Ben Carson Believes Darwin's Theory Was A Creation of Satan

[SwimExpert]

A comment such as yours has zero credibility from my perspective.

That's a relief. If I had credibility from your perspective I'd have myself chained and whipped until I learned how to be more intelligent.

It has also provides zero evidence to back up your bold assertions.

Did I forget to cite my sources? My apologies.

Introduction to Logic

And the Catholic Church's arguments, miracles and other empirical evidence for God, for Jesus Christ, are about 1000 times more convincing than anyone else's arguments or evidence for Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Hindu gods, Eastern gods, animist gods, tribal gods, or atheism. Choose wisely.

And therein lies the problem. There are infinitely better ways to explain and justify one's faith. Resorting to such absurd nonsense as "The Devil's greatest trick is to make the world believe he doesn't exist" is the highest order of pathetic mindlessness.

...and it is working all over the world, it obviously worked on you.

Ye of little faith...

Repeating the same self contained dogma does not substantiate it. My religion contains no Satan-type figure. Are you really going to sit there and claim that I am of my religion because Satan made me do it?

 

[Rustic]

A little reading and you will discover that Satan is not a product of religion but a product of superstition and Paganism.

That is....debatable. First of all, it should be noted that Paganism is a form of religion, and it's arguable that all religions are partially the product of superstition. Pagan traditions generally reject the notion of a Satan type figure. The Christian Satan is an example of religious Duality. That is, a recognition of two ultimate divine powers. Good comes from God, evil comes from Satan. The first religion to adopt such a view was Zoroastrianism. Before that, the idea of a Satan type character never existed in any known religious sect. The various "old time" religious schools that have persisted into the modern day continue to lack a belief in a Satan type of figure.

The development of a Satan type character in Christianity stems from Zoroastrian influence, as does other elements of Christianity, such as the Christian concept and imagery of angels. These ideas are marked diversions from the Judaism from which Christianity originated. At the turn of the Common Era Zoroastrianism influence was spreading into the Levant. It is believe by many scholars that Jesus himself studied Eastern philosophies and religions; Jesus may have even traveled through parts of the east during the missing 30 years, and assimilated many influences into his Judaic upbringing, which could explain why as a Pharisee he ended up waging a revolutionary-style ministry against the better part of Pharisee teachings. That Satan exists in Christianity is best explained as the type of cross fertilization that occurs in religious evolution when new influences are introduced.

The simple fact is God uses satan, sin and whatever else he likes for his purposes... All of it far beyond any of our understanding.

 

[SwimExpert]

Would you consider Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan (famous highly intelligent atheists) to be logical minds? Yes, I would. Therefore, logic alone does not cut it. Apparently pride and/or ego trump sensibility and evidence.

Wait a second....are you really trying to say that adhering to abhorrently illogical reasoning is sensible and evidentiary? How can you sensibly evaluate evidence without applying logical principles?

Your comment "there are infinitely better ways to explain and justify one's faith" does nothing for me.

That is a shame. Because that is exactly the kind of mind that falls to the false prophets of which Jesus spoke.

Secondly, are you implying that you are a Christian believer? If so, wonderful. Based on what reason I might ask?

No, I am not Christian. I am of a different faith. I have my reasons, as everyone has their reasons for their beliefs. Notice that nowhere have I challenged anyone on having faith, or on what particular religion they may follow. I challenge people based on abhorrent reasoning. So be a Christian. I hope that it provides endless satisfaction and spiritual sustenance for you. But for the love of all things holy, do not desecrate your own religion by adhering to it on nothing more than dogma. A religion built upon a man who taught us to remove planks from our eyes deserves better than that.

 

[SwimExpert]

A little reading and you will discover that Satan is not a product of religion but a product of superstition and Paganism.

That is....debatable. First of all, it should be noted that Paganism is a form of religion, and it's arguable that all religions are partially the product of superstition. Pagan traditions generally reject the notion of a Satan type figure. The Christian Satan is an example of religious Duality. That is, a recognition of two ultimate divine powers. Good comes from God, evil comes from Satan. The first religion to adopt such a view was Zoroastrianism. Before that, the idea of a Satan type character never existed in any known religious sect. The various "old time" religious schools that have persisted into the modern day continue to lack a belief in a Satan type of figure.

The development of a Satan type character in Christianity stems from Zoroastrian influence, as does other elements of Christianity, such as the Christian concept and imagery of angels. These ideas are marked diversions from the Judaism from which Christianity originated. At the turn of the Common Era Zoroastrianism influence was spreading into the Levant. It is believe by many scholars that Jesus himself studied Eastern philosophies and religions; Jesus may have even traveled through parts of the east during the missing 30 years, and assimilated many influences into his Judaic upbringing, which could explain why as a Pharisee he ended up waging a revolutionary-style ministry against the better part of Pharisee teachings. That Satan exists in Christianity is best explained as the type of cross fertilization that occurs in religious evolution when new influences are introduced.

The simple fact is God uses satan, sin and whatever else he likes for his purposes... All of it far beyond any of our understanding.

That is your belief. Fine and dandy.

We were discussing the academic aspects of the origins of certain religious ideas in society.

 

[Rustic]

A comment such as yours has zero credibility from my perspective.

That's a relief. If I had credibility from your perspective I'd have myself chained and whipped until I learned how to be more intelligent.

It has also provides zero evidence to back up your bold assertions.

Did I forget to cite my sources? My apologies.

Introduction to Logic

And the Catholic Church's arguments, miracles and other empirical evidence for God, for Jesus Christ, are about 1000 times more convincing than anyone else's arguments or evidence for Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Hindu gods, Eastern gods, animist gods, tribal gods, or atheism. Choose wisely.

And therein lies the problem. There are infinitely better ways to explain and justify one's faith. Resorting to such absurd nonsense as "The Devil's greatest trick is to make the world believe he doesn't exist" is the highest order of pathetic mindlessness.

...and it is working all over the world, it obviously worked on you.

Ye of little faith...

Repeating the same self contained dogma does not substantiate it. My religion contains no Satan-type figure. Are you really going to sit there and claim that I am of my religion because Satan made me do it?

Satan plays the foolish, while knowing all along HIS fate is already sealed.

Yes, satan has tricked all those of the this world knowing he could...

 

[turzovka]

Would you consider Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan (famous highly intelligent atheists) to be logical minds? Yes, I would. Therefore, logic alone does not cut it. Apparently pride and/or ego trump sensibility and evidence.

Wait a second....are you really trying to say that adhering to abhorrently illogical reasoning is sensible and evidentiary? How can you sensibly evaluate evidence without applying logical principles?

Your comment "there are infinitely better ways to explain and justify one's faith" does nothing for me.

That is a shame. Because that is exactly the kind of mind that falls to the false prophets of which Jesus spoke.

Secondly, are you implying that you are a Christian believer? If so, wonderful. Based on what reason I might ask?

No, I am not Christian. I am of a different faith. I have my reasons, as everyone has their reasons for their beliefs. Notice that nowhere have I challenged anyone on having faith, or on what particular religion they may follow. I challenge people based on abhorrent reasoning. So be a Christian. I hope that it provides endless satisfaction and spiritual sustenance for you. But for the love of all things holy, do not desecrate your own religion by adhering to it on nothing more than dogma. A religion built upon a man who taught us to remove planks from our eyes deserves better than that.

[me: Would you consider Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan (famous highly intelligent atheists) to be logical minds? Yes, I would. Therefore, logic alone does not cut it. Apparently pride and/or ego trump sensibility and evidence.]

>>Wait a second....are you really trying to say that adhering to abhorrently illogical reasoning is sensible and evidentiary<<?

No, what I am trying to say is that you are a non-player and so what is the point? You call my reasons for belief illogical but what is illogical about them I ask? What is illogical about the vast history of the Christian faith which has endured hundreds of years of persecution and murders without even fighting back, and yet prevailing? What is illogical of the lives and words and miracles of hundreds of saints, well documented?

What is illogical of three little shepherd children in Portugal on July 13, 1917 telling the people there that the Virgin Mary told them she will perform a miracle on October 13 for everyone to see an know that her words are from God? And then on October 13, the exact day prophesied!, before 70,000 witnesses on a dark very rainy day, as soon as the children arrive to the spot, the sun bursts on to the scene and starts to bounce and spin defying cosmic law, and then turning the sky and the entire landscape green then blue then yellow then purple. Then after 12 minutes turns blood red and very large and charges the earth terrifying all 70,000 present including Marxist journalists, atheists, scientists, professors, et al. all there allegedly to mock it? What is logical I ask? To say it was mass hallucination and laugh it off? Yes, so logical. Then remember to tell God He never gave you any sign of his reality.

Or tell the 250,000 Egyptians who saw the Virgin Mary on a Coptic Christian cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt on several different nights in the summer of 1968 -- as reported twice by the NYTimes. Tell them those photos are fake, and explain why some developed and others did not. Tell the Egyptian authorities to explain the source of the blue, organe, purple lights and smoke that accompanied the Virgin every time she appeared. They tried, they cannot.

Question: How many miracles do you demand before you realize those who deny them are the ones not being logical?




[me: Your comment "there are infinitely better ways to explain and justify one's faith" does nothing for me.]

>>That is a shame. Because that is exactly the kind of mind that falls to the false prophets of which Jesus spoke<<.

Well if you remain silent on what those “infinite better ways” are to justify one’s faith, then forgive me for being still inquisitive and unconvinced. St. Paul says always to be ready to defend one’s faith. I am.



[me: Secondly, are you implying that you are a Christian believer? If so, wonderful. Based on what reason I might ask?]

>>No, I am not Christian. I am of a different faith. I have my reasons, as everyone has their reasons for their beliefs. Notice that nowhere have I challenged anyone on having faith, or on what particular religion they may follow.<<

So, explain to me why I should be impressed with that? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid to discuss evidence for God? Are you afraid to discuss who God is? Why? I would think any man who prides himself in being “logical” would relish the opportunity. After all, the stakes are quite high. I, for one, am not impressed with someone who says believe what you want. It is a false humility or a false act of kindness, imo. It is like telling an alcoholic to drink away, free country. I would rather try to be of help. Are words on the internet so offensive? Is this what heathens cry “quit shoving your religion down our throats?” That is pathetic. Every person in this nation is bombarded with suggestive ads, a thousand different ideologies or pieces of advice and they take no offense. But if someone says “Jesus” they go apoplectic. It’s a sad joke.



>> So be a Christian. I hope that it provides endless satisfaction and spiritual sustenance for you. But for the love of all things holy, do not desecrate your own religion by adhering to it on nothing more than dogma. A religion built upon a man who taught us to remove planks from our eyes deserves better than that.<<

I do not follow? Yes, Jesus taught us to remove the plank from our own eyes. But he taught us far, far more than just that. So I suggest you not use that excuse or phrase to explain to others why they/we offering our faith publicly is offensive and unwelcome. If I read between the lines it more often than not says to me either 1) leave me alone because I have no way of refuting you, or 2) leave me alone because I do not want to be held accountable for how I conduct my affairs.

Now if someone was that direct to me, I would not be offended, I would welcome the challenge.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A little reading and you will discover that Satan is not a product of religion but a product of superstition and Paganism.

That is....debatable. First of all, it should be noted that Paganism is a form of religion, and it's arguable that all religions are partially the product of superstition. Pagan traditions generally reject the notion of a Satan type figure. The Christian Satan is an example of religious Duality. That is, a recognition of two ultimate divine powers. Good comes from God, evil comes from Satan. The first religion to adopt such a view was Zoroastrianism. Before that, the idea of a Satan type character never existed in any known religious sect. The various "old time" religious schools that have persisted into the modern day continue to lack a belief in a Satan type of figure.

The development of a Satan type character in Christianity stems from Zoroastrian influence, as does other elements of Christianity, such as the Christian concept and imagery of angels. These ideas are marked diversions from the Judaism from which Christianity originated. At the turn of the Common Era Zoroastrianism influence was spreading into the Levant. It is believe by many scholars that Jesus himself studied Eastern philosophies and religions; Jesus may have even traveled through parts of the east during the missing 30 years, and assimilated many influences into his Judaic upbringing, which could explain why as a Pharisee he ended up waging a revolutionary-style ministry against the better part of Pharisee teachings. That Satan exists in Christianity is best explained as the type of cross fertilization that occurs in religious evolution when new influences are introduced.

The simple fact is God uses satan, sin and whatever else he likes for his purposes... All of it far beyond any of our understanding.

If it's all far beyond your understanding,

why are you claiming to understand that it exists?

 

[nuhuh]

A little reading and you will discover that Satan is not a product of religion but a product of superstition and Paganism.

That is....debatable. First of all, it should be noted that Paganism is a form of religion, and it's arguable that all religions are partially the product of superstition. Pagan traditions generally reject the notion of a Satan type figure. The Christian Satan is an example of religious Duality. That is, a recognition of two ultimate divine powers. Good comes from God, evil comes from Satan. The first religion to adopt such a view was Zoroastrianism. Before that, the idea of a Satan type character never existed in any known religious sect. The various "old time" religious schools that have persisted into the modern day continue to lack a belief in a Satan type of figure.

The development of a Satan type character in Christianity stems from Zoroastrian influence, as does other elements of Christianity, such as the Christian concept and imagery of angels. These ideas are marked diversions from the Judaism from which Christianity originated. At the turn of the Common Era Zoroastrianism influence was spreading into the Levant. It is believe by many scholars that Jesus himself studied Eastern philosophies and religions; Jesus may have even traveled through parts of the east during the missing 30 years, and assimilated many influences into his Judaic upbringing, which could explain why as a Pharisee he ended up waging a revolutionary-style ministry against the better part of Pharisee teachings. That Satan exists in Christianity is best explained as the type of cross fertilization that occurs in religious evolution when new influences are introduced.

The simple fact is God uses satan, sin and whatever else he likes for his purposes... All of it far beyond any of our understanding.

If it's all far beyond your understanding,

why are you claiming to understand that it exists?

I would love to get into it with you, but I suddenly came down with chills and a temperature. I've had flu, pneumonia. and tetanus shots so I'm hoping I'll rebound quickly but right now I feel like Ben Carson before a press conference.

 

[SwimExpert]

Satan plays the foolish, while knowing all along HIS fate is already sealed.

Yes, satan has tricked all those of the this world knowing he could...

Based on your logic, God could be the real Satan, who tricked everyone into believing he was God. And that is why such reasoning is bunk.