Evolution vs Religion

It's impossible to truly determine if he was alive or not. Given the evidence in the bible and through history of religion, it does in a way point towards his existance.

However, again, we do not know for sure.

Nothing created God, eh? Then what created everything else before God was created by "nothing"? Was it the cold, suction-forced fabric of space? I think not.

Your logic is very flawed.

 

and you think that two atoms came out of nothing to cause the big bang?
and you call our knowledge flawed.
Also explosions cause destruction not creation, and chemicals cannot come out of nowere either. Chemicals are needed to start an explosion.
Nothing times nothing equals nothing.
Only a creater can make life.

 

OMG, seriously. Do you read the stuff you type? If there is a god it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been there forever because something had to have created god. And if you say god just appeared, then something MADE it appear.

Jesus?
I thought we were talking about god o.O

But whatever, it's impossible to tell whether he lived or not. But you can debate that if he did live whether all that stuff he did was indeed a miracle or just parlor tricks. I choose the latter :\

 

Now that I consider it, I should rephrase. Perhaps purpose is a better term then existence. If he was indeed 'holy'....or whatever. I don't really like using the word as I don't associate myself with any religion.

One in the same with most branches of Christianity.

Yes, I've often heard him described as a latter-day con man. I find it suiting.

 

No. I never implied atoms come out of nothing. Where did you bring this up all the sudden? And I said HIS (iPraise's) logic is flawed, I wasn't speaking for every Christian. >_>

Explosions CAN create. Let's say a meteor crashes into something and it's carrying basic chemicals like Urinine, Thymine, Guanine, etc... The moment that meteor crashes, those ingredients all fuse together and form amino acids. BAM. Creation. Those amino acids could later form proteins and thus be the building blocks of life. Don't doubt science. It's fact.

....no. You should read up on theories on how life began before saying that. There's still astronomical possibilities for how life begins.

 

I just stared at this post for a good few hours pondering how someone could be so blinded by a book. A BOOK.

It's not like I take The Lord of the Rings and claim that Eru and the Valar created the world and that any tall blonde waif like beings are Elves and short hairy men are Dwarves.

But it's exactly what happens with the book called the Bible. Young Christians read it and thing: 'OMG this actually happened.' It did happen but you have to do some reading between the lines to know what the books actually mean.

Take for example the book of Revelation. On the surface it looks like a vision of the Apocalypse but in all actuality it is a metaphor for the Babylonian Exile. {Read more about the Babylonian Exile here.

So telling is that this God of yours was just there for all time before just spontaneously creating everything we know just seems flawed. my suggestion would be to get you nose out of your Bible and taking a look at the world around you and consider other, more realistic, ways of how we and this world we live on came to be.

 

Strawman alert! You obviously have no understanding of the big bang theory.

According to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The big bang theory does not claim that the universe was created from nothing. It merely claims that the all energy in the universe was squeezed into an infinitely small point and 'sploded. The galaxies are all moving away from each other from a fixed point (minus gravity phenomena like the Milky Way's course for Andromeda). Background radiation has no other explanation than leftovers from an explosion too big to be described in the English language.

EDIT: I'd also like to add how can a 2,000 year old book that has been horrible mistranslated and muddled and have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF have anything about truth written it in? No profound truth would written in a book.

 

And I would like to add something too.
If this "false Tradition", as you call it, is fake, why has it been going for longer than yours has?
The bible is not 2000 years old yet.
It was written at about 50 AD or something like that.
Have you also considered the ORAL traditions of the Jewish?
They have passed down the story of God for over TWO MILLENIA!
Does that light a spark?

 

And don't events always get twisted by word of mouth in history? :\

 

It was written in sections. Over time it was put together. Even in recent events during the 20th century, we have new stories and scriptures. Am I right?

Of course they have. But everyone knows as things get passed down, they become shrouded and fogged up because people just can't quite keep to the main point or the original context.

 

Since I know you've all been waiting on the edge of your seats for me to reply. I thought I'd oblige with a post.

As Atari and Alice have pointed out, oral traditions are nothing to go by. They get garbled as they are passed down. People add on new things to make the story more interesting, adding in themselves due to the affliction of an inflated ego.

You get the point.

True The Bible as most of us know was settled upon around 320 C.E. The task given to Eusebius, the bishop of Caesaria, by the Emperor Constantine. Y'all do remember who Constantine was? Settled that the official religion of the Roman Empire was to be Christian?

Good. Moving on.

Read if you'd like to read more on the origins of the Bible.

Honestly I'm amazed I know more about this Book that you call the foundation of your religion and all the proof anyone needs of the existence of God.

P.S

On a side note, iPraise, it would do you good to read more than a single post to reply to in a debate. You might learn something.

 

But what about dead sea scrolls that were found in 1941?
Those was UNTWISTED words.

 

Um.

Learn2english? I don't understand what you just said besides the first sentence.

 

What he's saying is that those words weren't misinterpreted since they were just found recently and they were written back in 50-100 AD. At lwast I think that's what he means.


Am I only the one who thinks this thread should be closed? It's just causing more and more arguements...

 

Do you actually believe that those scrolls are true (as in, do they the truth?)?!

According to the Gospel of Thomas, when he was a kid Jesus killed a young boy because the boy's father got him in trouble! Among other things.

 

It's a debate. =/

 

The Gospel of WHO?
The only Gospel's were the ones in the Bible.
Sure there have been more out there, but what if they were written later and only Fiction?
The Bible on the other hand, is fully real.

Sorry, I meant to say "Those WERE untwisted word."

 

True...

There was a Gospel of Thomas...but the Roman Catholic Church decided to keep it out of the Gospel...or so they say...as well as the "Gospel of Mary" and "Gospel of Judas" ect. ect.
Personally, I don't believe that, but some people do.

 

That's bullpoopie...
Sorry for that totally lame word use, but The Dead Sea scrolls held the Gospels that were UNTOUCHED.
No "Misinterpretations" or "Mistranslated crap", no nothing.
Just pure, clean Gospel.

 

What the hell are you talking about? The Gospel of Thomas was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

^Yeah, but many of the Gospels in the Dead Sea Scrolls goes COMPLETELY what the church teaches, so it's not a good idea to use them as evidence.