Also, on Pale Man's remark: You can do that for every religion, and for atheism:
"Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
It's not hard to make something sound ridiculous like that.
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
the third day, He rose from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
*"catholic," meaning universal, not the Catholic denomination
I wanted to hear what he believed in greater detail. I wanted to further the conversation.
Well... I believe that the universe is billions of years old, and understand that current science estimates the actual number to be about 13 billion years. Of that, our own star is currently about 4.5 billion years old.
I believe, regarding the 6-day creation story in the Bible, that before this planet was formed, there was no such thing as a 24-hour day (or at least it's silly to count in Earth-days before Earth was even created.) I believe that the big-bang theory may very well be accurate, and that the 6 "days" in the Bible are representative of time periods to help people understand, in simple terms, how the universe was created (also, as stated before, this is one of the stories that was told orally for generations.)
I mean really... try explaining the creation of the universe, as we understand it, to someone who lived thousands of years ago.
About the 6000 year old Earth thing; I've heard that the bible makes no such claim. The idea comes from an estimate made by an Irish bishop in the 17th century, which he based on his interpretation of the genealogical records in the bible.
I always thought that it was an estimate of time that comes from the lineage of Jesus as written in Luke:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
- Luke 3:23-38
My wife told me that often times, when records of lineage were kept, generations may have been skipped. This means that someone is recorded at the ancestor to someone else, not specifically their father. That makes sense to me. That means there's no telling how many years passed between each generation on that list.
Now, I'm not saying I believe the Adam and Eve story is literal either. On this (meaning the creation/evolution of humans), I'm on the fence to listen to people's theories, but I don't think that there's enough physical evidence to conclude exactly how mankind may have evolved, since there supposedly is a gap in time regarding current fossil samples.
On a side note, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution didn't postulate that man came from primates, but that a species will evolve over time to better adapt to its current environment or it will die. Why the church was so threatened by such an idea is ludicrous, really.
In a nutshell, I believe that God created the universe most likely via the Big Bang; that nature is too complex, variant and beautiful to come from random chance; that I see things in my life and in the lives of others around me that can only be explained by saying that God is actively at work in our lives; that I'm unworthy of His glory; and that God has given me mercy from my deserved fate through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Chyron, since you seem to know what you're talking about, maybe you can answer the interesting question Giant Tope asked a page ago then, since I'm genuinely curious, and not in a mocking sort of way: How do you decide which passages from the Bible to take literally, and which to take figuratively?
Partly from studying the Bible and learning about the cultural context of things and how people, back when it was originally written, would have interpreted it (which doesn't always reveal answers because it's not always known who exactly wrote the original manuscript, and what their intended purpose was in writing certain passages); partly from deciding that my faith is not shaken just by encountering a question I can't answer or something I don't understand. Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't a valid explanation.
Just like an understanding of science, a person's understanding of their own faith can grow, deepen and evolve as they come to understand more about certain things. Also, the Bible is a tool that the Holy Spirit uses to speak to us. Christianity isn't a set of rules, it's a relationship. God speaks to us through prayer, through reading the Bible, through fellowship with others, and in many other ways. The Bible says that God made Man in His own image. I would also say that God created everything in His own image, and that the universe itself is a reflection of the vastness, complexity, and incomprehensibility of God Himself.
Because our minds and our thinking are so comparatively limited, we can't possibly assume that we understand all that there is to know about God, and so our understanding and our relationship with Him grows and changes every day as He continues to speak to us and we with Him.
I don't have all the answers as to why there's some crazy stuff written in the Bible in places. I never went to seminary to study all the nuances of the original translation and cultural significances. I can tell you, though, that my faith is in no way shaken by being unable to sufficiently answer questions about them.
On a side note, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution didn't postulate that man came from primates, but that a species will evolve over time to better adapt to its current environment or it will die. Why the church was so threatened by such an idea is ludicrous, really.
I'm not a specialist on the issue, but isn't it more that species will... change slowly over generations? Not all changes help the species to adapt and we seem to have record of species evolving themselves to extinction (teeth bigger and bigger until it wasn't manageable anymore, that kind of things). For that reason the term "devolve" is silly, since evolving into something "less good" (and who's to decide, really) is still evolving.
What I mean is that the "evolve to adapt" part is the thing I'm having a problem with, although I might be misinterpret it. The way I see it it's more "will evolve and either survive or die". And there would be hiccups, like going in the wrong direction, but not quite extinct, and then evolving in a different direction instead, or even evolving in several directions at once...
I guess that's nitpicking, but that's the way I see it anyways. And I'm saying that partly because I'm not sure if I'm understanding the theory right and would like feedback on that.
I'm not sure why some people think it excludes belief in God. Surely, God could create whichever rules he wants if he does exist, and allowing both individuals and species to make mistakes and change just sounds... Well, it sounds better to me than creating something "perfect" to begin with, and more in line with the "free will thing".
Also, man is a primate. We create these words and distinctions based on the species we know, I mean, nothing is ever set in stone with science, since the goal is trying to understand known things and not dictating rules or anything, but the way the words are currently defined and understood, humans are primates, more specifically apes.
What I meant is that Darwin theorized that species evolve and change over time (that is, over generations) to adapt to external stimuli that exist in their surroundings.
Certain snakes have stronger venom to more easily kill certain salamanders that are their primary prey. Said certain salamanders developed stronger mucus (or w/e) coating on their bodies to (as a species) defend against said snakes. Other animals have developed natural camouflage to hide themselves from predators. Certain wildlife have brighter bodies, better singing, differing sizes of parts of their bodies... to better attract mates. Other species have evolved facets about themselves that seem to have no purpose at all.
Darwin was talking about this sort of behavior, not that man came from apes. Again, I don't see why the church was threatened by his theory.
If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.
Anyway... much of this variety in nature would seem to me to be more proof that none of it could have happened (or still be happening) entirely and exclusively by random chance.
That reminds me of bedbugs! Let's see, from memories... males would just pierce the female's shell to impregnate them instead of going for the natural orifice. They'd sometimes do that to males, too. Bedbugs evolved to have additional orifices on their backs to prevent that, and males can carry another male's semen if they get "impregnated" instead of a female, and pass it along when they impregnate a female. It was pretty interesting.
Here, found the stuff in French. Maybe you can auto-translate it or something and get the gist of it. I find it fascinating.
"Atheism: The believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for so reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
Except the problem with this statement is that A)The only assertion of atheist is a lack of a deity/deities, (for example, Raëlism are a group of people who claim to be atheists, and yet believe in intelligent design, ie: we were put here by aliens), and even if you weren't talking about Atheism specifically, your statement shows an extreme misunderstanding of science. For example, no one is asserting that everything came from nothing, there was no magic in the process, but rather physics and chemistry, which are well established, and falsely asserting that there must be a logical reason why certain things happen. Cute snark, though.
Also, Atheism is not a religion, much like being bald isn't a hair color. Just sayin'.
Darwin did hypothesise that species originated through natural selection. His hypothesis was not the claim made above - a weak idea about things adapting to external factors. That was known for hundreds of years before Darwin, and farmers were already using selective breeding to exploit adaptations of animals and plants. Darwin's major breakthrough was to suggest that species originated through processes of selection that occured in nature.
Except the problem with this statement is that A)The only assertion of atheist is a lack of a deity/deities, (for example, Raëlism are a group of people who claim to be atheists, and yet believe in intelligent design, ie: we were put here by aliens), and even if you weren't talking about Atheism specifically, your statement shows an extreme misunderstanding of science. For example, no one is asserting that everything came from nothing, there was no magic in the process, but rather physics and chemistry, which are well established, and falsely asserting that there must be a logical reason why certain things happen. Cute snark, though.
Also, Atheism is not a religion, much like being bald isn't a hair color. Just sayin'.
Ah, but there is a logical explanation. We just don't know what it is.
Also, you can't easily defend the random creation of the universe from the absence of matter and/or external stimuli by merely saying physics and chemistry are responsible. From what I've read, the mass and density of black holes (much less the existence of an infinitesimally small in volume but incomprehensibly large in density mass that was our universe) even defy currently understood laws of physics, and they pull everything in, not expel it out.
But anyway, if I understand you right, you're saying that the universe, everything in it and all the laws that govern how everything works together happened by chance or at least by no explanation than can possibly be known at this time. And that whatever the reason why it happened, to say that God did it is ludicrous?
Also, I would say that Atheism is a religion. You believe it. You actively live your life an make choices based on that belief. You try to convert people to it. It's not a hair color. It's a hair style. Baldness is a hair style. By extension, Methodist (a denomination, not a religion) would be a hair color.
The active and continued rejection of religion is a religion in itself. There are, apparently, rules defining what it means to be an Atheist. Atheists just don't regularly get together in groups and discuss their collective thoughts on the subject
Am guessing that was meant for the guy before me, though I also consider the belief that god did it incorrect. I consider the belief that anything did it incorrect, and the idea that there was nothing before incorrect. The only real correct answer at the time is "I don't know."
Also, on Pale Man's remark: You can do that for every religion, and for atheism:
"Atheism: The believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for so reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
It's not hard to make something sound ridiculous like that.
I'm not offended by this because although I don't really believe a god makes sense, (also, believing in a god explains nothing, if a god created everything, where did the god come from?) I also don't really care how or why the universe came into being, because no one will ever figure it out, so I don't waste my time thinking about it.
The Big Bang Theory is exactly that, a theory. In reality, it's likely nowhere close to how anything happened, some dude just made a guess and other people thought it was cool. I don't believe it like it's 100% fact because I highly doubt that it is.
It's more like this: "I-don't-know-ism: I don't know what happened because I don't know why life exists and I don't know why the universe is here, but I also don't care because no one else will ever know either."
It's more like this: "I-don't-know-ism: I don't know what happened because I don't know why life exists and I don't know why the universe is here, but I also don't care because no one else will ever know either."
A-theism: lack of a religion
A-gnosticism: lack of a gnostic, or knowledge
"I-don't-know-ism" is agnosticism, although atheism has evolved from lack of a religion to lack of belief in God, since you can very well be Jewish and Atheist, for instance, and I know many Atheist Catholics. They follow the religion, they don't believe in God. Still consider themselves Catholics by culture (because they don't eat meat on Fridays, don't work on Sundays and celebrate on Easter, Christmas, etc), and consider themselves Atheists as far as belief goes.
Also, I would say that Atheism is a religion. You believe it. You actively live your life an make choices based on that belief. You try to convert people to it. It's not a hair color. It's a hair style. Baldness is a hair style. By extension, Methodist (a denomination, not a religion) would be a hair color.
The active and continued rejection of religion is a religion in itself. There are, apparently, rules defining what it means to be an Atheist. Atheists just don't regularly get together in groups and discuss their collective thoughts on the subject
I don't see atheism as the "active and continued rejection of religion". You're going from the principle that the "natural" state is to believe in God and have a religion, and you "become" an atheist by rejecting it. But everyone is born without believing in God and starts believing at some point, when they're taught about it. While there are atheists who are taught all that and then just decide it doesn't work for them, there are also atheists who are just never taught it and don't start believing. I wouldn't say that not believing in God affects my decisions any more than, say, not being fan of a sports team does.
As for the trying to convert, I don't think that's by any means something that has to do with having a religion, since people try to convince people about everything, and lots of religious people never try to convert anyone, and lots of atheists don't either.
The way I see it, it's like, say OS. Some people might try to convince you to switch to Windows. Some to switch to Linux. Some to switch to Mac. And some will try and convince you to stop using computers altogether. But that doesn't mean not using a computer is a type of OS.
Also, I believe religion and belief in God are different. There are people who believe in God who don't have a religion, and people who have a religion who don't believe in God. Religions are a set of accepted rules and restrictions you follow. Belief is something entirely different.
While religion and belief often go together, they don't always do.
I personally fail to see how atheism could qualify as a religion. I don't follow any "atheist rules" that I know of, there is no book listing the restrictions, there are no atheist holidays that I know of, in short everything that I feel can define a religion is absolutely absent from my life.
If to you religion equals belief in God, and that you think lack of belief in God in a type of belief in God, then so be it I guess, but I don't share that point of view at all.
Also, you can't easily defend the random creation of the universe from the absence of matter and/or external stimuli by merely saying physics and chemistry are responsible.
But anyway, if I understand you right, you're saying that the universe, everything in it and all the laws that govern how everything works together happened by chance or at least by no explanation than can possibly be known at this time.
Sure. I'm okay with admitting that I don't know everything, because we don't.
And that whatever the reason why it happened, to say that God did it is ludicrous?
Who's god? Why only one god? Why not 3000 deities? It isn't so much that I insist that the idea of a god is ludicrous so much as there isn't really a valid reason as of yet as to believe that there the universe was created through mystical means.
Also, I would say that Atheism is a religion. You believe it. You actively live your life an make choices based on that belief. You try to convert people to it. It's not a hair color. It's a hair style. Baldness is a hair style. By extension, Methodist (a denomination, not a religion) would be a hair color.
The active and continued rejection of religion is a religion in itself. There are, apparently, rules defining what it means to be an Atheist. Atheists just don't regularly get together in groups and discuss their collective thoughts on the subject
A: The website Dictionary.com gives the following definition of "religion."
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Clearly, definitions 1-3 do not apply to atheists since we reject the notions of supernatural powers and spiritual leaders. Definition 4 could possibly apply to atheists, but then, it could also apply to a bowling league or a Britney Spears fan club. The claim that atheism is a religion is generally made by Christians who have been religious all their lives and thus cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of religion as an integral part of their lives.
It's instructive to point out that theism is not a religion either. Theism simply has to do with believing in a god, which one can very easily do without engaging in any sort of religious activity—to wit, the practice of worshiping that god. A person who believes a deity or higher power exists, but never in his life sees fit to go to a church or pray or partake in any kind of practice designed to worship or revere that deity, would be theistic, but not religious.
Atheism, which is about not believing in god(s), and theism, which is about believing in god(s), are philosophical or theological points of view, but they are not religions.
@Giant Tope: I don't really think that you can define religion so simply. For instance, Buddhism doesn't have a deity or creator but is definitely not the same as atheism.
And, just throwing this out there: A theory in science is much different than a colloquial theory. Whereas a theory in everyday life is "just an interesting idea," a scientific theory is supported by a large amount of evidence, none of which has been contradicted as of yet. The only reason it is not labeled as fact is because there is no absolute proof and likely never can be completely proven (at least not to the standards of scientists:D). If the Big Bang theory was just an idea that someone came up with that everyone liked, for instance, it would be called the Big Bang Hypothesis.
Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Same thing with believing in evolution: can't be done, it's sort of like believing in gravity or taxes.
That post wasn't meant to discredit or ridicule atheism. It was merely meant to show that you can make everything sound stupid if you word it a certain way.
Thanks for explaining!
But if the Bible is partly wrong, so you don't really know which parts are true and which aren't, and you have a personal relationship with god anyway, why do you need the book at all? Wouldn't what god communicates to you be enough?
From what I understand from the theory, species don't consciously adapt to their environment, it's just that the specimens of the species best adapted to the current circumstances has a bigger chance of procreating than less well adapted ones. Over time, the small benefit that the better specimen has will get passed on more and more, until all members of the species have that attribute. Thereby changing species over thousands of years.
This could be what you meant too though, in which case sorry for the useless nitpicking
@Giant Tope: I don't really think that you can define religion so simply. For instance, Buddhism doesn't have a deity or creator but is definitely not the same as atheism.
Technically, those kinds of Buddhists are actually atheistic, because they do not profess a belief in one or more deities. Theism does not mean religion, but rather the belief in one more more deities. (Theism coming from the Greek word Theos, which means god.) That said, there are actually Buddhists who do believe in deities.
That post wasn't meant to discredit or ridicule atheism. It was merely meant to show that you can make everything sound stupid if you word it a certain way.
I realize that. It would have been fine if it was making fun of things in an accurate way, but it wasn't. *shrug*
Technically, those kinds of Buddhists are actually atheistic, because they do not profess a belief in one or more deities. Theism does not mean religion, but rather the belief in one more more deities. (Theism coming from the Greek word Theos, which means god.) That said, there are actually Buddhists who do believe in deities.
I'm pretty sure that all Buddhists have no deities. They do pray to Buddha and other people who are believed to have achieved the same level, but Buddha is not a god, he is sort of like a saint, a holy human being who is believed to have reached Nirvana, and now helps other people on their path to Nirvana.
I'm pretty sure that all Buddhists have no deities. They do pray to Buddha and other people who are believed to have achieved the same level, but Buddha is not a god, he is sort of like a saint, a holy human being who is believed to have reached Nirvana, and now helps other people on their path to Nirvana.
...
My grandparents (and most my relatives on my mother's side) are Buddhists. I kinda know a bit about it.
Buddhism doesn't require a belief in one or several deities, but doesn't exclude it either, I believe. I remember reading about that, but... Well, I could be wrong.
I'm pretty sure that all Buddhists have no deities.
I'm no expert, but I remember learning while in Japan that the Japanese very often combine different religions in their beliefs. They don't believe that adopting one religion automatically excludes all others, (like westerners tend to) so many will happily identify themselves as e.g. both Buddhist and Shintoist, and maybe even Christian on top of that.
So you can certainly be a Buddhist and believe in gods at the same time, at least if you do a mix and match with religions like that.
...
My grandparents (and most my relatives on my mother's side) are Buddhists. I kinda know a bit about it.
Hmm... that's odd, I've never heard of those guys. I guess I always figured that all the buddhas were saints. Maybe that was just the case in the Buddhism I studied. Well, you learn something new every day!:D
Look I know I'm being harsh, but to suggest that you need to be accurate when making fun of something. It's just so stupid. It's so stupid to me I can't even get myself to be constructive in my criticism of such a thing. I don't even get what you were trying to say with that.
Well if you were confused about what I was saying, you could have just asked me to clarify instead of going: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE STUPID.
What I meant was that statement that the person was using as a joke had nothing to do with Atheism. That and it supported common misunderstandings that do cause real life issues, such as perpetuating stereotypes. In fact, I'd be rather impressed if someone could properly make fun of Atheism, as there really isn't a belief system behind it. It's just lack of belief in a deity/deities.
Well if you were confused about what I was saying, you could have just asked me to clarify instead of going: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE STUPID.
What I meant was that statement that the person was using as a joke had nothing to do with Atheism. That and it supported common misunderstandings that do cause real life issues, such as perpetuating stereotypes. In fact, I'd be rather impressed if someone could properly make fun of Atheism, as there really isn't a belief system behind it. It's just lack of belief in a deity/deities.
So you weren't saying "You can't make a joke that's not accurate" you were just saying "Your joke sucks". Well then. Carry on.
Comments
lol, I like that.
Okay.
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
the third day, He rose from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
*"catholic," meaning universal, not the Catholic denomination
Well... I believe that the universe is billions of years old, and understand that current science estimates the actual number to be about 13 billion years. Of that, our own star is currently about 4.5 billion years old.
I believe, regarding the 6-day creation story in the Bible, that before this planet was formed, there was no such thing as a 24-hour day (or at least it's silly to count in Earth-days before Earth was even created.) I believe that the big-bang theory may very well be accurate, and that the 6 "days" in the Bible are representative of time periods to help people understand, in simple terms, how the universe was created (also, as stated before, this is one of the stories that was told orally for generations.)
I mean really... try explaining the creation of the universe, as we understand it, to someone who lived thousands of years ago.
I always thought that it was an estimate of time that comes from the lineage of Jesus as written in Luke:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
- Luke 3:23-38
My wife told me that often times, when records of lineage were kept, generations may have been skipped. This means that someone is recorded at the ancestor to someone else, not specifically their father. That makes sense to me. That means there's no telling how many years passed between each generation on that list.
Now, I'm not saying I believe the Adam and Eve story is literal either. On this (meaning the creation/evolution of humans), I'm on the fence to listen to people's theories, but I don't think that there's enough physical evidence to conclude exactly how mankind may have evolved, since there supposedly is a gap in time regarding current fossil samples.
On a side note, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution didn't postulate that man came from primates, but that a species will evolve over time to better adapt to its current environment or it will die. Why the church was so threatened by such an idea is ludicrous, really.
In a nutshell, I believe that God created the universe most likely via the Big Bang; that nature is too complex, variant and beautiful to come from random chance; that I see things in my life and in the lives of others around me that can only be explained by saying that God is actively at work in our lives; that I'm unworthy of His glory; and that God has given me mercy from my deserved fate through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Just like an understanding of science, a person's understanding of their own faith can grow, deepen and evolve as they come to understand more about certain things. Also, the Bible is a tool that the Holy Spirit uses to speak to us. Christianity isn't a set of rules, it's a relationship. God speaks to us through prayer, through reading the Bible, through fellowship with others, and in many other ways. The Bible says that God made Man in His own image. I would also say that God created everything in His own image, and that the universe itself is a reflection of the vastness, complexity, and incomprehensibility of God Himself.
Because our minds and our thinking are so comparatively limited, we can't possibly assume that we understand all that there is to know about God, and so our understanding and our relationship with Him grows and changes every day as He continues to speak to us and we with Him.
I don't have all the answers as to why there's some crazy stuff written in the Bible in places. I never went to seminary to study all the nuances of the original translation and cultural significances. I can tell you, though, that my faith is in no way shaken by being unable to sufficiently answer questions about them.
I'm not a specialist on the issue, but isn't it more that species will... change slowly over generations? Not all changes help the species to adapt and we seem to have record of species evolving themselves to extinction (teeth bigger and bigger until it wasn't manageable anymore, that kind of things). For that reason the term "devolve" is silly, since evolving into something "less good" (and who's to decide, really) is still evolving.
What I mean is that the "evolve to adapt" part is the thing I'm having a problem with, although I might be misinterpret it. The way I see it it's more "will evolve and either survive or die". And there would be hiccups, like going in the wrong direction, but not quite extinct, and then evolving in a different direction instead, or even evolving in several directions at once...
I guess that's nitpicking, but that's the way I see it anyways. And I'm saying that partly because I'm not sure if I'm understanding the theory right and would like feedback on that.
I'm not sure why some people think it excludes belief in God. Surely, God could create whichever rules he wants if he does exist, and allowing both individuals and species to make mistakes and change just sounds... Well, it sounds better to me than creating something "perfect" to begin with, and more in line with the "free will thing".
Also, man is a primate. We create these words and distinctions based on the species we know, I mean, nothing is ever set in stone with science, since the goal is trying to understand known things and not dictating rules or anything, but the way the words are currently defined and understood, humans are primates, more specifically apes.
[/nitpicking]
I think you're getting hung up on semantics.
What I meant is that Darwin theorized that species evolve and change over time (that is, over generations) to adapt to external stimuli that exist in their surroundings.
Certain snakes have stronger venom to more easily kill certain salamanders that are their primary prey. Said certain salamanders developed stronger mucus (or w/e) coating on their bodies to (as a species) defend against said snakes. Other animals have developed natural camouflage to hide themselves from predators. Certain wildlife have brighter bodies, better singing, differing sizes of parts of their bodies... to better attract mates. Other species have evolved facets about themselves that seem to have no purpose at all.
Darwin was talking about this sort of behavior, not that man came from apes. Again, I don't see why the church was threatened by his theory.
wiki says that, in the fourth chapter of his book, Darwin writes: Anyway... much of this variety in nature would seem to me to be more proof that none of it could have happened (or still be happening) entirely and exclusively by random chance.
Here, found the stuff in French. Maybe you can auto-translate it or something and get the gist of it. I find it fascinating.
Also, Atheism is not a religion, much like being bald isn't a hair color. Just sayin'.
Ah, but there is a logical explanation. We just don't know what it is.
Also, you can't easily defend the random creation of the universe from the absence of matter and/or external stimuli by merely saying physics and chemistry are responsible. From what I've read, the mass and density of black holes (much less the existence of an infinitesimally small in volume but incomprehensibly large in density mass that was our universe) even defy currently understood laws of physics, and they pull everything in, not expel it out.
But anyway, if I understand you right, you're saying that the universe, everything in it and all the laws that govern how everything works together happened by chance or at least by no explanation than can possibly be known at this time. And that whatever the reason why it happened, to say that God did it is ludicrous?
Also, I would say that Atheism is a religion. You believe it. You actively live your life an make choices based on that belief. You try to convert people to it. It's not a hair color. It's a hair style. Baldness is a hair style. By extension, Methodist (a denomination, not a religion) would be a hair color.
The active and continued rejection of religion is a religion in itself. There are, apparently, rules defining what it means to be an Atheist. Atheists just don't regularly get together in groups and discuss their collective thoughts on the subject
In all honesty, I haven't read over 50% of the bible.
I'm not offended by this because although I don't really believe a god makes sense, (also, believing in a god explains nothing, if a god created everything, where did the god come from?) I also don't really care how or why the universe came into being, because no one will ever figure it out, so I don't waste my time thinking about it.
The Big Bang Theory is exactly that, a theory. In reality, it's likely nowhere close to how anything happened, some dude just made a guess and other people thought it was cool. I don't believe it like it's 100% fact because I highly doubt that it is.
It's more like this: "I-don't-know-ism: I don't know what happened because I don't know why life exists and I don't know why the universe is here, but I also don't care because no one else will ever know either."
A-theism: lack of a religion
A-gnosticism: lack of a gnostic, or knowledge
"I-don't-know-ism" is agnosticism, although atheism has evolved from lack of a religion to lack of belief in God, since you can very well be Jewish and Atheist, for instance, and I know many Atheist Catholics. They follow the religion, they don't believe in God. Still consider themselves Catholics by culture (because they don't eat meat on Fridays, don't work on Sundays and celebrate on Easter, Christmas, etc), and consider themselves Atheists as far as belief goes.
Agreed. But I don't call it the big bang. I call it the "Horrendous Space Kablooie!"
Yes. I want a movie!
I don't see atheism as the "active and continued rejection of religion". You're going from the principle that the "natural" state is to believe in God and have a religion, and you "become" an atheist by rejecting it. But everyone is born without believing in God and starts believing at some point, when they're taught about it. While there are atheists who are taught all that and then just decide it doesn't work for them, there are also atheists who are just never taught it and don't start believing. I wouldn't say that not believing in God affects my decisions any more than, say, not being fan of a sports team does.
As for the trying to convert, I don't think that's by any means something that has to do with having a religion, since people try to convince people about everything, and lots of religious people never try to convert anyone, and lots of atheists don't either.
The way I see it, it's like, say OS. Some people might try to convince you to switch to Windows. Some to switch to Linux. Some to switch to Mac. And some will try and convince you to stop using computers altogether. But that doesn't mean not using a computer is a type of OS.
Also, I believe religion and belief in God are different. There are people who believe in God who don't have a religion, and people who have a religion who don't believe in God. Religions are a set of accepted rules and restrictions you follow. Belief is something entirely different.
While religion and belief often go together, they don't always do.
I personally fail to see how atheism could qualify as a religion. I don't follow any "atheist rules" that I know of, there is no book listing the restrictions, there are no atheist holidays that I know of, in short everything that I feel can define a religion is absolutely absent from my life.
If to you religion equals belief in God, and that you think lack of belief in God in a type of belief in God, then so be it I guess, but I don't share that point of view at all.
This is assuming that the universe is created.
Sure. I'm okay with admitting that I don't know everything, because we don't.
Who's god? Why only one god? Why not 3000 deities? It isn't so much that I insist that the idea of a god is ludicrous so much as there isn't really a valid reason as of yet as to believe that there the universe was created through mystical means.
ugg...
And, just throwing this out there: A theory in science is much different than a colloquial theory. Whereas a theory in everyday life is "just an interesting idea," a scientific theory is supported by a large amount of evidence, none of which has been contradicted as of yet. The only reason it is not labeled as fact is because there is no absolute proof and likely never can be completely proven (at least not to the standards of scientists:D). If the Big Bang theory was just an idea that someone came up with that everyone liked, for instance, it would be called the Big Bang Hypothesis.
Sorry, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Same thing with believing in evolution: can't be done, it's sort of like believing in gravity or taxes.
Thanks for explaining!
But if the Bible is partly wrong, so you don't really know which parts are true and which aren't, and you have a personal relationship with god anyway, why do you need the book at all? Wouldn't what god communicates to you be enough?
From what I understand from the theory, species don't consciously adapt to their environment, it's just that the specimens of the species best adapted to the current circumstances has a bigger chance of procreating than less well adapted ones. Over time, the small benefit that the better specimen has will get passed on more and more, until all members of the species have that attribute. Thereby changing species over thousands of years.
This could be what you meant too though, in which case sorry for the useless nitpicking
Technically, those kinds of Buddhists are actually atheistic, because they do not profess a belief in one or more deities. Theism does not mean religion, but rather the belief in one more more deities. (Theism coming from the Greek word Theos, which means god.) That said, there are actually Buddhists who do believe in deities.
I realize that. It would have been fine if it was making fun of things in an accurate way, but it wasn't. *shrug*
I'm pretty sure that all Buddhists have no deities. They do pray to Buddha and other people who are believed to have achieved the same level, but Buddha is not a god, he is sort of like a saint, a holy human being who is believed to have reached Nirvana, and now helps other people on their path to Nirvana.
Hahahaha.
HA HA HA.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So you're saying making fun of atheism at all is wrong to do because ridiculing atheism isn't...accurate?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You've just thrown out the basic concept of "making fun of things" all together.
The guy didn't say that
My grandparents (and most my relatives on my mother's side) are Buddhists. I kinda know a bit about it.
Wow that is not what I said at all. Nor is that a proper tone for a good discussion.
So you can certainly be a Buddhist and believe in gods at the same time, at least if you do a mix and match with religions like that.
edit:what tor said
Hmm... that's odd, I've never heard of those guys. I guess I always figured that all the buddhas were saints. Maybe that was just the case in the Buddhism I studied. Well, you learn something new every day!:D
I'm sorry I didn't know it would offend you for me to laugh and find something funny.
So you're saying you didn't make a mockery of yourself saying something so stupid to begin with?
What I meant was that statement that the person was using as a joke had nothing to do with Atheism. That and it supported common misunderstandings that do cause real life issues, such as perpetuating stereotypes. In fact, I'd be rather impressed if someone could properly make fun of Atheism, as there really isn't a belief system behind it. It's just lack of belief in a deity/deities.
So you weren't saying "You can't make a joke that's not accurate" you were just saying "Your joke sucks". Well then. Carry on.