Six Reasons (The Christian) God Exists

[JudgeMental]

[quote="AzraeL";p="677059"]

I used to think evolution was this nice, neat package which explained everything, until I got my hands on some actual material on the subject. I found out there are huge gaps in the theory and that a lot is based on conjecture that "lumpy bone must indicate evolution of human hips". I think evolution wasn't a product of evidence: rather the evidence was a product of the theory. That being said, evolution seems to make the most amount of sense and is supported by the majority of the scientific community.[/quote]

Ironically, I thought the same thing. Which is why I disagreed with it. I was familiar with the evidence, and the theory was WAY grander than what the evidence suggested. But once I started studying OTHER implications and ramifications of evolution, I've become much more friendly to it. I don't think it's the sole explaination of life, but as I've stated, it's not much of a stretch for me to believe that it did bring about a lot of variety in living things.

It is, however, impossible for me to believe, given the evidence that evolution explains all life right from scratch. And I don't even have any huge "religious" qualms about evolution; my relationship with God isn't based on the "how" of life's creation.

I have yet to read a theory or unified set of theories that has strong theological/religious implications that DOESN'T have a set of biases or assumptions for a starting point. I even wrote an essay on it, but it sucks so I'm not going to show it to anybody My favorite ones are the ones that can be summed up as either "evolution is true, thus God can't exist" or "evolution is bunk, God MUST exist." Of course, those are the worse ones to get any sound argumentation from, but they're fun.

[Thorsman]

[quote="Deacon";p="676717"]Thorsman, once again you're assuming a tremendous amount. I actually believe evolution is the most likely theory we've come up with yet. I still think it has quite a ways to go before we become quite as cemented in it and our assumptions about it as we are, but to call me "simply a Fundie" means your fervor has overwhelmed your mind, you've so very obviously missed the mark... Or you simply react without thinking. Either way, it shows you've paid precious little attention to what I've actually said (and therefore don't know me--though granted you've only been here a month). More worryingly, especially in a newbie, it hints at a distinctly Fuggle-like desire to fight first and ask questions later, if ever, and a willingness to simply attack anyone who doesn't immediately agree with the finer points of your tangents.

And no, your "evidence" regarding Australopithecus afarensis has fuck-all to do with the discussion. Finding a partial skeleton, footprints, and other scattered shards of bone does not a proof of evolution make, much less a distinct disproof of any potential divine intervention. In your statements you make tons of assumptions and logical leaps. You reference Lucy "likely" being the first fully upright species of ape, when the simple fact is we do not know. You then take that assumption and use it as the basis to make broad assertions regarding it being a "watershed evolutionary event" and how it lead to us, speculating as to how and why. You then go on to make unprovable allegations regarindg homo ergaster and speech, somehow referring to a lack of bodyhair being involved, as though that made any sense and as though we actually knew its bodyhair composition. And then ridiculously laughable foundations are used regarding "greater reproductive energy through the ability to walk upright" as though that makes any sense at all.

And what was your point in bringing it all up? Your absolutely ludicrous and stupid question, "Can you show any proof of divine intervention in our journey from afarensis to homo sapiens?" Asking loaded questions based on assumptive and circular reasoning isn't a way to prove your superiority, sir. The number of conclusions to which you've so amazingly lept leaves me winded just watching you.[/quote]

OK, Deacon, I'll concede that perhaps you're not a fundie. However, I'd like you to show me where my statements are assumptive and not based on fact.

[Nitz Walsh]

[quote="Binks";p="675539"]Nitz, you were reading a strange Bible then, Matthew contains numerous references by Jesus to Him being God, a good one is Matthew 26:63[/quote]

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

[JudgeMental]

Keep reading. Specifically, two verses later, after Jesus' reply. The Pharisees wouldn't have reacted like that without reason.

[Nitz Walsh]

And the Pharisees were ones to be trusted?

[JudgeMental]

They were hypocritical, and had lost touch with their foundation. But they weren't insane, and they knew the law forward and backward. So yes, in this respect they are trustworthy.

[Nitz Walsh]

I wouldn't trust them in that instance, not when Jesus had been openly criticizing them, and now they see a way to shut him up.

[jimkatai]

Plus remember that the Pharisees only opposed Christ because he did in fact threaten to change their religion and, in doing so, their culture and people and they sought proof that this change was legitimate. The Pharisees were not evil people, they were just people that were justifiably skeptical. Also, note that most of the Pharisees disagreed with the crucifixion of Christ, hence why it was done so early in the morning, and only wanted him to shut up because of the legitimate fears listed above. The act committed was committed by rogue pharisees that did not represent the common thought of the people.

[Deacon]

[quote="jimkatai";p="684579"]The Pharisees were not evil people, they were just people that were justifiably skeptical. Also, note that most of the Pharisees disagreed with the crucifixion of Christ...[/quote]
Where are you getting your information?

[jimkatai]

Correction, they would be closer to Romans so not really rogue pharisees just chief pharisees under control of ceasar, so here you go. I just knew they weren't representing the popular opinion of the people.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/jews_killed.htm

[JudgeMental]

Oh, I don't deny that they went against the common will of the people (though don't forget about Pilate's offer); I just said that they were pretty much the Jewish religious experts of the day. Thus, if anybody's likely to recognize blasphemy, it would be them.

That article is half right, at least in some of the reasons Jesus was executed. However, exactly where is the evidence that the Apostles and the Nicean council re-wrote the gospels?

I'm rather confused as to where the accusations of the anti-semitism come from. As far as I'm familiar with (pretty familiar), Jesus rails against the Jews who have become hypocrites of one kind or another. By my understanding of history, what some particular Jews (the Pharisees) are accused of is fairly common among those religious leaders that develop too much political power.

[StruckingFuggle]

though don't forget about Pilate's offer

What about Pilate's offer? The people wanted to free Jesus until God made them decide on Barabas, instead.

[JudgeMental]

And that's based on...?

[StruckingFuggle]

Isn't that how it goes? The people were all ready to vote to free the popular guy they liked, until god harened their hearts so that they would go with the Pharisees' urging to instead call for the murderer to be released?

[Arc Orion]

StruckingFuggle, you really should check the scripture first. The priests and elders, who had given Jesus to Pilate in the first place, convinced the people to call for Barabbas' release instead of Jesus'.