Formally anythingforums.com, iceteks.com, uovalor.com and uogateway.com Forums.
https://www.anyf.ca/
sintekk wrote:Evolution and big bang are two different theories as far as I knowRed Squirrel wrote: It says that the big bang created the Earth/Universe
Never did... nor did I hear of it.shenbaw wrote: Okay, since Red ignored my inquiry...
Has anyone read The DaVinci Code???
Everyone I know that has read it, has loved. I'm almost done and I think I've read it faster than any book I've ever read. It's good.sintekk wrote: Nope, heard good things about it though. Can you give me the general gist of it?
I went to a book discussion group in which it was discussed. I didn't have a chance to read the book before the discussion, but I got the general gist of it. SUPPOSEDLY, Jesus had a secret marriage to Mary Magdalene, and she had a child and a secret group has been keeping the lineage a secret for 2000 years. I have an issue of Discover magazine that deals with some of the scientific stuff mentioned in the book, and some of it is accurate but quite a bit of it is not. Also, from a religious standpoint,(and my wife thought of this before I did) the Bride of Christ is the Church, not Mary Magdalene. Jesus would not be having two brides.shenbaw wrote: Okay, since Red ignored my inquiry...
Has anyone read The DaVinci Code???
You're naughty.shenbaw wrote: I've heard the church is very good in bed.
Dictionary.com saysMerriam-Webster wrote: one who believes that there is no deity
Wiktionary saysDictionary.com wrote: 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. A godless person. [Obs.]
Whereas Wikipedia saysWiktionary wrote: A person who does not have a belief that one or more deity exists.
See also: agnostic
The Cow saysWikipedia wrote: Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods." [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist)
Some atheists distinguish between two variants:
Weak atheism, sometimes negative atheism, is the position that there lacks reason to assert the existence or nonexistence of gods. A weak atheist abstains from positive judgment and retains tolerance of the possibility of the existence and nonexistence of gods. Weak atheism is not equivalent to agnosticism, although there is often an overlap. A weak atheist maintains that there lacks sufficient evidence to certainly claim the existence or nonexistence of gods.
Strong atheism, or positive atheism, is the belief that gods do not exist, which is different from a lack of theistic belief. Strong atheists often cite logical impossibilities and other a priori arguments intending to demonstrate theistic concepts of godly omnipotence, omniscience, and/or transcendance are contradictory and/or internally inconsistent.
Critics of strong atheism contend that atheism requires faith due to a supposed impossibility of proving negatives; an assertion that there are no gods requires omniscience to be certain there are no gods in the universe. Strong atheists counter that for most mainstream concepts of gods this is a straw man fallacy, since strong atheism is based on a priori, rather than a posteriori arguments. Strong atheists consider it irrational to assert the existence of a god whose existence transcends human logic and/or the, albeit incomplete, laws of physics. Other strong atheists, who rely on evidential grounds, maintain the case for the nonexistence of gods is supported by more evidence than the case for the existence of gods, and that negatives are possible to prove.
So the definition does vary a bit, but it seems to me there is a tendency to deny the existence of a god. Even though weak atheists may concede the possibility, which can give them the name agnostic, there is a tendency to deny, so not all agnostics are atheists.Cow wrote: Moo.
What does the Chicken say on this matter?manadren wrote: The Cow saysCow wrote: Moo.
Meow (Chicken is learning a foreign language)sintekk wrote:What does the Chicken say on this matter?manadren wrote: The Cow saysCow wrote: Moo.
Red its not that I only believe in parts of the bible it's that I interperate the bible in a way which is entirely not literal. God created the heavens and the earth.. ok how?.. does it say? No. it doesn't because we couldn't understand how when that book was given to us.Red Squirrel wrote:Easy. Evolution.FloodG8-9595 wrote:I CHALLENGE YOU to offer me anything in science that completley disproves the possibility of the existance of God.Red Squirrel wrote: Well it makes sense. If there's no God, then there's no God's son, and there's no calvary.... so if you don't believe in Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins, then by definition are not a Christian.
First line In the Bible: (the word)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
Before time existed, God (who always existed, as it's not mentioned that he apeared, it simply says God, meaning he's been around before the beginning) created the heavens, meaning the entire universe - basically everything, and the Earth is included in this.
Then in the new testament. (john)
In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
The bible is the word of God and everything was made Through God as stated in the Bible.
In God's word is Christianity beliefs, such as the fact that we are sinners and that Jesus died for us, and that God created everything.
In evolution, God did not create the Earth, so that makes the bible wrong, it makes the fact that there is a God, wrong. Then God did not really send his son to die on the cross and we're probably not even sinners anyway, and the bible is not really his Word since if it's false.
So it's either you believe in the Bible and God or don't.
I guess you could argue that you only believe in parts of the Bible but if a Book is only partially right, then how accurate is it really?
I feel much better knowing the Word is completely accurate, and that evolution isin't. Maybe God made evolution happen, but I would think it would be stated clearer in the Bible if it were the case, and it would go against the 6 days.
So it's Bible or Evolution.
I don't know, I do think that conversation with you would be interesting on the subject, but the internet is no place for it. It is my view that Jesus was not the perfect person that the church soon after made him to be. There was a lot of information controlling on the subject at the time by those in charge. The problem with humanity is humanity, we had desires and passions and feelings. The son of god, put into human form is flawed, like all man. However, he is still the son of god, and in the end, overcame his fears and showed that all mankind can do it as well, for we are all the sons and daughters of god.Bookworm wrote:I went to a book discussion group in which it was discussed. I didn't have a chance to read the book before the discussion, but I got the general gist of it. SUPPOSEDLY, Jesus had a secret marriage to Mary Magdalene, and she had a child and a secret group has been keeping the lineage a secret for 2000 years. I have an issue of Discover magazine that deals with some of the scientific stuff mentioned in the book, and some of it is accurate but quite a bit of it is not. Also, from a religious standpoint,(and my wife thought of this before I did) the Bride of Christ is the Church, not Mary Magdalene. Jesus would not be having two brides.shenbaw wrote: Okay, since Red ignored my inquiry...
Has anyone read The DaVinci Code???
Actually the divinity was affirmed at the council. Some groups were saying he was, and some groups were saying he wasn't, and the counsel affirmed that the church's position would be with those who had historically believed he was. It is not like they just thought of it for the first time at that council.shenbaw wrote: Did you know that the divinity of Jesus was decided upon by a majority of the 318 bishops present at the Counsil of Nicea.
Bookworm will no doubt call me a liar on that, but that's okay.
Wow, that was much more accepting that what I expected to hear.Bookworm wrote: Actually the divinity was affirmed at the council. Some groups were saying he was, and some groups were saying he wasn't, and the counsel affirmed that the church's position would be with those who had historically believed he was. It is not like they just thought of it for the first time at that council.
To err is human. If the son of god walked the earth today, I'm sure there would still be a lot that rejected that, even in the religious community. My issue is that these people who are obviously not correct in their faith still continued to make an impact in the direct of the church and the word of the lord. That hasn't changed, and evidence shows that their personal ambition may have influenced the text. I cannot accept that the bible is the absolute word of god, I do accept it's teaching fully.shenbaw wrote: You'd think that people who lived just shortly after the son of God himself walked the earth would be more convinced than anyone of his perfect existence, and thus his divinity and direct relation to the Lord.
