Yes Ash, some people say that. "Christians" however don't, they aren't making the decision on the behalf of the entire Christian population, then that isn't even thinking about the sub categories that have sprung up all over the states.

A lot of the bible is are stories that are meant to be taken as a guide, and advice to keep following the path i.e not literally especially when a lot of the contradictions happen in the OLD testament, which spans thousands of years. Word of mouth often has contradictions as it occurs like a game of Chinese whispers. Then the stuff that is meant to be taken literally are things like the commandments and the other laws like that.

Interpretations can make a lot of different readings from one person to another, then with translation, they picked the word(s) that fitted the phrases best, and as a result you can't actually get the full feeling of what was first written.

Evolution is a very well-founded theory, but it relies on too much chance for me to really believe.

That isn't to say I don't find it interesting.

(If you're wondering, I'm Christian.)

(Ash, I know this is irrelevant but your signature...is...hypnotic...can't help but stare...)

Quote from Steiner

Yes Ash, some people say that. "Christians" however don't, they aren't making the decision on the behalf of the entire Christian population, then that isn't even thinking about the sub categories that have sprung up all over the states.

Thanks for restating me.

A lot of the bible is are stories that are meant to be taken as a guide, and advice to keep following the path i.e not literally especially when a lot of the contradictions happen in the OLD testament, which spans thousands of years.

SAYS WHO? That was the point of my post. You can't just pick and choose one part as true and another as false willy-nilly. Truth doesn't work that way. What criteria would you use to decide what parts are meant to be taken litterally?

Word of mouth often has contradictions as it occurs like a game of Chinese whispers. Then the stuff that is meant to be taken literally are things like the commandments and the other laws like that.

Again, SAYS WHO? If those laws were changed by word-of-mouth misunderstandings, then who's to say that other parts weren't?

Interpretations can make a lot of different readings from one person to another, then with translation, they picked the word(s) that fitted the phrases best, and as a result you can't actually get the full feeling of what was first written.

In which case it would be even harder to determine that any part was litteral.


What your point shows is that the Bible can't be used as an indication of true events. Since it isn't accurate, you can't use any one part of it as a basis of historical data. Expiriments, however, can be redone over and over again.

Even if you have no knowledge of how the ancient inhabitants of Bangladesh ate, you can still find out by experimentation. This sort of truth-finding is lost on religion, where the only way to determine truth is to read, listen, and "feel" with your "soul".



This brings me to the next point: Interperetation. Any text which is open to interperetation can NOT be used to determine that something is true, because for that to be the case, the actual event depicted would have to change for every new reader.

For instance, if one person says that God turned the man's wife into a pillar, or pile, of salt for looking back at her burning home, and the text were true, then that would be the case. However, if another person interpereted that it didn't mean a PILE but instead meant a Doric column made of salt, then at the same time that would be true. This is obviously not the case, because that would mean that two different interperetations of events were true at the same time, and God would have turned the man's wife into a pile and a column at the same time.

A text which is open to interpretation cannot be true. Only one interperetation can ever be true, the interperetation that depicts what actually happened.

Meh, I say....BOTH. I beleive that god created us and everything in the likeness of him. and also gave us the capeablility of evolution.

In my books..... ARGUMENT=DONE

Quote from stare

Meh, I say....BOTH. I beleive that god created us and everything in the likeness of him. and also gave us the capeablility of evolution.

In my books..... ARGUMENT=DONE

That's an understandable way of looking at it, but that doesn't make the argument end. Nothing will end the argument, it's in a stalemate.

Doesn't it only make sense to believe in some sort of divine being that created something to at least begin the process of creation? Not necessarily exactly how the bible describes, but something even such as the big bang. And really, isn't anything possible? Really think about that, nothing is truly impossible until the human race discovers every last bit of information from the universe and who knows, maybe the multi verse... then we can say what is impossible and what is possible.

Who created the thing to start the creation?























I can smell your brain frying from here.

I find it easier to let the scientists with 180 IQ figure these things out then relay thier findings to the public.

Quote from stare

Meh, I say....BOTH. I beleive that god created us and everything in the likeness of him. and also gave us the capeablility of evolution.

In my books..... ARGUMENT=DONE

You are deluding yourself. Christianity and science aren't just incompatible, they are hostile to each other. If you try to believe in a creator, you must also believe that humans are somehow exempt from natural selection, and that the creator placed evidence on the contrary just to test our faith, which begs the questioning of his benevelence.

Why couldn't a creator just create the big bang?

Because there was no time or space before the big bang.

Because then the creator is unneeded. Also, when you claim that a complex universe requires a designer, then that creator must have been even more complex, and would also repuire a creator.

Quote from Ash

Because then the creator is unneeded. Also, when you claim that a complex universe requires a designer, then that creator must have been even more complex, and would also repuire a creator.

So, because he is unneeded he doesn't exist? That seems like a logical fallacy to me. You cant question the creators logic on why he created the big bang because you dont know why he would do that. And I wasn't making that "complex" argument you see all the time.

By the way, i'm just being hypothetical, I don't necessarily believe in a creator.

Okay then, why would he create the universe?

Quote from Jeremy

So, because he is unneeded he doesn't exist? That seems like a logical fallacy to me. You cant question the creators logic on why he created the big bang because you dont know why he would do that. And I wasn't making that "complex" argument you see all the time.

By the way, i'm just being hypothetical, I don't necessarily believe in a creator.

Every hypothesis repuires a catalyst, a spark, such as an observation. Saying that a creator is present requires some observation to suport it. Without that spark, its just the same as if I were to say that a celestial spoon exists somewhere outside our world. I would never convince anyone of it, however. There is no observation to support it: no giant handle poking out of the sky, no great bowl of ice cream that steadily empties. That doesn't mean its not there, though: it very well may. That doesn't mean we should crack open our copies of ''The Spoon Bible''