Religious Apologetics / What Do You Believe?

[Stal]

penguinofdoom said:

Yes but creationists are interpreting the data to fit their preconceived ideas and ignoring anything contradictory (with a healthy dose of quote mining thrown in usually), whereas scientists are interpreting the data based on what it is, and change the theory based on that. Religion makes no claim to be malleable in this respect.

I would argue that a lot of scientists are interpreting the data to fit their preconceived ideas, especially nowadays. Being a scientist does NOT grant them a "get out of scrutiny free" card, nor does it mean they're free of biases. And not all scientists buy into evolution either, but are you going to ignore them or say that they're just not doing it right because a) they don't agree with your preconceived notions, b) they don't agree with the majority, c) other.

And I usually see scientists try to cram new findings into the old theory and still make it work. Why? Because that's also something you do. You evaluate evidence through the view of the theory you have--does it still fit? If yes, theory is still good.

A lot of creationists don't feel the evidence and interpretation that certain scientists are putting forward have been interpreted correctly or honestly. There's been a lot of hoaxes, fakes, and bad science in "proving" evolution. Plus the main tenet hasn't actually been observed (the addition of new genetic material through mutations).

Religion takes a look at the evidence through its own lens. And the evidence isn't disagreeing with their theory yet...

[penguinofdoom]

Well I'll overlook the fact that you seem to be callin creationism a theory.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

That is evidence for genetic variation. The fact is that new genetic material can be added my mutation, i.e. an extra gene being randomly added.

And for all Creationists love to bleat about Haeckel this, Piltdown that, it doesn't somehow cancel out all the real evidence.

Also, if we are going down this route, I think all the Noah's ark hoaxes and various other creationist fabrications should also mean something.

[Stal]

penguinofdoom said:

Well I'll overlook the fact that you seem to be callin creationism a theory.

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

That is evidence for genetic variation. The fact is that new genetic material can be added my mutation, i.e. an extra gene being randomly added.

And for all Creationists love to bleat about Haeckel this, Piltdown that, it doesn't somehow cancel out all the real evidence.

Also, if we are going down this route, I think all the Noah's ark hoaxes and various other creationist fabrications should also mean something.

It is a theory, penguin, when you look up what theory actually means.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Not all that hard to confirm. In fact, evolution is also a theory in the same sense that creationism is, as well as in the scientific sense

Genetic variation is possible, sure, but it's not added any new material. Nothing outright new has come out of it yet. That link you provided really didn't answer what you said it was. Microevolution hasn't satisfactorily proven to me (or many others) that macroevolution works as people say it does.

And no, that doesn't cancel out the "real evidence", but it calls it into question and makes people more skeptical. And we're not going down any route, really...I mentioned that as one of the reasons that creationists treat it with a skeptical eye. You seem to be the one that has a grudge to bear here, though, and trying to drag it ways that you want it go. I mean, really? What do you want accomplish by bringing up religious hoaxes? Give a point to that statement, or something. Otherwise it just looks...petty.

Here's the thing about that, too--science, as you've pointed out, has a much higher standard to follow. Hoaxes, lies, and fabrications in science harm it a lot more, especially when used as a basis for belief.

In religion? Most of the hoaxes that occur aren't at the fundamental or belief level, their after-the-fact kind of things, much like bigfoot hoaxes and the like. Two different kinds of situations going on, and two very distinct realms.

And again, this isn't a creation v evolution thread. This is a religious apologetics thread. If you really want to get into the evolution debate, take it elsewhere. I also recommend, again, that you take time to cool your attitude and remember that not only are there many different people of thoughts and ideas here, but you have to actually treat them kindly and with respect--not the disdain and scorn you've been showing.

[penguinofdoom]

OK I'll bare that in mind, and be sure to let you know if I feel that other people have also been disrespectful of other thoughts and beliefs.

[(_+*Lou*+_)]

(But I want to argue creationism/evolution... Lol.)

Seriously, though, despite all the heated feelings, it's bringing up a valid point that may have been discussed earlier (I haven't read everything.).

How literally should you take your religious text? Should everything and every opinion, even the ones of humans (ie the views on women in the letters of the New Testament) be viewed as laws and facts, or should you choose? What should be chosen?

I'm just having some inner turmoil on this right now, love to hear other's views.

[Komori]

penguinofdoom said:

Why did you spell H2O with a zero?

I dunno. I guess I did it on accident.



I have a tendency to take what scientists say with a grain of salt. It was only a short while ago that they were using leeches to cure nearly every disease. I mean, these were the guys who told us that margarine was better for us than butter, then turn around again and say margarine is actually killing us. If they can't even get their vegetable shortening right, what are the chances they've got the origin of the universe down pat?

A hundred years from now, future scientists will think our scientists were completely bonkers. *shrug*

[penguinofdoom]

Yes but thinking leeches cured everything wasn't based on science. The thing about science is we can test things or see if they fit in with the evidence. The use of leeches is more in line with creationism, starting off with an idea (that leeches cure everything), and keeping on using it despite obvious evidence that it's not true.

The vegetable fat thing is a wild exaggeration, margarine is not ''actually killing us'', it's not like it has cyanide in it. One spread might be worse than another if you eat too much of it and you're obese already but again, neither of these perceived "mistakes" of science somehow cancel out all the actual science there is.

PS. You could think of your example of margarine as actually being a positive aspect of science, as it is constantly being updated to reflect the new evidence. Creationism on the other hand

[laurensk90]

ghostkomori said:

penguinofdoom said:

Why did you spell H2O with a zero?

I dunno. I guess I did it on accident.



I have a tendency to take what scientists say with a grain of salt. It was only a short while ago that they were using leeches to cure nearly every disease. I mean, these were the guys who told us that margarine was better for us than butter, then turn around again and say margarine is actually killing us. If they can't even get their vegetable shortening right, what are the chances they've got the origin of the universe down pat?

A hundred years from now, future scientists will think our scientists were completely bonkers. *shrug*

Very true. And still, the existence of God will never be proven, or disproven for that matter.

[Komori]

penguinofdoom said:

Yes but thinking leeches cured everything wasn't based on science. The thing about science is we can test things or see if they fit in with the evidence. The use of leeches is more in line with creationism, starting off with an idea (that leeches cure everything), and keeping on using it despite obvious evidence that it's not true.

The vegetable fat thing is a wild exaggeration, margarine is not ''actually killing us'', it's not like it has cyanide in it. One spread might be worse than another if you eat too much of it and you're obese already but again, neither of these perceived "mistakes" of science somehow cancel out all the actual science there is.

PS. You could think of your example of margarine as actually being a positive aspect of science, as it is constantly being updated to reflect the new evidence. Creationism on the other hand

The use of leeches was the best science they had at the time, and all the doctors thought it was the best method based on the evidence they had at the time. In no way could they fathom that microscopic germs could be causing all the trouble.

Similarly, scientists have to keep changing their opinions on things like margarine, which was where that example was going. Yes, scientists are always changing their minds based on new evidence, that's my point. Saying that evolution is completely proven and no new evidence a hundred years from now can ever point to the contrary is completely ridiculous. Science is always changing based on what we know, so I seriously doubt evolution's got all its kinks out.


Creation, on the other hand, doesn't need to change. It's pretty straightforward.

So you kinda' proved my point, Penguin.

[Crystal]

ilovetoread247 said:

(But I want to argue creationism/evolution... Lol.)

Seriously, though, despite all the heated feelings, it's bringing up a valid point that may have been discussed earlier (I haven't read everything.).

How literally should you take your religious text? Should everything and every opinion, even the ones of humans (ie the views on women in the letters of the New Testament) be viewed as laws and facts, or should you choose? What should be chosen?

I'm just having some inner turmoil on this right now, love to hear other's views.

xD Kit and I had a discussion on this a couple days ago.

I see the Bible, personally, as a guideline. A rulebook of generally enforced stuff. It's a bit hard to explain, but basically most of the laws in the Old Testament actually had a use to them. Shellfish, for instance, if not properly cooked, can be very bad for you. But later, in the New Testament, Peter recieves a vision that says "All animals, clean or unclean, are what I made. Cook and eat." which kind of cancels out the earlier commandment. And we kind of figured that this isn't God changing His mind because he was wrong, but rather changing His guidelines for his people because we've outgrown the earlier ones - in much the same way as babies can't eat solid food and have to be weaned.

So we should follow the Bible, but also kind of keep an open mind; that is to say, we shouldn't let the Bible supercede what God has to say. Because in my experience, God has always been very gentle and kind, and while awe-inspiring, has never really been the sort of being to do things without a reason behind them.

As for other holy books, I don't really know.

[Komori]

frostcrystal said:

So we should follow the Bible, but also kind of keep an open mind; that is to say, we shouldn't let the Bible supercede what God has to say.

Well, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, so God will never contradict His Word. But I think also that since it comes from such a high power that it can be tricky to fully understand. I think that we have to trust in the Holy Spirit to bring understanding to His Words. Without the Holy Spirit, people have been able to twist and distort the Bible to their own intentions.

I also think we have to take everything the Bible says into account, not just pick and choose what we want. Like Crystal said, the Old Testament has some laws that changed in the New Testament when Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the Law.

[Crystal]

ghostkomori said:

frostcrystal said:

So we should follow the Bible, but also kind of keep an open mind; that is to say, we shouldn't let the Bible supercede what God has to say.

Well, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, so God will never contradict His Word. But I think also that since it comes from such a high power that it can be tricky to fully understand. I think that we have to trust in the Holy Spirit to bring understanding to His Words. Without the Holy Spirit, people have been able to twist and distort the Bible to their own intentions.

I also think we have to take everything the Bible says into account, not just pick and choose what we want. Like Crystal said, the Old Testament has some laws that changed in the New Testament when Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the Law.

xD Well, Kit brought up an interesting point today when we were discussing. We asked ourselves that if we wrote a guide or a rulebook of art or writing or something, would we rather that the people who read it go back to the rulebook, or asked us if they had a problem? And I guess the consensus was that we'd want the readers to read and understand the rulebook and come to us if they had problems with it.

So I mean what I'm saying is that the Bible is something like God's 101 Guide to Life for Dummies or something similar. It lays down the basic, hard and fast rules, but in the end, we shouldn't get so caught up in tearing apart the Bible for hidden secret meanings that we neglect to also ask God when we have problems understanding.

Sorry if all I did was repeat, but it actually is a problem that people have sometimes.

[Enn]

frostcrystal said:

ilovetoread247 said:

(But I want to argue creationism/evolution... Lol.)

Seriously, though, despite all the heated feelings, it's bringing up a valid point that may have been discussed earlier (I haven't read everything.).

How literally should you take your religious text? Should everything and every opinion, even the ones of humans (ie the views on women in the letters of the New Testament) be viewed as laws and facts, or should you choose? What should be chosen?

I'm just having some inner turmoil on this right now, love to hear other's views.

xD Kit and I had a discussion on this a couple days ago.

I see the Bible, personally, as a guideline. A rulebook of generally enforced stuff. It's a bit hard to explain, but basically most of the laws in the Old Testament actually had a use to them. Shellfish, for instance, if not properly cooked, can be very bad for you. But later, in the New Testament, Peter recieves a vision that says "All animals, clean or unclean, are what I made. Cook and eat." which kind of cancels out the earlier commandment. And we kind of figured that this isn't God changing His mind because he was wrong, but rather changing His guidelines for his people because we've outgrown the earlier ones - in much the same way as babies can't eat solid food and have to be weaned.

So we should follow the Bible, but also kind of keep an open mind; that is to say, we shouldn't let the Bible supercede what God has to say. Because in my experience, God has always been very gentle and kind, and while awe-inspiring, has never really been the sort of being to do things without a reason behind them.

As for other holy books, I don't really know.

Sort of makes you wonder about the possibility that he's spoken since the New Testament and just hasn't been heard this time, or been stifled. Nowadays anyone who says they're getting a message from God is locked away in an institute.

I mean, what if someone came forwards with a new 'holy scripture'- claiming they'd had a vision, and written the word of God. What would you (Christians as a whole, not just Crystal here) do?

[laurensk90]

newnick said:

frostcrystal said:

xD Kit and I had a discussion on this a couple days ago.

I see the Bible, personally, as a guideline. A rulebook of generally enforced stuff. It's a bit hard to explain, but basically most of the laws in the Old Testament actually had a use to them. Shellfish, for instance, if not properly cooked, can be very bad for you. But later, in the New Testament, Peter recieves a vision that says "All animals, clean or unclean, are what I made. Cook and eat." which kind of cancels out the earlier commandment. And we kind of figured that this isn't God changing His mind because he was wrong, but rather changing His guidelines for his people because we've outgrown the earlier ones - in much the same way as babies can't eat solid food and have to be weaned.

So we should follow the Bible, but also kind of keep an open mind; that is to say, we shouldn't let the Bible supercede what God has to say. Because in my experience, God has always been very gentle and kind, and while awe-inspiring, has never really been the sort of being to do things without a reason behind them.

As for other holy books, I don't really know.

Sort of makes you wonder about the possibility that he's spoken since the New Testament and just hasn't been heard this time, or been stifled. Nowadays anyone who says they're getting a message from God is locked away in an institute.

I mean, what if someone came forwards with a new 'holy scripture'- claiming they'd had a vision, and written the word of God. What would you (Christians as a whole, not just Crystal here) do?

One might be able to predict the end of Christianity here. If all people claiming to have heard from God and came up with a new holy scripture were put into in institute, then the bible would become outdated, even more than it is now. Like Komori said, 100 years from now the people will think of the scientists of this time as complete boneheads. Society will also have evolved, and while the basic values in the bible would still apply, most of it would be outdated. Then people following the bible would decrease to the point of being only read by diehard orthodoxes, some of who'd be in institutes too.

That would be in the far, faaaar future though. But if God couldn't get a revised testament fitting in the modern society through in the bible, he pretty much phails.

Everything discussed here makes me so curious to what's going to happen in the future. I envy the possible God in that way, living forever, knowing everything. Although, a lot of things would probably be very...unsettling to know. I think if God felt compassion, he wouldn't be God.

[sarahleeadvent]

laurensk90 said:

Everything discussed here makes me so curious to what's going to happen in the future. I envy the possible God in that way, living forever, knowing everything. Although, a lot of things would probably be very...unsettling to know. I think if God felt compassion, he wouldn't be God.

I can't say I agree with that; I think God has a lot of compassion. After all, God is love, and compassion is a form of love. *Considers the state of the world* Heck, if He didn't feel compassion for us, I think He'd have wiped us out a long time ago- we darn well deserve it!

Granted, yes, God does let unsettling things happen, and does see them coming. But I think that's because He created Earth for humans, and handed it over to us. Which, of course, means we perform actions, and also create consequences that we have to reap- like a little kid putting his hand on a burner.

On that note, I find the mindset many people seem to have kind of laughable; if God were to control every aspect of our lives, telling us when to get up so that we wouldn't oversleep, when to take a drive so the car would work and we wouldn't have any accidents, what to eat so we wouldn't get sick, who to love so that our hearts wouldn't be broken, and so on, and then forced us to obey Him, we would REALLY resent it. And yet, when He gives us the freedom we would demand if we didn't have it, and then we screw up, we blame Him for it and ask Him why he didn't prevent it! Messed up, much?