Zone1 For Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution, question

[Bob Blaylock]

Are there any bigger fools than those who believe that a man can live for three days in the belly of a fish? (whale)
~satan's little helper

Absolutely.

Certainly, any fool that denies God.

 

[Donald H]

Absolutely.

Certainly, any fool that denies God.

I deny the Christian's god of their bible Bob, as well as the thousands of other gods that have been imagined throughout history.
(I'm only agnostic on the Deist's god.)

 

[Donald H]

You may wish to re-think this. I will let other Christians speak for themselves, but as for me, I wish to share not only what I have come through via faith, but also what has come to me through knowledge/experience. While I am continually learning, it is all on a conscious level, and not at all about testing.

I'm not debating this question for the purpose of insulting you Meri, but I feel that only a fool can accept all the supposed facts contained in your bibles, when the facts are being continuously revised.

Some Christians still hold to their bibles as the literal word of the god, while others are halfway with some other interpretations or beliefs. Your beliefs are only one of many.

 

[Donald H]

It doesn't obfuscate and avoid answering the question. The Church views God as Creator. It doesn't pretend to know the steps of this creation. The Church believes that intelligence is behind creation.

Are you thinking that it must be believed that God "poofed" everything into existence within seconds or, at the most, hours? The Bible notes that to God, a day is like thousands of years--and thousands of years is like a day.

I'm aware of that 'long' day theory too.
And I'm aware of the 'Intelligent Designers' theory that blew up in their faces when they attempted to upstage science with their pseudo-science.

 

[Donald H]

That certainly makes more sense than the Rube Goldberg like scheme of Darwinian evolution which is currently being taught as "settled science" that cannot even be approached with critical thinking.

The only interesting thing about your comment is that it flies in the face of Meriweather's beliefs that he maintains are the beliefs of the Catholic church!

The story is still being amended to suit modern science and it's not going to stop changing until it's abandoned completely, along with all the other religions that have been abandoned.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not debating this question for the purpose of insulting you Meri, but I feel that only a fool can accept all the supposed facts contained in your bibles, when the facts are being continuously revised.

Two questions for you:

• Do you take the Bible literally?
• Do you believe the majority have always taken the Bible literally?

 

[Meriweather]

Some Christians still hold to their bibles as the literal word of the god, while others are halfway with some other interpretations or beliefs. Your beliefs are only one of many.

"Some" being the operative word. If memory serves, the number of believers who take the Bible literally amounts to 24%, meaning 76% of believers have never taken the Bible literally. In the 1970s, Evangelical Fundamentalists went to work in trying to convince everyone to take the Bible literally, and were able to get over 30% to say they took the Bible literally, and that number was higher than those who took the Bible literally at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Talk about taking the Bible literally apparently didn't become an issue until about the 18th Century when science brought up questions. Until (and even after that) most people thought what in the Bible was meant to be taken literally, and what wasn't.

While it seems Christians are clear that only about one-quarter take the Bible literally, it seems that atheists believe all (or the greater majority) of the faithful take the Bible literally.

 

[Donald H]

Two questions for you:

• Do you take the Bible literally?

There are most likely some literal truths contained in your bibles. But I would suggest from a layperson's perspective that the truths are far outnumbered by the nonsense. The nonsense might in some cases be deliberate lies.

• Do you believe the majority have always taken the Bible literally?

Yes, but that number or per centage has changed over many years.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm aware of that 'long' day theory too.

I am not speaking of theory, I am speaking of language fact. The Hebrew has several meanings for the word 'day', Actually, so does English--fifteen definitions to be exact. Some minor sect of Christianity decided (in more recent times) that the Genesis day was 24-hours. Meanwhile, back in Biblical times, we see time and again where the word 'day' was clearly meant for a period longer than 24 hours.

I find it laughable that science feels the need to insist the Bible day was 24 hours. I expect more accuracy from science, even if it means they need to spend a little time on the study an ancient language.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I deny the Christian's god of their bible…

Which makes you a great fool, and leaves you in no position to call anyone or anything else foolish.

 

[Donald H]

"Some" being the operative word. If memory serves, the number of believers who take the Bible literally amounts to 24%, meaning 76% of believers have never taken the Bible literally.

NO!! You certainly can't say that 76% 'never' took the bible literally. (I'll excuse that as a typo or a brain fart or ............

In the 1970s, Evangelical Fundamentalists went to work in trying to convince everyone to take the Bible literally, and were able to get over 30% to say they took the Bible literally, and that number was higher than those who took the Bible literally at the beginning of the 20th Century.

They should have asked Christians in the 18th. or 19th. century. (I don't accept that without some unvarnished proof)

Talk about taking the Bible literally apparently didn't become an issue until about the 18th Century when science brought up questions. Until (and even after that) most people thought what in the Bible was meant to be taken literally, and what wasn't.

Not accepted. (see above)

While it seems Christians are clear that only about one-quarter take the Bible literally, it seems that atheists believe all (or the greater majority) of the faithful take the Bible literally.

I don't have any statistical proof that only 25% still take the bible literally in this 21st. century. But I suppose that it could be possible? It at least seems to be too ridiculous to think that Christians are stuck back in the 18th. century.

Wasn't it you who suggested that some truth could be manufactured out of the man living in the belly of the fish for three days?

 

[Meriweather]

And I'm aware of the 'Intelligent Designers' theory that blew up in their faces when they attempted to upstage science with their pseudo-science.

Nor am I speaking "pseudo-science". I am speaking of a legitimate question: Is it likely that complex life and a complex universe can evolve randomly? That question is yet to be answered to everyone's satisfaction--even in the scientific community.

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, but that number or per centage has changed over many years.

Doesn't have seemed to.

 

[Meriweather]

But I would suggest from a layperson's perspective that the truths are far outnumbered by the nonsense. The nonsense might in some cases be deliberate lies.

I would have to have an example of what you consider "nonsense".

 

[Donald H]

I am not speaking of theory, I am speaking of language fact. The Hebrew has several meanings for the word 'day', Actually, so does English--fifteen definitions to be exact. Some minor sect of Christianity decided (in more recent times) that the Genesis day was 24-hours. Meanwhile, back in Biblical times, we see time and again where the word 'day' was clearly meant for a period longer than 24 hours.

I find it laughable that science feels the need to insist the Bible day was 24 hours. I expect more accuracy from science, even if it means they need to spend a little time on the study an ancient language.

I don't think modern science is preoccupied with arguing the length of a day.

More to the point, science would be willing to answer questions from Christian believers and then refuse to follow up with a time wasting and futile debate.

Maybe just understand that I'm being polite and I feel that the questions on the god need to be addressed.

 

[Meriweather]

NO!! You certainly can't say that 76% 'never' took the bible literally.

I can. Remember, my grandmother lived in the 1930s and the idea of taking everything in the Bible literally was laughable by most. I lived in the 1970s when Fundamental Evangelicals were trying to convince the rest of us the Bible should be taken literally.

If people were taking the Bible literally, there would have been no reason for a small Christian sect to try to convince the rest of us it should be taken literally.

 

[Donald H]

I would have to have an example of what you consider "nonsense".

Pick any of the bible stories that you're now claiming to not be literally true. The whale works for me.

 

[Meriweather]

They should have asked Christians in the 18th. or 19th. century. (I don't accept that without some unvarnished proof)

Apparently no one thought there was the need, because as I said, the stories themselves suggested how they should be read.

 

[Meriweather]

Not accepted. (see above)

That tells me you don't study history, or the history of religions, at least in any depth. You have jumped to your own conclusions.

 

[Meriweather]

Wasn't it you who suggested that some truth could be manufactured out of the man living in the belly of the fish for three days?

I said the story had a theme, a lesson to be taught/learned. I don't see that as manufacturing a truth, more like illuminating a truth. And that 'theme-lesson-truth' has nothing to do with how long--if at all--a human could survive being swallowed by a big fish. That's a distraction being dragged into the story by modern people.