think is a good depiction of the fundamental Christian drive. What glues it all together and so forth.

As far as my take on the merit of the Gospels, it's no small task digging into that sandbox.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 05:19 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 04:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Well lets look at the account itself and see what we come up with right now:

Genesis 2:5-7 (NASB) Wrote:"5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

So far it looks like there was no one ("there was no man to cultivate the ground") and then there was a man ("Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.").
Looks like we have an instant man. This and evolution look like two totally different theories so far.
I'll have to be nit-picky again. If anything, Creationism is a hypothesis. Also, I assume that you meant to say "the theory of evolution" instead of "evolution" again. I think that the distinction between the two of them is important.

(29-12-2012 04:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
Genesis 2:20-23 (NASB) Wrote:"but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Then woman was later created from the body of Adam. Totally controversial in light of the theory of evolution (given we do take it literally).

I have to admit it..
You Sir Vosur, seem to be correct here.

However, there are still some choices to be made:

I can either say that this is a fraudulant document that is telling lies, or I can continue to investigate the circumstance and see if there is another way to read that material.
KC may be on to something with not reading the account as literal.
If it's possible to viably do so, then I should find out. I think that's a lengthy investigation though.
You bet your ass it is. Reading only certain parts of the Bible literally and/or calling some of it's parts inaccurate or false creates a whole new load of problems that need to be addressed, but that's for another time.

(29-12-2012 04:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I use rationality and critical thinking in order to drop false beliefs and adopt reality. I do that a lot more so with the issue of Gods existence. As far as the reliablity of Scripture, it seems that I can't fully pursue that tast until I've dealt with the issue of Gods existence to an acceptable amount.
In-between all of this, I am trying to understand Theologies more.
My approach in researching Theology is that of rationality and critical thinking but it is also an investigative process. I look at everything from culture and history to science and psychology.
As far as my knowledge goes, there haven't been any remotely original attempts at proving the existence of a higher power in the last couple of hundred years. Is there any new material that I'm unaware of? In other words and more straight to the point, why is it, despite the apparent lack of material to work with, that you haven't finished dealing with the issue of god's existence to an acceptable amount? After all, every argument that is supposed to support the existence of a supernatural deity has been shown to be flawed way before the two of us were even born.

On a side note, wouldn't it be more suitable to refer to yourself as agnostic until you have completed that task?

(29-12-2012 04:44 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  hink I just overreact to criticism sometimes. I am this way with my wife as well. When she gives me a dirty look, I get filled with rage inside and I get nast in my conversations with her.
I already know I've got an attitude problem. I just need to snap out of it..
It's all right.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 05:22 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 04:50 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't believe the video was intended to convince people of the validity of the Gospels.
Neither do I. My point is that its message is null and void if the Gospels have no merit.

(29-12-2012 04:50 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Also, my Thread is not meant for that purpose either. I'm just giving a visual for what I think is a good depiction of the fundamental Christian drive. What glues it all together and so forth.
All right.

(29-12-2012 04:50 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  As far as my take on the merit of the Gospels, it's no small task digging into that sandbox.
Indeed.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2012, 05:49 AM
RE: How I See Christianity
(29-12-2012 05:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I'll have to be nit-picky again. If anything, Creationism is a hypothesis. Also, I assume that you meant to say "the theory of evolution" instead of "evolution" again. I think that the distinction between the two of them is important.

Creationism as a hypothesis seems quite accurate in description. I don't think I've been able to remember the term 'hypothesis' in my personal explanations of it. Looking up the definition, it seems like that's exactly what Creationism is right now, for me anyways. It is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Further investigation is pretty much what we are all in lol.
But as I've said in other threads, we can all take one side more so that the other if we're given enough convincing evidence to push us in that direction.
I guess I've been pushed slightly in the direction of Creationism and am still in the investigative process.

(29-12-2012 05:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  As far as my knowledge goes, there haven't been any remotely original attempts at proving the existence of a higher power in the last couple of hundred years. Is there any new material that I'm unaware of? In other words and more straight to the point, why is it, despite the apparent lack of material to work with, that you haven't finished dealing with the issue of god's existence to an acceptable amount? After all, every argument that is supposed to support the existence of a supernatural deity has been shown to be flawed way before the two of us were even born.

I have not gone through that material in order to make an inference yet.
You may be unconvinced by the evidence (or as you say "lack of evidence"), but I may be quite convinced by it.
I am very aware that even completely convincing evidence can be misconstrued and/or misrepresented by the human mind and then thrown out with the trash even though it was valid.
I have to actually investigate the evidence myself and make the decision. Also, I can't go off of things that are non-sequitors like God being an evil sadist = He does not exist (It just does not follow).

I know this makes me look like a difficult person, but I want to see everything available. If I see all that is available to me, I will try and make a decision - and then if more is available, I test that in light of everything else and see if that new information changes my decision.
I have not gone through all the material available to me yet, but I've gone through a lot and have made what may possibly be a temporary decision based on what I know right now.


(29-12-2012 05:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  On a side note, wouldn't it be more suitable to refer to yourself as agnostic until you have completed that task?

By definition, an Agnostic is done with their research. They believe that nothing can be known about God essentially. If I considered myself an agnostic, my research is over. I will go back to work and forget this all happened.
I'm not sure if I would be an Agnostic or an Atheist first. I find it highly unlikely that I would come to the conclusion that I cannot know anything about God. It seems like it's possible.
I would likely become an Atheist first, but who knows.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: