Evolution vs. Creation

[Stanislaw]

Judgement from the church...the religion...or from the "followers"?

In my exp. its not the church, or even the religion that throws one into the 'hell category' but ones own peers and oneself.

I think it is a terrible misfortion to be born a christian...it seems to me that you are destined for hard times...where as if you don't know anybetter...you just sort of get in via the ignorance card...maybe I'm just misreading the situation, but thats what it looks like to me...If anyone knows better (which I am sure someone here must) I would be grateful if they could explain it to me.

[Triskele]

the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.

[Stanislaw]

the christian church is not necessarily one entirely devoted to religious belief, the ethos of this religion is primarily one of community, to be born into a christian household automatically includes you in a family of love that goes around the world, yes, many of the beliefs if find hard to take, intolerant even, but to condemnt the church itself and the religion seems too black and white, yes the church has made many mistakes and will continue to do so, but name an organization/religion/family/individual that has lived for 2000 years without making mistakes. to be born a christian is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it an especially good thing. it is like all other things, what you make of it.

I was thinking more in the terms of doctrine, rather than practice...ie...the fables in the bible stating that the rogue...or the ignorant, or the rebel child/person has a greater chance to get into heaven...maybe I am just being to literal, but that seems awfully unfair...as dose the random, but intense testing.

[Whifflingpin]

"but that seems awfully unfair..."

Not unfair, just unfashionable.

It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.

Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.

As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.

.

[mtpspur]

My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.

Just a thought.

Rich--a believer in the living Christ

[Silv]

Before I began forming any decision regarding my choice between Evolution vs. Creationism, I first asked myself if I were able to completely and utterly denounce all the attributes/ideas that either one is advocating.

To a certain extent I believe in science and empirical observations and discoveries - in other words, I believe that we are in some ways related to chimpanzees. Yet, I'm nowhere near that stage where I can simply accept other theories of evolution that say we were once fish. To an even further extent, it is equally puzzling that such things as the "golden ratio" exist in our world and are found in nature. How is it possible that something so well-calculated and precise could exist? The answer I arrived upon for my question is therefore an emphatic no.

Have any of you chanced upon the above picture before, or its concept? According to Wikipedia: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design (a form of creationism) as an alternative to biological evolution.

Like Bobby Henderson, it is rather difficult for me to have faith in the thought that a supreme being or deity created us. But it is possible. Our present-day science is gravitating towards the experimentation of life forms, DNA, cloning, and such other similar activities. Who is to deny the fact that humans could easily create a life form, yet a life form not intelligible enough to realize it is a mere guinea pig of mankind? Now take that, and multiply it so that you have an entire civilization of these "guinea pigs". Who is to say that humans and all other life forms in this reality are not a part of something similar?

While earlier I mentioned I could not believe solely in either of the theories, I can, however, believe in a mixture of both of them at once. At some point of time, everything that the universe is made up of had to have a beginning. All these elements, matter, entropy: they had to come from somewhere. It is The Beginning of the existence of such "things" that I found troubling. However, suffice to say, something similar to Creationism seems to explain the reasoning behind how these "things" got here better than Evolution. After these "things" came into the story, I am more inclined to believe in Evolution then taking over.

As you can see, the above synthesis is only if I were forced to believe that how the world came into being today is a cause of either Creationism or Evolution. But, this is not so. From what we know, both theories are equally flawed and disputed amongst people. We do not have to believe that it was either Creationism or Evolution that brought us to the present. Therefore, my position in this matter is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in either of the two - I believe that a better reasoning for our existence, one that will incorporate the believable points of Creationism and Evolution and have the evidence to back it up, is ahead of us, waiting to be discovered.

(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)

[Stanislaw]

(I guess I would be one of the minority who voted in the poll as believing in "None of the Above" - neither Creationism, nor Evolution)

Exactly...It's impossible (for me atleast) to pin down one idea...

[Stanislaw]

"but that seems awfully unfair..."

Not unfair, just unfashionable.

It used to be that you demanded/expected higher standards from your own children, because you loved them, than from others.

Nowadays, love is seen as an undemanding mushy slop, that always forgives and never judges. Well, that is OK for breeding jellyfish, but it won't do for the Sons of God.

As Pendragon says, more reasonably, you have to act better than you preach.

.

So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?

My apologies for accidently voting twice on the poll. I thought since the site did not have a mark that I had ever written anything that I had passed it by. But the computer caught it so I think the results are safe. No hanging chads here.

One thing about evolution/religion that has recently occured to me is simply this. If man has been around for 'x' million years or so why is the written histories of mankind so 'x' not so may years old. I believe the oldest manuscripts saved are only about 10,000 years old. I do not profess to have accurate time years on this.

So the religions of man are fairly well documented in recent times yet the rise from evolution is barely recorded.

Just a thought.

Rich--a believer in the living Christ

awesome observation...easily justified by...er justifications.

[Whifflingpin]

"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"

That is one side of the coin.

Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

[Stanislaw]

"So...God is demonstrating his love for christians by punishing christians...and treating christians in a harsher fashion?"

That is one side of the coin.

Paul to the Hebrews, chapter XII:
"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if if ye be without chastisement, whereof ye are all partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

The other side is:
"The Spirit [of God] itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs: heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

This sounds like an abusive relationship. Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill.

[Whifflingpin]

"Christians should be glad for their suffering, because in the next life things will be better...so they should rejoice in their suffering...to me that just seems ill."

Well, I'm not going to argue that it is right - only that it is a paradox not to be dismissed lightly.

Of course I have over-simplified. However, even in the bit that I have quoted there is enough to show that the relationship is not abusive. "joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be gloriied together." Given that most Christians believe that Christ is God, and suffers as god and as a man, it is consistent that humans should share in God's suffering in order to share in God's glory.

That brings us to a point beyond which I have no explanation - I can only suggest that you read Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Hebrews, with a view to understanding what he is saying, rather than looking for reasons to reject what he is saying. When you understand him, then reject him if you like.

[Stanislaw]

okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion.

[Whifflingpin]

"okay, I will try...I'm not trying to be confrontational...if that is how I come across...I'm just trying to gain an understanding of something that troubles me in my own religion."

You weren't being confrontational - and my closing comment certainly looks rude, when I re-read it - apologies for that - please take it literally, not as an expression of contempt.

I seem to remember somewhere that you said you were a Roman Catholic. If so, then you should be able to accept the notion that, amongst God's other attributes, He has a capacity for suffering. This idea is madness to non-Christians, but it is an essential part of Christianity.

The implications of God's suffering are far too complex for forum discussions, and they just give me brain-ache. Paul wrestled with the concepts, and you can imagine him beating them into some sort of submission, as he wrote. And all the time, trying to relate off-the-wall theology to every day behaviour.

Anyway, if you are a Christian, you start with the idea that God puts himself through greater suffering than anything that humans endure. So, suffering is something that Christians share with God, not something He inflicts on them. OK - back to Paul, i am out of my depth.

.

[Redzeppelin]

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

To say "rejoice" in suffering is not to say "enjoy" it, or that God wills it. To be told to "rejoice" means that we are being told that our definition of the value of suffering may not be correct - that rather than a time of mourning because we believe something "bad" is happening, we're being told that there is something (however incomprehensible to us) good about what we are experiencing. Christianity is built on paradox: this is one of them.

[brainstrain]

Actually, Whiff, I think you're arguing very well. A quick note on suffering:

Suffering brings human beings to the "end" of themselves - we realize our limits when we suffer, and - since the battle to overcome our love of self is the worst battle a believer struggles with - suffering can bring one to God. Suffering can "purify" the soul by bringing clarity to a person. We're all bugged by the tax audit until our father falls deathly ill - then our perspective gets radically altered in terms of priority; who cares about the audit?

A very accurate view on suffering (I didn't quote your entire post to save space, it was good though). But in your example, its true that the father's illness will get the son to see how unimportant the audit is in comparison, it has nothing to do with God.

All this does is show that in suffering, humans tend to get their priorities straight. Those who don't are often referred to as vengeful (instead of grieving for their mother's death, they assume someone killed her and become a...a...*the word escapes me* mass murderer *close enough*).

If, however, that person cannot find a way to deal with that suffering then they try to find something to help them. That is the main purpose of religion: to provide comfort in times of suffering. I won't get into my personal views too much, just wanted to point out your slightly flawed example.

nota bene - good luck finding an example that works with my views

- If the above post makes no sense, tell me. I have nerotic tendencies comes from being a mild Schizofrenic i suppose.