My point is the New Testament and the Theory of Evolution are not compatible. You can't believe in both literally, which goes back to my other point that quite clearly most Organised Religion is built on extremely shakey evidence when the core of the religion revolves around defunct texts. I can't disprove the existence of God but I can get extremely close to disproving the literal words of the New and Old Testaments - and it would be a massive cop out to pick out chunks of text which seem feasible while ignoring the chunks which are proven to be bollocks.
I think that they are compatible, though. Show me a point in the New Testament where it says that a creationist theory is the only way you can think about the creation of the earth and of life.
did I miss where our black cat friend said he took it literally? I know when anyone writes that it sounds very confrontational but I actually mean it. I was at the Derry V London game today Mick. the Antrim Camogs were on afterwards. I didn't hang around for it but their warm up skills were pretty tasty.
In that case I'm not clear by what you meant by 'You are pushing him towards the text as opposed to the faith itself.' To me that is saying that he doesn't have to defend what is written in the Bible because he has faith. That's fine and dandy for justifying his beliefs to himself. However, if he quotes the Bible as evidence for his beliefs in a debate in a public forum, people are entitled to question him about it and highlight any discrepancies they see.
OK then, it also says almost exactly the same thing in Deuteronomy, which is part of the Torah, and unless I'm mistaken, the Qur'an.
Sorry. i meant that he only has to defend his faith. He doesn't have to defend the texts which broadly inform the basis of that faith. i agree that he shouldn't have cited the texts in the first place. That bit is the sum of it really. The tone of the thread was set by people questioning the intelligence of people with faith, so he has the right, and as Christian maybe the duty, to defend it. He also has a duty, as all Christians do and most neglect is to evangelise about it. It is something I greatly admire Muslims for.
Well Jesus' job was to save us, to die for our sins and to give us faith. Surely the son of God could have let slip on the theory of evolution rather than back up existing texts. I don't mean to be crude but he managed to convince people he was the real deal by performing magic tricks, loaves and fishes and all that. After establishing this authority as the true son of God with the crowds why did he not go on and tell us the truth, tell us that God created humans in his own image by this convoluted method of evolution. Why didn't he tell us a single thing which modern science has confirmed as being completely accurate, I'm not asking for a lot here, just a single thing in the bible that without modern scientific method would have been impossible to know - something to convert the doubters, like the world is actually 6 billion years old? We gloss over everything that is proven wrong as being metaphorical, or not to be taken literally - or as a product of less educated minds constructing a truth in the only way they know how to. So after glossing over all the wrong points which were made by an infallible god we are left with absolutely no 100% correct points, we are left with no proper evidence at all. If the heavens opened up tonight and God poked his finger out and called me a bastard for having no faith then I'd say fair enough, I was wrong you have just proven it. But to simply have faith without evidence goes against all intelligent human logic - the organisation that has been advocating such as unbelievable way of thinking has been absolutely proven to have been corrupt for hundreds, and even thousands of years and human society has never had it so good since they stopped listening to this organisation - since they became enlightened and employed proper scientific method to everything around them.
That's a really interesting view on it Hash, I hadn't thought of it in that way before. I suppose that it's just because to many people light + warmth = good, and that's the best way people could describe Jesus or God. But some things, light Sun/Son are looking a bit too far into it...
Mick, to me the fact that some random guy who was just supposed to be a 'good man' is now the centrepoint of entire civilisations is enough proof to me that God exists. Jesus was a peasant, he was born in poor surroundings. He was given a mock trial, treated like **** and murdered, no different to many people at that time. But now the largest organization in the world is based around him, and you'd be hard pushed to find a single person who didn't know who Jesus is.
Scientists put nuclear power stations on fault lines.....God put a learnin on them. What more do you want? Seriously, as the NT texts are written after the event, no first hand witnesses, then how could those compiling the texts have second guessed the scientific developments of 1800 years later to frame what they wrote about the life of Jesus? I don't mind folk examining these things at all. its healthy but People of Faith and those of none do need to accept just how these things are framed. I don't struggle with the notion of atheism but I do struggle with the atheists with a fixation on disproving something that believers have no interest in proving
you dont believe everything on the internet do ya ffs ..... prof.Brian Cox and many others put it at 13.4
I think you are talking about the age of the Universe rather than the Earth. Brian Cox pisses me off with his perma smile - I'm more of an Amy Mainzer man myself. Rebel, someone who believes in something which they devote their life to, and in which they have no interest in whether it's actually true or not, is an idiot.
