do you believe religion can co-exist with evolution?

[NXS]

 

 

again, evidence says you're wrong.

 

yes, it does explain where they come from.

 

Particle Physics Discovery: Clues to Origin of Matter - TIME

 

I guess you missed this little nugget then:

 

The mystery, therefore, is why matter of either flavor exists at all. Since it does, theorists figure the... blah blah blah

[thatone]

I guess you missed this little nugget then:

 

or you missed last week...

 

HowStuffWorks "Higgs Boson Evidence"

[TheFinalWord]

No you're missing the point, the computer is here because it's not just a theory.... it actually works! and having this dialogue is proof that it works. Oh and the computer was CREATED, it didn't just evolve out of a completely random exchange between Silicon and Copper molecules.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but in actuality computers work because of theory. When developing the circuits, wiring, etc all of that ability to KNOW how to assemble the computer was built on theory

 

Circuit (computer theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Facts are disparate bits of information. Theory connects facts to predict and explain phenomena. In science, theory is far superior to facts.

 

No, it did not just evolve like you said (that's a straw man BTW), but a computer has gone from taking up an entire room to the present in which you can access the internet on a hand held phone. So it has evolved. And engineer's ability to advance the technology so fast is directly due to theory.

 

I'm just trying to save you some time because 1) laymen arguing about evolution never goes anywhere 2) you will find that the greatest evidence for Christianity, transformed lives, cannot be demonstrated over the internet. You're fighting with one hand tied behind your back!

Edited July 17, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[NXS]

or you missed last week...

 

HowStuffWorks "Higgs Boson Evidence"

 

What exactly did I miss?

[NXS]

I see what you're trying to say, but in actuality computers work because of theory. When developing the circuits, wiring, etc all of that ability to KNOW how to assemble the computer was built on theory

 

Circuit (computer theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Seriously this is getting ridiculous, you know "the computer" is just an analogy right? Hence: "the computer is here because it's not just a theory"

 

Facts are disparate bits of information. Theory connects facts to predict and explain phenomena. In science, theory is far superior to facts.

 

The problem is that evolution is not taught as a theory but as a proven fact with just a few bits missing, which will eventually be explained... any day now. Evolution has never been proven, not even remotely proven, it's just a mish mash of pseudo science leading to a complete fallacy. The chances of even a single cell organism, with it's complex proteins and DNA suddenly forming itself from a lifeless earth, and then surviving and duplicating itself and then evolving into fish, reptiles, early mammals, up to monkeys and eventually to humans is completely and utterly impossible. Even the most basic of life forms have such a complex structure that only an intelligence could have created them.

 

No, it did not just evolve like you said (that's a straw man BTW), but a computer has gone from taking up an entire room to the present in which you can access the internet on a hand held phone. So it has evolved. And engineer's ability to advance the technology so fast is directly due to theory.

 

That's not evolution it's innovation. The computer didn't just randomly evolve out of chance exchanges in nature it has been created, by intelligence, who used the theory to put together the design.

 

I'm just trying to save you some time because 1) laymen arguing about evolution never goes anywhere

 

As opposed to what? Sheepishly following the new Gods like Dawkins who can't answer even the most fundamental questions?

 

2) you will find that the greatest evidence for Christianity, transformed lives, cannot be demonstrated over the internet. You're fighting with one hand tied behind your back!

 

I'm not a Christian, at least not in the way you would see Christianity, but that's another topic.

[TheFinalWord]

Seriously this is getting ridiculous, you know "the computer" is just an analogy right? Hence: "the computer is here because it's not just a theory"

.

 

My point is that by saying something is a theory as opposed to a fact is actually lending greater credence to it from a scientific perspective.

 

As opposed to what? Sheepishly following the new Gods like Dawkins who can't answer even the most fundamental questions?

 

Glad you asked! The best way to demonstrate God's existence is through the transformation of lives. Getting out in the community and showing God's love is 1000x more powerful than arguing on the internet with atheists. I say that in a very loving way, but it's the truth. Arguing about evolution is a distraction.

 

If you are going to argue, you should be respectful to unbelievers.

 

"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

 

Not bashing and disrespecting. I always advocate that when you decide what you want to believe in, you should consider the impact the philosophy will have on your life. Since you've adopted this philosophy, has it made you a better person? Does the philosophy produce positive changes such as more love, gentleness, kindness (fruit of the spirit), in the person's life or does it produce back biting, hate, anger, strife?

 

"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

 

So when someone sees you arguing, will they say, "what does this philosophy have to offer me that I already don't get with my current one. What benefit does it add to my life?". Then they see a Christian trying to lay waste to them and tell them they're stupid. That just hardens hearts, it doesn't open them. And it doesn't offer them anything better than they currently have. Rarely are you going to convince someone through an intellectual arguments; its the combo of intellect and spiritual fruit that opens hearts. Actions speak louder than words God Bless.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[thatone]

What exactly did I miss?

 

that particles can give mass-less energy mass.

 

there you have it, a thing is created from no-thing.

[BetheButterfly]

its seems all religious people take great offence with the topic of evolution.

 

The above is not true. There are many people who believe in God who also are strong in their acceptance of micro-evolution, or the idea that God used evolution in the creation of life on earth.

 

Below are a few scientists who believe in God and in evolution: (There are others but I don't have very much time to write.)

 

Francis Collins, a physician-geneticist

 

Scientist Francis Collins on evolution science faith religion genome gene language of God - Beliefnet.com

 

Karl W. Giberson

 

Karl Giberson - Bio

 

 

 

now im a firm believer in science. it really scares me that there are school who dont teach evolution. i have no problem with people believing in creationism, you can learn about it in your church, mosques, temples, where ever else, you wish.

Science is based on the scientific method, which involves observation. Because as far as we know, nobody has been able to go back yet in time in order to observe and record data as to how life on earth was formed, both evolution (with or without the direction of God) and creation (with or without micro-evolution) are merely theories. It is important to note that a theory does not = fact. A theory is basically an explanation formed after observing manipulated experiments.

 

One can most definitely believe in science and believe in God as well. Below is a list of great scientists who radically helped change how people studied science. All of these men in the list believed in God and in "science."

 

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

 

"

 

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
   
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
   
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
   
4. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
   Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
   
5. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
   Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
   
6. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
   Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
   
7. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
   
8. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
   
9. Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
   Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
   
10. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
    
11. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
    
12. Max Planck (1858-1947)
    Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
    
13. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
    

[M30USA]

Evolultion will be abandoned as a theory within 50 years. It's already losing steam. However, it will be replaced by another lie: that an extraterrestrial race seeded life on earth. To those who would laugh at this, are you aware that Watson, the codiscoverer of DNA, said this very thing? He said the complexity of DNA was designed and we were seeded here by extraterrestrials. Look it up. This view, in my opinion, will replace evolution. Surveys have already been taken in the U.K. which show that school-aged children believe this idea. Where are they getting it from?

[sally4sara]

Religion tends toward division where evolution tends toward inclusion.

 

Religions says let US congregate on our shared beliefs free of others who do not believe as we do.

 

Evolution says this is how we ALL came to be here and now, no matter the varying mythologies and faiths.

 

So we have a separation of church and state. Or rather we are suppose to have this separation. And it is reflected by not taxing the income of churches. It is further reflected by not teaching any religion in public schools to allow the curriculum and the taxes collected for education to be spent on focusing on education as a whole. Public schools DO NOT have classes that focus on belittling the faiths of others or even bother pointing out how evolution makes impossible the varying religious faiths. I remember nothing concerning religion at all so the classes had no intention towards dissolving belief or "correcting" any mis-education caused by religion. However this was not the case in church or sunday school. MUCH time was spent on talking about non believers and what awaited them and how evil not believing was combined with the advise to not be around or accept doubting sinners into our lives.

 

People adopting a particular faith are not ignored by the public school curriculum because they are free to congregate with others who share their faith. True, you cannot sleep away the day and expect a public school bus to pick up your children and take them to a private building where they will hear the same stuff your parents made sure you heard. Maybe if your church paid taxes this could be accommodated?

You can also, out of your own pocket if its so important to you, pay for your children to go to a private religious school. No one will stop you from this.

 

Now I wonder what would happen if say Jewish people began to protest that the protestant churches were not teaching Hebrew or having Mitzvahs for their 13 year old parishioners? Or if Atheists began lobbying for Fundamental churches to include evolution in their sermons and bible classes? How about Muslims trying to win favor for promoting the wearing of hijabs or burkas in even non muslim faith churches?

 

If you don't believe in evolution there is still a plenty ways to keep your kids ignorant available to you. You're just mad that they might hear something that doesn't coincide with your faith and then you will have to *GASP* talk to them about it.

[M30USA]

Sally4sara,

 

I disagree about religion being exclusive. Man's religion, maybe. Not the Word of God.

 

"All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

-Romans 3:12

 

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

-John 5:24

Edited July 18, 2012 by M30USA

[zengirl]

Religion most certainly CAN co-exist with evolution, as there are many religious groups worldwide who have absolutely NO problem with evolution and many countries where the teaching of evolution is not controversial.

 

Generally, it's American style Christianity that objects to it, and whether or not they can come to terms with scientific fact (yes, Scientific Theories are based on facts and observations), someone else would have to answer. At the moment, it appears many cannot.

[M30USA]

My brother has a Masters degree in Biology from Cornell University with a concentration in genetics. He told me, honestly, that we really don't have a clue what happened. He said it's conjecture on all sides.

Edited July 18, 2012 by M30USA

[sally4sara]

Sally4sara,

 

I disagree about religion being exclusive. Man's religion, maybe. Not the Word of God.

 

Galatians 1:9

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

1 Samuel 15:2-3

 

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

2Corintians 6:14-17

 

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

 

 

 

Say what M30USA?

[M30USA]

I say you lack discernment.

 

The Word of God excludes NOBODY from eternal life. Your misapplication of "let them be accursed" in is reference to anyone preaching another Gospel. That is different from excluding people from salvation.

[Tulsy]

...

What if the Bible has the issue of exterrestrials (ie, angels) correct and is actually WAY ahead of anyone's grasp of reality...and all the while you call it "folklore"?

 

 

This is a problem I have with religion. No where does it say in the bible that angels are extraterrestrials, and if it was written "guided by God's hand", how'd he forget to mention that? You can't "read" it that way to make it convenient for yourself and your beliefs. That's complete subjecture.

 

Religious people all read their books differently. It's all questionable stuff like this, "what if"...trying to join their faith with science or sudoscience.

 

You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in that book, because if some of it is BS, how can you trust the rest of it?

 

You can't say that your God must have had his hand in creation, because you do NOT know that for certain, and there is no REAL evidence of that. You can't point to things and say "see", but then overlook so many discrepancys in the same book...If there was a God, he would have made sure the book was accurate, but the book isn't accurate so what's there to believe.

[BetheButterfly]

Galatians 1:9

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

1 Samuel 15:2-3

 

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

2Corintians 6:14-17

 

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,

 

 

 

Say what M30USA?

 

I know this is directed to M30USA, but I just wanted to point out that it is incredibly easy to take verses from the Bible out of context.

 

In regards to harsh verdicts in the Tanakh (or Christian Old Testament), it is important to note that it includes the history of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) with the emphasis being on the descendants of the 12 tribes/sons of Israel. It is natural that their history and belief system combine. Even though I completely disagree with how God directed them to kill other people when going to and invading the Promised Land (God knows I don't like that at all... He's big enough to have no issue with my objection.) , I do see how they were united as a people with the same purpose. I am personally very happy that the Old Covenant, according to my belief, no longer applies and that Jesus, who is Jewish, taught love for one's enemies.

 

Concerning Paul's writings, including the letters to the church (group of believers) in Corinth, Paul never taught them to kill people who were not Christian, which is great because Jesus never taught his apostles/disciples to kill those who didn't believe in him. That has been one of the most horrible tragedies in the world I personally believe to date, when "Christians" kill people. Jesus taught to love, forgive, do good to, pray for, and bless others, not kill, persecute, hate, hurt, or curse anybody!

[M30USA]

This is a problem I have with religion. No where does it say in the bible that angels are extraterrestrials, and if it was written "guided by God's hand", how'd he forget to mention that? You can't "read" it that way to make it convenient for yourself and your beliefs. That's complete subjecture.

 

Religious people all read their books differently. It's all questionable stuff like this, "what if"...trying to join their faith with science or sudoscience.

 

You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in that book, because if some of it is BS, how can you trust the rest of it?

 

You can't say that your God must have had his hand in creation, because you do NOT know that for certain, and there is no REAL evidence of that. You can't point to things and say "see", but then overlook so many discrepancys in the same book...If there was a God, he would have made sure the book was accurate, but the book isn't accurate so what's there to believe.

 

"the angels in heaven"

 

"the heavenly host"

 

"the host of heaven"

 

Are you expecting the Bible to actually use the word "extraterrestrial"? I don't know what you're smoking but the Bible is loaded with angelic encounters and "chariots" and other objects coming from the sky down to earth. I'm not "reading into" anything. Have you read the whole Bible? These records are the very things which get mocked by so-called rational people. You all say, "PFFF, a fiery chariot from the sky? Ridiculous! What a load of rubbish the Bible is!"

[Tulsy]

"the angels in heaven"

 

"the heavenly host"

 

"the host of heaven"

 

Are you expecting the Bible to actually use the word "extraterrestrial"? I don't know what you're smoking but the Bible is loaded with angelic encounters and "chariots" and other objects coming from the sky down to earth. I'm not "reading into" anything. Have you read the whole Bible? These records are the very things which get mocked by so-called rational people. You all say, "PFFF, a fiery chariot from the sky? Ridiculous! What a load of rubbish the Bible is!"

 

Yes, I have read the whole bible. I was raised baptist, went to catholic school, and even studied religions in secondary school.

 

Look, you can argue that "host of heaven" and "chariots of fire" have THIS (ET's coming from space) meaning to you, but you need to understand that this is simply your OPINION of what is written. You CHOOSE to believe what YOU think it means.

 

You may have read the bible, but have you read other religious texts? Should all of the other texts (which indeed, many have what could be considered "visitors") outside of the bible be treated this way, or just your King James Version?

 

Again, this is completely your OPINION, which you derived from the ancient text of YOUR CHOICE. You decided to believe what YOU think it means...that does not make your opinion fact, it makes it fiction.

[M30USA]

Yes, I have read the whole bible. I was raised baptist, went to catholic school, and even studied religions in secondary school.

 

Look, you can argue that "host of heaven" and "chariots of fire" have THIS (ET's coming from space) meaning to you, but you need to understand that this is simply your OPINION of what is written. You CHOOSE to believe what YOU think it means.

 

You may have read the bible, but have you read other religious texts? Should all of the other texts (which indeed, many have what could be considered "visitors") outside of the bible be treated this way, or just your King James Version?

 

Again, this is completely your OPINION, which you derived from the ancient text of YOUR CHOICE. You decided to believe what YOU think it means...that does not make your opinion fact, it makes it

 

When Elijah was taken up in the fiery chariot, his comrades searched for his physical body 3 days. They never found him. Even in the Bible, people don't just fly up into the air and disappear. The operative fact here is that he PHYSICALLY was gone--and it was attributed to a fiery chariot.

[Tulsy]

When Elijah was taken up in the fiery chariot, his comrades searched for his physical body 3 days. They never found him. Even in the Bible, people don't just fly up into the air and disappear. The operative fact here is that he PHYSICALLY was gone--and it was attributed to a fiery chariot.

 

It's a STORY, bro.

 

Like Jonah living in a "big fish" for 3 days (no digestive enzymes? what about air? fresh water to drink?), or Jesus rising from the dead (essentially, a zombie), etc...all stories.

 

Get serious.

[M30USA]

Even though I completely disagree with how God directed them to kill other people when going to and invading the Promised Land (God knows I don't like that at all... He's big enough to have no issue with my objection.) , I do see how they were united as a people with the same purpose. I am personally very happy that the Old Covenant, according to my belief,

 

I have researched this topic for HUNDREDS of hours.

 

The reason why God ordered the armies of Joshua to annihilate all living things (including animals by the way) in the area of Canaan is because "there were Nephilim in the land". Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and human women, most notably of which was the giant Goliath.

 

Many people poo-poo this view but do you know it was the ONLY view held by ALL church fathers until 500 AD? Additionally it is still held to this day by rabbinical sch

[sally4sara]

I say you lack discernment.

 

The Word of God excludes NOBODY from eternal life. Your misapplication of "let them be accursed" in is reference to anyone preaching another Gospel. That is different from excluding people from salvation.

 

I don't know how I misapplied anything with copy/paste. Take it up with the author because I didn't write the book.

 

And different religions preach different things. So by the example of your bible, lots of people end up "accursed".

[Tulsy]

I have researched this topic for HUNDREDS of hours.

 

Why? A 3rd grader could tell you in 1 minute that killing on such a grand scale is wrong.

 

The reason why God ordered the armies of Joshua to annihilate all living things (including animals by the way) in the area of Canaan is because "there were Nephilim in the land". Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and human women, most notably of which was the giant Goliath.

 

So, in your opinion, they were half alien/half human, and therefore, deserving of a death sentence. Right...that all makes sense.

 

Many people poo-poo this view but do you know it was the ONLY view held by ALL church fathers until 500 AD? Additionally it is still held to this day by rabbinical sch

 

So it MUST be real, like everything else people believed back then (the earth is flat, it's only 5000yr old, etc.).

[sally4sara]

I know this is directed to M30USA, but I just wanted to point out that it is incredibly easy to take verses from the Bible out of context.

 

In regards to harsh verdicts in the Tanakh (or Christian Old Testament), it is important to note that it includes the history of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) with the emphasis being on the descendants of the 12 tribes/sons of Israel. It is natural that their history and belief system combine. Even though I completely disagree with how God directed them to kill other people when going to and invading the Promised Land (God knows I don't like that at all... He's big enough to have no issue with my objection.) , I do see how they were united as a people with the same purpose. I am personally very happy that the Old Covenant, according to my belief, no longer applies and that Jesus, who is Jewish, taught love for one's enemies.

 

Concerning Paul's writings, including the letters to the church (group of believers) in Corinth, Paul never taught them to kill people who were not Christian, which is great because Jesus never taught his apostles/disciples to kill those who didn't believe in him. That has been one of the most horrible tragedies in the world I personally believe to date, when "Christians" kill people. Jesus taught to love, forgive, do good to, pray for, and bless others, not kill, persecute, hate, hurt, or curse anybody!

 

Which is why the whole thing needs tossed out a window somewhere as far as being the will of some "god". Cite one part of it and christians go running around talking about how this disciple was nuts or that passage was lost in translation excuse after excuse etc and repeat.