The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm aware it's a week or so sooner than the monthly "Science vs Religion" yawnfest postfrenzy we have, but this article is worth a read.
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Page:
I see that the bible is being slated in preference for a personal belief in God and that's fine by me.
But so far as a personal belief, or shared belief dispelling research and all the evidence... I have a problem with that. What parts of the Bible are true? Do people take what they want from it and leave the rest? Where can we chop and change the scriptures and where not?
Scientists approach are an attempt to set things in stone, theories based on inference based on axioms.. but where is foundation for Christians' beliefs?
Sod it, we'll never figure this out.
But so far as a personal belief, or shared belief dispelling research and all the evidence... I have a problem with that. What parts of the Bible are true? Do people take what they want from it and leave the rest? Where can we chop and change the scriptures and where not?
Scientists approach are an attempt to set things in stone, theories based on inference based on axioms.. but where is foundation for Christians' beliefs?
Sod it, we'll never figure this out.
Black Glove wrote:
> Can't evolution be God's intelligent design?
Anything can be anything, if you say it is. Doesn't mean it's true.
> Can't evolution be God's intelligent design?
Anything can be anything, if you say it is. Doesn't mean it's true.
tnc wrote:
Why did a being
> apparently far greater than ourselves try and build a world for
> creatures to live in, in a week, with no known materials?
And how do you define a week when there's no Sun and no Earth rotating around it to produce days and nights...?
Why did a being
> apparently far greater than ourselves try and build a world for
> creatures to live in, in a week, with no known materials?
And how do you define a week when there's no Sun and no Earth rotating around it to produce days and nights...?
Have you not heard how God created the Earth in seven days, resting on the seventh?
In my belief you can't always take religious texts literally and I am myself a religious believer.The whole business of God creating the Garden of Eden,Adam and Eve should be taken as a story to teach people of how they should live and not as fact.I believe in evolution because unlike others I think that religion and science are compatible.Maybe Adam and Eve were the first actual humans through the process of evolution.
The Garden of Eden however I think was used to show humans that the should follow the path of God otherwise bad things would happen which is in my opinion Hell.God ,in my opinion,didn't create Adam from his 'ribs' because of the belief that God has no phsical form as that would limit his omnipotence and omnipresence.It is just used to show how God created humans with some of the same qualities to a lesser extent.
So I am basically saying that the Bible should not be taken literally in some cases.I believe that you should take the miracle stories literally because Jesus was one of the most holy prophets(I'm a Muslim).
On the topic of Creationism I believe that it's place in the RS classroom and not the scientific one.
'Tis all.
The Garden of Eden however I think was used to show humans that the should follow the path of God otherwise bad things would happen which is in my opinion Hell.God ,in my opinion,didn't create Adam from his 'ribs' because of the belief that God has no phsical form as that would limit his omnipotence and omnipresence.It is just used to show how God created humans with some of the same qualities to a lesser extent.
So I am basically saying that the Bible should not be taken literally in some cases.I believe that you should take the miracle stories literally because Jesus was one of the most holy prophets(I'm a Muslim).
On the topic of Creationism I believe that it's place in the RS classroom and not the scientific one.
'Tis all.
tnc wrote:
> Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough
> detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the
> question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught
> about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly
> unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from
> single cells is possible.
Heh, that made me smile.
You really can't try to scientifically reason out everything in the Bible like that, because it simply won't work. God is supposedly all-powerful, outside of the retraints of time and space - if he wants to do something, he does it, even if it is physically impossible.
'Slightly unbelievable' doesn't come into Christianity ... you either believe it, because you believe God can do anything, or you try to explain it out in human terms and work yourself into an impossible knot.
Which is why science and religion don't mix ... all these people who try to try to reason out how all the animals would have fitted in the ark etc etc are really wasting their time, because they'll always have the backup "God did it" card, which instantly explains everything. And with the "God did it" card, you don't need to try and explain anything in the first place, unless you're trying to convert to sceptics to Christianity through scientific calculations, which is completly rediculous.
> Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough
> detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the
> question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught
> about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly
> unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from
> single cells is possible.
Heh, that made me smile.
You really can't try to scientifically reason out everything in the Bible like that, because it simply won't work. God is supposedly all-powerful, outside of the retraints of time and space - if he wants to do something, he does it, even if it is physically impossible.
'Slightly unbelievable' doesn't come into Christianity ... you either believe it, because you believe God can do anything, or you try to explain it out in human terms and work yourself into an impossible knot.
Which is why science and religion don't mix ... all these people who try to try to reason out how all the animals would have fitted in the ark etc etc are really wasting their time, because they'll always have the backup "God did it" card, which instantly explains everything. And with the "God did it" card, you don't need to try and explain anything in the first place, unless you're trying to convert to sceptics to Christianity through scientific calculations, which is completly rediculous.
But religion and science do mix.God created a world in which scientific principles brought about the world we have today.God created everything and the stories in the Bible are ment to mainly be lessons not fact.
Before I say this,I am religious and I have a lot of respect for all religious texts.The story of Noah's ark and others are meant to teach people like the story of the boy who cried wolf.You shouldn't be bad is what some of the stories in the Bible say like you shouldn't lie as people will stop believing you is taught by the boy who cried wolf.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
Before I say this,I am religious and I have a lot of respect for all religious texts.The story of Noah's ark and others are meant to teach people like the story of the boy who cried wolf.You shouldn't be bad is what some of the stories in the Bible say like you shouldn't lie as people will stop believing you is taught by the boy who cried wolf.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
Scientifically explain how God created man, then.
Maybe I explained myself craply.I believe God created everything and that that doesn't exclude science from being correct.I am not saying that you can prove the existence of God just that science and religion can co-exist.I don't claim to be able to prove the existence of God.
I didn't ask you to prove he existed, I asked you to use science combined with religion to explain something he supposedly did. Which is impossible, because it can't be scientifically explained.
Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being, exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from a scientific view-point.
Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being, exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from a scientific view-point.
Page: