Evolution and Jesus

[Zhavric]

Quote by: gela Ya, they pick and choose what they believe in, and what they don't. Its called having a brain. If I read a book called 'everything thats right or wrong with the world'; I'd pick and choose whats right and wrong, based on my own upbringing, morals, and judgement. Liberal christians are the same.

While I applaud intelligence, the smart thing to do is to discard the entire thing. It's billed as the inspired word of god so what makes liberal Christians think they have the authority to discard parts of it? It doesn't make sense. If you believe there's a god and you believe he inspired the bible, then you're taking a TERRIBLE risk by disregarding even a word of it. Yet that's exactly what liberal Christians do. As I pointed out, the OT tells us "an eye for an eye" and the NT tells us to "turn the other cheek". Christians do neither. Their sense of justice isn't as draconian as eye for an eye nor is it as easy-going as turn the other cheek. So why claim that it has authority? Why claim that it's the inspired word of god if it's ultimately meaningless?

There is nothing wrong with believing some guy came back from the dead, and he can walk on water.

On the contrary, there's a lot wrong with that. As Sam Harris points out in The End of Faith, Christians and theists get to wreap the benefits of insanity without actually being insane. Well adjusted individuals don't claim that cosmic zombies go ice skating on non-frozen lakes without ice skates. Yet, we buy into this if we attach the word "religion" to it. It's time to stop that.

The harm comes when they start believing that abortion and homosexuals are evil, and other stupid verses in the bible. I'd prefer someone who takes them figurativly over someone who follows what they disagree with, out of fear of being thrown into hell.

What you need to understand... what we're seeing quite a bit of with Muslim suicide bombers... is that liberal theism is the spawning ground for fundamentalist theism. We see it in Islam as well as Christianity. People will do or say anything... even murder themselves and others... if they believe god is on their side. That comes from the intellectual dishonesty of believing that someone actually rose from the dead. It comes from NOT saying, "Is this really true? Does this pass any sort of common sense test?"

No. I consider my self an athiest in regards to the christian god. I can still see that the Bible teaches some good things.

Name five that are exclusive to the bible.

I don't think any supernatural being is responsible for those good things, but the fact remains. To say that the entire book is wrong is just as stupid as saying the entire book is right.

I'm not saying it's wrong. There really were Romans. There really were Jews. There really was an Egypt. What I'm saying is that we have to stop giving religion an intellectual and cultural free pass.

God how the Bible depicts him mabe. But there is no harm in believing in a big imaginary friend who loves you.

Nope. None at all:

[leegao]

I'm guessing that you are advocating a total ban on religion? (Presuming that this plan of action is doable)

The point you made about the religious fanatics blowing themselves up is interesting. If we take 2 terrorist organizations based on some religion, the Northern Irish loyalists (protestants) for example and of course, Al-Qaeda, we'll see that neither side have any true basis from their religion. The Irish paramilitarists are just going around killing other Christians, not because God told them so, or that they believe Jesus came back from the grave, but because they don't want to be re-absorbed back into the Catholic Ireland. On the other hand the Al-Qaeda extremists uses a faulty interpretation of the Qur'an as their fundamental moral justification for killing innocent civilians. Note that the real meaning of Jihad is not a "Holy War" as most people believes, but is rather "struggling". Muhammad himself was quoted in the hadith as saying that the lesser Jihad was physical struggle and the greater Jihad was the struggle of the soul. Therefore the "Jihad" that these extremists are fighting for are not for Allah, but for the faulty interpretation that they are obligated to stop "McDonaldization" (My history teacher's term for Westernization) through violent means.

So basically I'll just sum up my point:
Many of the religious extremists labeled as terrorists do what they do not because God tells them to, but rather because they have different cultural beliefs and values to those they oppose.

This leads us to the following overview:
Religion itself is not a bad thing, it's the interpretation that can deal the fatal blow to society.

[Jack]

I'm guessing that you are advocating a total ban on religion?

So basically I'll just sum up my point: Many of the religious extremists labeled as terrorists do what they do not because God tells them to, but rather because they have different cultural beliefs and values to those they oppose.

I can't speak for Zhavric, but I don't support banning much of anything. One of my fondest hopes for humanity is that it will grow out of its infantile obsession with all superstition, which includes religion, and spend more time wondering at a world without the bias of ancient nonsense blinding their senses. Each person can only advance beyond mythology and superstition for themselves. Especially for those raised as theists, the journey can be long or short, the result of decades of learning and understanding, or it can come in a flash of insight. However arrived at, it's a point a person has to reach on their own. You can't legislate it and you won't bring it about by banning anything. I won't take joy in, but will be pleased on the day every Muslim throws his/her own Koran in the toilet and every Christian tosses their Bible in the recycle bin and walks away from ancient thinking because they want to, because they no longer buy it.

The issue isn't whether or not their god has told terrorists to do what they do, I have no reason to believe their version of a god is any more real than any other. The issue is that they believe their actions are approved by their god. They may even think they're acting on his behalf. Or they may feel abandoned by their god, or that their god is pissed off at them, they are still doing what they do because of their religious mindset, healthy or not. If they'd never learned all that nonsense, maybe they could have kept it together and not turned out to be so inhumane.

[loser]

Assuming the veracity of evolution, doesn't the account of the death and resurrection of Jesus become superfluous?

It's pointless to debate faulty premises based on faulty assumptions posited as legitimate questions.

It's not the veracity of evolution so much as the definition of evolution and the veracity of the assumptions and/or premise.

If evolution is true, then the Fall of Man is allegorical and no atonement is necessary.

A ridiculous statement belying any understanding of either evolution OR the 'fall of man'.

If God used death and "sin" to guide the creation process, then man never consciously chose to separate himself from God by sinning.

You can't make things true simply by saying them. Some simple logic would be nice. For example, what on earth (or in heaven) would lead you to conclude (or assume) that "God used death and "sin" to guide the creation process"?

According to current evolutionary theory, there was never a single pair of humans faced with a moral decision that could affect all human descendants.

And this 'proves':

1) The current ET is wrong. (Probably true)

2) Your understanding of the current ET is wrong. (Definitely true)

3) The human race did NOT begin with a single human pair. (Most likely false)

If the whole human race descended from a single human pair, then ANY decision they made, moral or not, affected ALL human descendants; it would be impossible for it to be otherwise.

Thus, it appears that we are left with two primary choices in regards to Christianity. Either evolution is true and Christ becomes little more than a moral guide; or evolution is false, and God for some reason created the earth to appear as though evolution is true.

Your logic is atrocious. Faulty assumptions and faulty premises leave YOU with little choice but to build fallacious conditions. How will you ever be able to reason if you lock the doors and turn out the lights?

Nothing you said is even remotely possible of being true.

I find it difficult to believe that a loving God would create a system where belief in Christ's death is the sole means to get to heaven, and where rational people could reject the need for Christ based on credible natural evidence.

You find it difficult "to believe [in] a loving God...". The rest of your rhetoric is superfluous.

Does Jesus hold any supernatural significance in the beliefs of theistic evolutionists, or is he merely a good person who taught important moral lessons

Since "theistic evolutionists" are not exclusively Christian, this question has many different answers; to a Christian, however, Jesus has MUCH significance.

[rez]

Quote by: loser It's pointless to debate faulty premises based on faulty assumptions posited as legitimate questions.

I am just going to clean the mess you made in this thread right now. You are just plain out silly or willfully ignorant.

Quote by: loser It's not the veracity of evolution so much as the definition of evolution and the veracity of the assumptions and/or premise.

Evolution has "asumptions and or/ premises" It doesnt have anything else. You don't like the theory of Evolution because it contradicts your superstitious sensibilities.

Quote by: loser A ridiculous statement belying any understanding of either evolution OR the 'fall of man'.

You my friend are no where near understanding the theory of Evolution, let alone basic Biology such as first chapter Scientific Method understand and Chapter two basic cell anatomy.

1) The current ET is wrong. (Probably true)

False actually. Infact, it is the Theory of Evolution is composed of individual facts that have been discovered through all of the sciences such as chemistry, biology, and physics. To say evolution is false means that all the sciences are false. Of course, you however live your life according to science, so by posting you don't really actually believe that.

Quote by: loser your understanding of the current ET is wrong. (Definitely true)

We here at volconvo have to solve your lack of understanding first. You my friend need a personal tutor.

3) The human race did NOT begin with a single human pair. (Most likely false)

Well considering that we evolved from apes it would mean that our history of evolution was in populations, not just two single people mad from dirt and clay. That is what we call Micro-evolution, something you can't argue and actually agree about.

If the whole human race descended from a single human pair, then ANY decision they made, moral or not, affected ALL human descendants; it would be impossible for it to be otherwise.

Not that they did....but you still wouldn't truly know if that is how people developed morals, in fact could of gradually developed through pure intinct.

[loser]

Theistic evolutionists can't be true evolutionists since they would rather toy with stagnant supernatural beliefs then think through rationalism.

These faulty assumptions are as bad as Z's. You're not qualified to qualify a "true evolutionist". Stagnant? Only a rational person can believe in the supernatural. Stagnant is the inability to DISCOVER the supernatural.

Anybody who tries to put creationism and evolution together and still retain their faith is just trying to cling to it despite obvious flaws and contradictions.

Totally false! Those who have understanding, understand the evolutionary process of CREATION. Evolution is NOT genesis, it is exodus.

It has been my case for a few months. I belived "in case he is real", but finally I just stopped believing in Christianity. I realized that I was christian only because I was raised christian, like Turkish kids are raised muslims, and not because it was more reliable or anything.

Understandably, not a very good (solid) basis for faith. It's easy to see why you "stopped believing". A better question to ask yourself was if you ever really believed at all.

There is still a big gap in or knowledge about the first moments of the universe.

A big gap, indeed...about the size of the universe...and then some!

Any sensible person can take a biology class and see that life evolves over time.

A sensible person, however, will question a lot of the inductions made by impatient biologists seeking neatly and tightly wrapped answers. There is way too much jumping to conclusions in the sciences.

The latter is a myth.

An unqualified opinion. A fallacious argument.

Here I'm only pointing out the flaw of being a scientist and a Christian at the same time.

Here you are wrong. I can't imagine being a Christian without first being a greater scientist than most. Science has done nothing but confirm my Christian faith!

You must then think Biologists or any scientist can't have a belief in god. It's either be sorcerer or be a scientist. Right? Basically, yes that is what I am trying to say. Note, I share the same mentality as Tycoon and Vincent.

I say just the opposite is true. I say that unless you believe in God, you can't be a real scientist.

You start off with a false assertion so where will your reasoning go? You don't understand evolution and you don't understand creation so you come up with self-defeating conclusions.

I agree 100%!

Oops, I didn't remember posting this before. What freaked me out was how consistent I am. My new post asserted the very same thing as my previous one did...I MUST be right!

(I will now proceed forward past my last response...)

[loser]

First of all, not everyone thought the earth was flat.

Obviously, ANYONE who has ever stood on the ocean's shore (or any large body of water or treeless plain or mountain height with a distant horizon) and looked out at the horizon, ABSOLUTELY KNEW that the earth was round...it's unmistakable! To assume that people (except, perhaps, for a very ignorant few) ever thought the earth was flat is to be, well, a part of those few.

The hypothesis that is accepted by most scientists is that atoms of elements created in stars were blown on to celestial bodies...

Is this another creation story?

The problem with such hypotheses is that they MUST start with SOMETHING!

The scientific hypothesis concerning the origin of life is openly accepted as being little more than an educated guess...

Now there's something to debate!

... but for the moment, with the information available to us now, the random, spontaneous coagulation of the right elements at the right time initiated the ability in 'stuff' to replicate ... and that ability blossomed into the theory of evolution.

There's the problem. When you say, "the information available to us now", what you are doing is excluding information that counters your beliefs and including information that supports your beliefs. In this way, the collective consciousness of the scientific community becomes extremely subjective (though unconsciously so). It's a sad reality of humanity that there is comfort in numbers; very few dare to swim against the tide, whether for fear of being ostracized or ridiculed or humiliated or simply because of fear of attracting attention. Most 'scientists' are followers, following a few pied pipers leading them in darkness. The Hallowed Halls of Hokum do not promote individual thought; in fact, it is discouraged and discredited. Learning is not achieved through cognitive skills but, rather, by rote.

In fact, genuine science encourages discussion, dissent and better understanding of the theories and hypothesis that appear to be 'truths'.

Sadly, this is glaringly absent in the scientific community. Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", addresses this issue.

Religion(s) base their theories and hypothesis on an accepted source that can only be argued in terms of interpretation (mostly, which parts are literal and which are metaphorical) among believers. Because the only empirically verifiable facts in the Bible are city names and some rulers that were verified independantly, most scientists dismiss the rest of the Bible (or other holy scripts) as metaphorical stories about moralism and the afterlife, not as literal sources of history ... particularly of pre-history.

That's simply not true. The uncanny (and unexplainable) scientific knowledge contained within the Bible is reason enough to infer that it was not written by mere humans but, rather, that it was directed through actual contact with a highly advanced race (i.e., God). Since the Bible validates it's own authenticity, one would be foolish to summarily dismiss it as a collection of fables and/or myths.

[loser]

Many of the products we use to day came about as accidents or screw ups. Nothing intelligent there.

How about an (one will do) example?

This is just so utterly bizzare, this intelligent design nonsense was made up only recently because of the absolute destruction of christianity by evolution, by some measures atheism in the US is growing as quickly as it is in Europe.

Do you think that by saying something you can cause it to be? Good grief, the things some people say.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Christianity is alive and well. It is evolution that is systematically being deconstructed and atheism's tenure will soon be abolished.

This is an attempt to save god, plain and simple. its just too bad people born around this time that are christian are alive to see their god being annihilated by science.

Science will be the weapon that God will use on you to make you a believer...whether you want to or not.

What is the absolute standard for design, so I'll know it when I see it?

That's easy. Anything that exists has design.

And if it doesn't exist, that was by design, as well.

Just what is "empirical" about the "idea" of evolution?

Ever wonder how a human who likely won't ever live to see a hundred and who probably couldn't even recognize his great grandfather's voice (less than a hundred years back) can speak so 'empirically' about life millions of years ago? They can say "million" but they can't count to a million!

When so many can't even verify who their father is, how is it that they think they can confirm their 'origins'? When they can't even remember their own birth, how is it that they have solved the birth of the universe?

The sad truth is that MOST people only 'know' what they have been TAUGHT! Nobody ever looked at a human baby and said, "Wow, that's a product of common descent, the origins of human life began in a pool of amino acids!"

No, they were taught that in school and they were taught to never question their teachers...but it was okay to question their parents.

Humans are basically "marching morons", with no ability to think for themselves, not even on debate forums.

Follow, follow, follow...he said, she said...

. Sadly, I can imagine how easy it is for a person to be tricked (at an age before they're old enough to know better) that there's a loving & vengeful alpha ape who's constantly judging their every move... and who will inflict the ultimate harm (beyond molestation... beyond being raped) for the smallest and meaningless of transgressions. If it weren't institutionalized, we'd be institutionalizing you.

Yes, there has been too much abuse of children, leaving them emotionally and physically and spiritually scarred for life. Yes, they often turn against God because those entrusted to teach them about God have gone horribly wrong. Yes, God has been slandered and accused falsely to the point that He is seen as a cruel monster instead of a benevolent Father.

Sadly, I can imagine as well.

If you don't believe it, just read "On The Origin Of Species". You will find that Darwin goes to great length to explain the empirical observations upon which he based his theories.

You need to dig a little deeper if you want to understand the troubled Darwin. He didn't originate his evolutionary ideas, his grandfather did. Although his father and grandfather were atheists (and quite wealthy, as well), his father sent Chucky to a theological college so as to milk it for its resources (read as finances). Charles wasn't the brightest bulb but the captain of the Beagle took a fancy to him so he sailed off as the captain's companion. The combination of his upbringing, his lifestyle, and his environment caused him to reject Christianity and he set forth to validate his grandfather's atheistic explanation of life.

It helps to leave your brain at the door when reading OTOOtS. Still, it's rather scary that humans can be misled by such tripe.

There is definitely something working behind the scenes...

Teacher, teacher...leave those kids alone.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: leegao So basically I'll just sum up my point: Many of the religious extremists labeled as terrorists do what they do not because God tells them to, but rather because they have different cultural beliefs and values to those they oppose.

That's the basis for the conflict. Religion is a catalyst. A motivator. Normal, well adjusted human beings do not strap bombs to themselves no matter how desperate things are. It takes something like religion to get them to do that.

Would I ban religion? Meh... probably.

If I were supreme overlord of the world, I'd make it so that parents didn't indoctrinate their young into their religion. For millenia we've had to choke down the offal of bronze & iron age hippies not because of any greater truth, but because of a generational chain that we as a species can't seem to break. It's ridiculous that, in the age of global communications and intercontinental travel, that we should still be slaves to Judean and middle eastern folklore.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Your logic is atrocious.

Can you point to anything you've contributed here that would qualify you to make that observation?

[Chris the Chees]

How about an (one will do) example?

Antibiotics.

It is evolution that is systematically being deconstructed and atheism's tenure will soon be abolished.

'Do you think that by saying something you can cause it to be? Good grief, the things some people say.'

The simple fact of the matter is that in countries where the populous has wide access to advanced education athiesm is on the rise.

Science will be the weapon that God will use on you to make you a believer...whether you want to or not.

Rhetoric devoid of fact.

That's easy. Anything that exists has design. And if it doesn't exist, that was by design, as well.

Rhetoric devoid of fact.

Ever wonder how a human who likely won't ever live to see a hundred and who probably couldn't even recognize his great grandfather's voice (less than a hundred years back) can speak so 'empirically' about life millions of years ago? They can say "million" but they can't count to a million!

Non-sequitor.

how is it that they think they can confirm their 'origins'?

Non-sequitor.

I grow bored of this, do you have anything to add which actually adds to this debate?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Thanatos If its not based upon the Bible how can you call it Christianity? Are you just making it up as you go along?

I'm saying that it is possible and acceptable to say that one part of a volume of works spread out over thousands of years is likely false, and another part is true.

Just as it is acceptable to say that alchemy is false and later chemical theories, like the current atomic model, are true.

Quote by: Jack So is Bulfinch's Mythology. I own a copy. How does that support the nonsensical notion that the Bible is not a book? "Book" does have a technical definition. wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn What supports "the Bible is not a book"?

Really???? Do you really need to be that literal? Give me a break. Yes it is a "book" in that it is bound into a single volume. However, as I explained, it is a collection of works in that the various "books" of the Bible were written by many different people over a span of many years.

Quote by: Zhavric So, let me get this straight: your argument against my point that liberal Christians pick and choose which parts of the bible they believe is to point out that the bible is a collection of works that earlier Christians picked and chose arbitrarily? You should re-think that one, T.

You should rethink your self-proclamation that you know how to argue logically... You can barely go a post without committing logical fallacy. This time it's the good old "putting words in my mouth".

Where did I say early Christians "picked and chose arbitrarily"? What I said was that the books of the Bible were assembled very recently, relatively speaking.

The early Christians did they best they could to assemble what they thought were the correct books. You appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that the process continues even today - different denominations of Christianity use different books and different "Bibles" contain different books - 1 Esdras and Psalm 151 being found in the Orthodox Bible, for example.

You still haven't responded to the point I have previously made, which is that your argument against Christians (and in particular me) is precisely the same flawed argument style that you ridicule of Creationists:

1) The Bible is an all-or-nothing proposition and every word must be 100% confirmed for any of it to be true (the theory of evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition ...)
2) Any disagreement among Christians regarding what parts or books of the Bible are correct or incorrect renders the entire thing moot (Any disagreement among evolutionary scientists ...)
3) Most importantly, if one part of the theory, like Genesis, is found to be false, it's ALL false (if one part of the theory, like Piltdown Man, is found to be false, it's ALL false)

Since you haven't responded to this before, I'll take a page from your book - either respond to this in your NEXT post or I'll consider you to have conceded the point. In particular you need to address part 3 there, as you continually make the point that since Genesis is false, the entire religion is false.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. None at all:

Asinine and deliberately inflammatory intellectual dishonesty FTL.

[Jack]

1) The Bible is an all-or-nothing proposition and every word must be 100% confirmed for any of it to be true (the theory of evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition ...) 2) Any disagreement among Christians regarding what parts or books of the Bible are correct or incorrect renders the entire thing moot (Any disagreement among evolutionary scientists ...) 3) Most importantly, if one part of the theory, like Genesis, is found to be false, it's ALL false (if one part of the theory, like Piltdown Man, is found to be false, it's ALL false)

Science tries to reach conclusions based on evidence. Sometimes the evidence is fabricated, sometimes the conclusions are in error. Science's greatest strength is that it's self-correcting. How would we know about hoaxes and mistakes if other scientists hadn't exposed them? The sciences do not propose any absolute truths, they offer conditional conclusions.

On the other hand we're told the Bible is inspired by god.

The Bible cannot err, since it is God's Word, and God cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do.

Accuracy - Apologetics

Since the Bible is presented as the infallible word of god, one point of error does indeed indict the entire book. There would be nothing to debate about the Bible if it were portrayed as simply a collection of folk wisdom from ancient goat herders. But it's not.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Spam Deleted

Where did I say early Christians "picked and chose arbitrarily"? What I said was that the books of the Bible were assembled very recently, relatively speaking.

And we both know there are "gospels" which were left out on purpose. Ergo, Christians pick and choose not only what they believe in the bible, but what went into the bible in the first place.

The early Christians did they best they could to assemble what they thought were the correct books.

Right. They took the ones that agreed with the dogma they wanted to present and chucked all the rest. It had nothing to do with spirituality or the inspired word of god. They wanted to present a semi-cogent tale of a godman.

Spam Deleted the process continues even today - different denominations of Christianity use different books and different "Bibles" contain different books - 1 Esdras and Psalm 151 being found in the Orthodox Bible, for example.

That's called "picking and choosing". Tivodan, I know you have the volconvo disease that causes you to instantly knee-jerk out the opposite of whatever I say, but be reasonable here. The issue right now is whether the Christians pick and choose things out of the bible. Yelling about how Christians pick and choose stuff to go into the bible isn't helping your cause.

You still haven't responded to the point I have previously made, which is that your argument against Christians (and in particular me) is precisely the same flawed argument style that you ridicule of Creationists:

T, you've got the volconvo disease. What's the point? If I say down, you'll parrot "up!". If I say the sky looks blue, you'll find a reason to say it doesn't. If you want to debate honestly, then fine, but you're going to need to drop out of the Kame/Fonceai/Helio coterie and embrace intellectually honesty.

1) The Bible is an all-or-nothing proposition and every word must be 100% confirmed for any of it to be true (the theory of evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition ...)

Straw man. I have no idea what you mean by "evolution is an all-or-nothing" proposition nor does it even slightly relate to the bible. ToE is a proven fact that's been well documented by scientists around the world for decades if not longer. The bible is a set of folk tales that children are indoctrinated to believe as fact from an early age. Evolution has evidence. The bible has none. I sense the rest of your argument is going to be just another ill-conceived attempt to label evolution / science as a form of religion... along the lines of "you won't accept that 1+1=3 so you're close minded!" or in this case "You're being intellectually honest and agreeing with a scientifically supported theory so that makes you the same as a fundamentalist Christian." If that's your whole argument I'm going to be disapointed, but not surprised.

2) Any disagreement among Christians regarding what parts or books of the Bible are correct or incorrect renders the entire thing moot (Any disagreement among evolutionary scientists ...)

Yup. So far, I'm right.

Again, disagreements amongst scientists are supported by evidence and reason. Disagreements on what goes into the bible or which parts of the bible people believe are completely arbitrary. Take for example an eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek. The OT prescibes the first and the NT prescribes the second. Christians do neither. Their morality is somewhere in between. So why even bother with the bible? Ignoring both edicts renders it ultimately useless. I predict that you won't reply to this part.

3) Most importantly, if one part of the theory, like Genesis, is found to be false, it's ALL false (if one part of the theory, like Piltdown Man, is found to be false, it's ALL false)

What rubbish? First, science is a system of inquiry that's self-correcting. If we find evidence that helps us understand something, we'll gladly toss out or refine an older theory to make way for the new one... provided there's evidence. The transition from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics is a great example. Second, the issue with the bible isn't "if one part is wrong it's all wrong". The issue is that liberal Christians think they somehow get to decide which parts (even the most black and white ones) apply to them and which don't. I've been asking Christians for MONTHS to provide their test for how they seperate figurative from literal and I've yet to hear any answer. So, can you tell me why Genesis is figurative and why the resurrection (which is every bit as impossible) is literal?

I'll take a page from your book

This is, by far, the most intelligent thing you've ever stated on volconvo.

[leegao]

Quote by: Zhavric Would I ban religion? Meh... probably. If I were supreme overlord of the world, I'd make it so that parents didn't indoctrinate their young into their religion. For millenia we've had to choke down the offal of bronze & iron age hippies not because of any greater truth, but because of a generational chain that we as a species can't seem to break. It's ridiculous that, in the age of global communications and intercontinental travel, that we should still be slaves to Judean and middle eastern folklore.

So then my question would be is Religion truly an inhibitor in our modern world?