Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

Wikipedia also reports that between 1850-1900 200 million people died as a result of natural disasters or political upheaval. If only half of that 200 million were the reults of politics, it would still dwarf the 20-30 million you claim in this "rebellion."

While I don't claim, and never have, that religion is perfect, I can state that it has done far more for the world than any other influence. The world's most beautiful piece of music, in my opinion, Mozart's Requiem, was a religiously inspired piece. The world's greatest art, architecture, and music have all been religiously influenced. Religious people have been scientists, humanitarians, healers and teachers. The world is full of great examples of religious behavior that dwarf the angry cries of those who claim religion is evil.

That was just one incident, only one of many.

As for the music, art, architecture, etc. ... don't be a fool. The Church was about the only institution that that had concentrated sufficient wealth to be able to afford such "frivolous" pastimes. I guess that next thing you'll tell us is that Hollywood is the best thing since sliced bread since that's where most of the great recent orchestral music was produced.

 

[sheck33]

Man's law is artificial and we can change it at will. Sin is violation of God's law.

No. It's explained by pointing out that you have it all wrong. You pose a straw-man argument. You misstate the doctrin and then procede to argue with yourself. You win.

I suppose that if you want to look at it that way, all law and government is simply about control...threaten them with fines and prison and they'll do just about anything. Let's have a free-for-all.

'God's' law, written down by man if I remember correctly.

Ok lets get this straight:

god is supposedly 'all knowing' yes? that must be true since god is 'omnipotent'

god 'creates' man and woman

god puts them in a garden with a fruit tree

now, an 'all knowing' god knows in advance what his 'creation' will do or he'd not be all knowing (i.e. omnipotent)

he knows they'll eat from the tree (of course it is all the womans fault, another indication that the bible is written by men with an agenda i.e. power)

he then proceeds to severly punish them for something he knew they'd do in the first place.

Where did I go wrong, that IS the story isnt it.
That certainly doesnt look like a benevolent god to me.

Now that we are at the subject of punishing. Lets talk about 'Hell', what possible purpose would hell serve? Hell is NOT punishment, it would be torture for the sake of torture, nothing more. You punish to discourage some kind of behaviour from happening again in the future. That is by definition what punishment is all about. So a 'real' hell, i.e eternal 'punishment', would only serve a sadistic god and serve no actual practical purpose. In reality of course the fear of hell is used to control people.

 

[kombiguy]

That was just one incident, only one of many.

As for the music, art, architecture, etc. ... don't be a fool. The Church was about the only institution that that had concentrated sufficient wealth to be able to afford such "frivolous" pastimes. I guess that next thing you'll tell us is that Hollywood is the best thing since sliced bread since that's where most of the great recent orchestral music was produced.

Thanks for the insight. Once again, an attempt at a polite dialogue has degenerated into someone calling me a name. I don't even know you, and yet you insult me.

Be that as it may, not only the church, but various royalty, as well as rich people in general supported the arts. The fact that the church was the leading patron of the arts doesn't detract from the fact that the art was religiously moved. Could Michaelangelo have produced a "Pieta" if he wasn't a devout believer? I doubt it.
I also doubt that Hollywood has produced most great recent orchestral music. Some, perhaps, not most.

Further, I don't believe that art, music, architecture, et. al. are frivolous. I believe that they are the only things that are, in the end, really worthwhile.

 

[sheck33]

Not quite. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were not killing millions of people in the name of religion, but in the name of anti-religion. Between the four of them, they killed what, 40, 50 million people.
Contrast that to the record of religion, which invented hospitals, universities, and in the case of the Irish, preserved civilization for the rest of western Christendom. While not perfect by any means, the record of western Christianity is an admirable one of the power of humanity to rise above the secular and display the best we mortals are capable of.

If there is ONE thing that has slowed the progression of science it is religion! If it werent for religieus dogma (dogma = turn off the brain and do not think for oneself), science would be 500+ years ahead of where we are now. Give me a break, religieus dogma has done nothing but fuel wars and oppose critical thinking and progression. Display the best we are capable off? What a joke, more people have been murdered in the name of god than for any other reason.

 

[Warthaug]

Fundie? Hardly.

If you're going to use their strategies (i.e. re-writing history to fit your pre-formed ideas) then you shouldn't be surprised if you get painted with the same brush.

Traditional Roman Catholic who, BTW, accepts evolution. The fact that Hitler said he was a Christian doesn't make him one, anymore than my saying I'm a brain surgeon makes me one.

However, he certainly would not be "anti-religious", which was how you phrased it. He was the exact opposite - he saw religion as an excuse for the very things he did. He specifically protected and promoted a religious faith, and both the Catholic and Protestant churches befitted greatly from his patronage. You may try to argue that he wasn't a Christian, but he thought he was, and the churches he honored didn't bother saying otherwise until after he was dead.

The others you listed killed in the name of communism, not "anti-religion". Nor did they preferentially target religious individuals. Pol pot killed most of his people through simply forcing an agrarian society, and executing anyone who disagreed.

Stalin killed indiscriminately, with many of his victims being communists (i.e. nominal atheists). Quite interestingly, Stalin himself may not have been an atheist; he was trained as a priest, and by some accounts maintained that faith throughout most/all of his life. He even re-opened churches in WWII, reversing much of the "anti-religious" activities of his predecessors.

Like Stalin, Mao killed indiscriminately. He targeted members of the old government, west-friendly individuals, competitors within his communist party, and the vast majority simply through his war and forced land reforms. Mao's cultural revolution, who's purpose was to destroy the last vestiges of the "liberal bourgeoisie, did target some religious organizations (while others enjoyed protection), but also targeted artists, party members and authors.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie

As far as hospitals and universities, I will admit to a euro-centric perspective and plead ignorance as to the state of Chinese civilization. What the Greeks had were hardly universities in the sense we think of them now, although your point about education is well taken.

Actually, they are quite similar to what we have now, with most modern universities being structured along the same lines as the Greek ones (formally called academies). Even todays degree structure - bachelors, masters and doctorate, has its origins in the Greek academies. About the only difference today is scale and the separation into different faculties.

As for preserving civilization, there is an admirable book entitled "How the Irish Saved Civilization." Written by, I believe, an Irishman, though his name escapes me at the moment. Endorsed by me, another Irishman!

According to the book jacket, and the few reviews I read, the book claims the Irish preserved (and later re-spread to northern Europe) roman catholicism in the early days after the fall of the roman empire. Hardly saving western civilization, unless religion is all that our society is...

The fact of the matter is that evil, like goodness, has been committed by all manners of people. I am, however, relatively certain that religion has produced more of a positive record than negative,

I'd argue the opposite, but regardless...

and that the lack of religion has never had as healthy an effect on civilization as its lack.

I'd also argue the opposite here. Nearly all of the advances we attribute to modern society - development of technology, human rights, civil rights, universal suffrage, etc, all occurred first (and are largely restricted to) secular nations - by which I mean nations which hold that church and state are to be separate. In contrast, societies heavily dominated by religion, or where church and state are linked - the middle east and medieval europe as extreme cases - completely lack these traits.

Likewise, there is a well-established link between how religious a society is and how violent it is; with secular nations being less violent, having fewer teen pregnancies, fewer divorces, fewer std's, and so forth.

For example: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

As a scientist I can tell you that religion has had a horrendous effect on the progress of science, and continues to hamper scientific advance to this day.

Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

Thanks for the insight. Once again, an attempt at a polite dialogue has degenerated into someone calling me a name. I don't even know you, and yet you insult me.

All I said was, "don't be a fool." If you find that an insult I apologize, I meant that along the lines of, "don't step in the dog poo."

Be that as it may, not only the church, but various royalty, as well as rich people in general supported the arts. The fact that the church was the leading patron of the arts doesn't detract from the fact that the art was religiously moved. Could Michaelangelo have produced a "Pieta" if he wasn't a devout believer? I doubt it.

Was he a devout believer? How devout? Could Michaelangelo have produced a "David" if he wasn't gay? I doubt it.

I also doubt that Hollywood has produced most great recent orchestral music. Some, perhaps, not most.

Try making a list of recent composers off the top of your head. Who's at the top of the list? John Williams, Max Steiner, Jerry Goldsmith, Elmer Bernstein, Henry Mancini, Leonard Bernstein, Sergei Prokofiev, Aaron Copland, Quincy Jones, Marvin Hamlisch, Andre Previn Randy Newman, Bernard Herrmann, Ennio Morricone, etc. Sure ... they all did other things, but they all made a great deal of their money from movie scores.

Further, I don't believe that art, music, architecture, et. al. are frivolous. I believe that they are the only things that are, in the end, really worthwhile.

I don't believe that they are frivolous either, I was only pointing out the huge concentration of wealth within the Church.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Originally Posted by Soggy
What does any of that have to do with ignoring some parts of the Old Testament and vehemently adhering to others? How do you decide what the "good" parts are and what the "bad" parts are? Beating your wife and slavery is no longer acceptable behavior, but homosexuality is wrong. You can't have it both ways...Either it is the word of God, or it is not. How do you reconcile that?

This key point will of course be ignored again....

The question hasn't been ignored. I've tried to answer it several different times and I've suggested other reading that would answer it better.

I'll try to come up with a way to answer in a way that you and soggy will understand.

 

[MikeFerrara]

What does any of that have to do with ignoring some parts of the Old Testament and vehemently adhering to others? How do you decide what the "good" parts are and what the "bad" parts are? Beating your wife and slavery is no longer acceptable behavior, but homosexuality is wrong. You can't have it both ways...Either it is the word of God, or it is not. How do you reconcile that?

It's not "good parts" and "bad parts" and none of it is being ignored. It's the old covenant and the new covenant. Here is a page that comapres the old covenant and the new covenant with brief explanaitions and Bible references. Brief Comparison between the Old Covenant and New Covenant in the Bible

The reference to "second death" refers to eternal spritual death (seperation from God).

If you have further questions, please ask.

 

[MikeFerrara]

It sounds to me as if your life is a bit of a "trust me" dive.

I mean..... if you have faith that you are following your best belief have at it. however - it IS just faith, it IS just trust.

At the end of the day who's going to get the biggest surprise? The ones who didn't really bother too much with all this faith stuff, or the ones who were sure they were right....but were wrong. Because they WILL be. That's a part of whole deal isn't it? It's too much for lowly man to understand. We have no real say, because we'll never "get it", as hard as we try.

It's a "trust me" dive.

And if I'm going to trust anyway....why not trust that it's all OK, and there's nothing to be afraid of.....except yourself (which is plain dumb when one get's right down to it)

Yes ist's sort of like a trust me dive...but we have good reason to trust.

 

[grazie42]

Yes ist's sort of like a trust me dive...but we have good reason to trust.

But how did you make that determination? To trust christianity...

You have a whole buffet of "vendors"(religions, political and philosophical "ways of life") offering "trust me dives", how did you come to choose christianity?

Since all these offer the same terms ie "in the long run we are all dead" (and then you´ll see)...what made christianity appealing to you? If you believe in this "stuff" then choosing "religion" is likely the most important choice of your life (and afterlife), I hope you didn´t make it "on a whim"...for your sake...i´d think it would make sense to to choose the one with the best "terms" (for both life and afterlife)...