marcac
The bible allows for those six days to mean anything you want them to mean - literally or figuratively
how can you dispute the length of a day? if you believe literally (i think this is the only way you can interpret this, why would they say six
days if they didn't mean
six days?) that god created the world in six days then there is no room for evolution or a great deal of other things in this world.
O.k., technical details. God is a spirit. Really, the bible is pretty vague on technical details with respect to the processes involved in creating Adam, and depending on how well you understand it, there is really no conflict where the creation of Eve is concerned either.
that's what i've been talking about the whole time. technical details are what lets christianity down, eve being created from adams rib cage specifically contradicts evolution. it would mean adam would have had to evolve all by himself to a human state then god decides to add females into the mix, after adam evolved into a human. that in every way contradicts evolution, females are integral to evolution occuring yet they came
after males- another problem.
Well we should celebrate our differences most times - we learn from each other in that respect.
that's the problem though- religion to often doesn't celebrate our differences. if the christian church had succeeded in it's missionary missions everyone on this planet would believe in the bible, and that is not celebrating differences, it's wiping them out.
However, I doubt my ideas on evolution will differ much from the evolutionist's. The point at which we come to differing conclusions is that point where you see the theories summing up evolution as contrary to any biblical account, and that, I feel, is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the biblical account.
how are you supposed to interpret the bible? for one i don't see how you can dispute the length of a day, or something like the creation of adam and eve. i'm talking my ques from what i've read, but mainly from the beiefs of those christian people i know (and their ideas are what is commonly held by church doctrine). they don't fall inline with evolution. you and i may share almost exactly the same ideas on evolution, but it was always the interpretation of your belief that we were butting heads over.
Only those parts which allow for it.
okay, tell me how the bibles six days or gods creation of adam and eve are open to figurative interpretation? which in turn leaves space for evolution?
Then, what are the beliefs of 'mainstream' christianity my dear comrade?
gee i don't know, disbelief in evolution maybe? what the church has believed for the last 100 years? i'm pretty sure your just being difficult because if you thought about it you would probably come up with a much better answer than i could. but you can't honestly say that evolution has not and still is not discounted almost fully by christian belief since its inception.
jan ardena
I´m not sure whether you have noticed, but dictionary definitions change with time. The word "atheist" has most probably changed its meaning several times over the past 100 years. There is nothing to stop it changing again.
it hasn't changed yet has it? that is the point. atheism doesn't fall into religions catergory- it may but the point is it
isn't yet.
Why would you need to know it is a institutionalised religion. Remember, I.R.´s have a different agenda.
exactly- they shouldn't have any agenda's. but the main agenda is to spread one's own religion. a most unfortunate angenda which is one of the main causes of almost all of the worlds problems today.
I don´t see any difference between atheist and theist anymore than black or white, i see humans. I believe in God, you don´t, i like rock, you like hiphop, etc......
good for you. however, you are one of the few that will hold that belief and that is the problem.
Please.....do tell.....what religion would that be?
i think (i could check but i'm feeling lazy) i was talking to marac when i said that, and the point was that it wasn't which religion he belonged to exactly, it was more that he could only see discrepancies in what atheists believed and none in his own belief. everyone should be able to see flaws in their own belief, nothing is perfect, yet i find very few thiests who will claim to have any discrepancies in their beliefs- that is a round-a-bout way of saying that their belief is perfect and in some way they are perfect to attain that sort of belief. no-one is perfect. any claim otherwise is pure arrogance.