Teaching Creationism.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: 1. We no longer practice polygamy. - that practice was banned MANY years ago. You are thinking of the offshoot FLDS church which are a group of sick people. They are not the official LDS Church. 2. There are literally 1000s of Christian sects which have different biblical translations and interpretations of the bible. - So you're believe that faulty interpretation makes you not Christian is also wrong. 3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. - We're one of the few christian sects that actually have Christ in the name. So you're wrong. 4. We worship Jesus Christ. - So we're christian. And you're wrong. 5. You're wrong. - Okay, that's not a good argument, but it was fun to say it. 1. ok then, mormons no longer have underaged polygamie, then all other rules they have exclude christianity (disregarding modern achievements = disregarding men's free will) 2. 1000 faulty interpretation of the bible make 1000 non-christians. 3. if I name myself "the church of jesus christ and myself as the porno-saint" I'm not christian, even though theres "jesus christ" in the name 4. that doesn't make you christian. tell a muslim you worship mohammed but you think he liked alcohol and pig meat very much in your interpretation of koran. now ask him if you're muslim. 5. the pope is right.

1. "underaged"? What the fuck are you talking about? Again, that was the off-shoot FLDS, psychokind. And if we want to talk about disregarding free will, the Catholic Church supported slavery.

Polygamy was always consentual between the people involved. We never forced underaged girls to get married to men like the sickos down in wherever that compound was. Please get your facts straight before you debate with people because I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

2. +1 to what SBF said.

3. 1 person versus 10 million "Mormons" worldwide. Yeah, we are christians.

4. Ah, your logic being you can only worship Christ if you're perfect about everything, huh? Humans aren't perfect. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and is my personal savior? So I'm not Christian, you say?

5. The Pope has a tall hat, but that doesn't make him right (although he is a very spiritual man no doubt, and I would say he's about 75% right on the issues.) My spiritual leader after God and Jesus Christ is a man named Thomas S. Monson, a Prophet called and appointed by God. He's got it 100% right. Enjoy your pope.

[Edit: And this is why I advised against religious debate. I didn't intend for this thread to go into the issues of religion, merely on the issue of whether Creationism should be taught in school, not on the finer points of religion. Perhaps stupidly.]

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

4. Ah, your logic being you can only worship Christ if you're perfect about everything, huh? Humans aren't perfect. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and is my personal savior? So I'm not Christian, you say?

Man it's been a while since I've brought out my bible. Haha terrible Christian right here, for serious. If we're going to go with that argument (assuming so, at least), I'll whip out a few passages straight out on the matter of us being perfect:

I John 2:8: If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Romans 3:23 (one of my personal favourites, has been since I was 3): For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Just sayin'. We're not perfect. Only way to become perfect in the least to be able to worship God is to die and enter into heaven.

Of course, if that wasn't the argument, psychokind, then sort of disregard this.

Quote:

5. The Pope has a tall hat, but that doesn't make him right (although he is a very spiritual man no doubt, and I would say he's about 75% right on the issues.) My spiritual leader after God and Jesus Christ is a man named Thomas S. Monson, a Prophet called and appointed by God. He's got it 100% right. Enjoy your pope.

I think that's where we differ mainly, Jason. But hey, semantics.

Quote:

[Edit: And this is why I advised against religious debate. I didn't intend for this thread to go into the issues of religion, merely on the issue of whether Creationism should be taught in school, not on the finer points of religion. Perhaps stupidly.]

No worries. I'm monitoring this thread to make sure it doesn't devolve into flame wars.

[Jason Tandro]

I meant no offense, and as I say I'm not saying anything close to "the Pope is going to hell." I believe that any person who devotes their life to spirituality, especially to Christ is a good person and the Pope is obviously a great man in that respect. My point was merely to show that you don't have to believe in the Pope or even agree with him in order to be Christian.

And on the flame war aspect, I think it may be best if I stop responding to this thread, as I had to edit my previous post multiple times to make it board friendly.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

1. "underaged"? What the fuck are you talking about? Again, that was the off-shoot FLDS, psychokind. And if we want to talk about disregarding free will, the Catholic Church supported slavery. Polygamy was always consentual between the people involved. We never forced underaged girls to get married to men like the sickos down in wherever that compound was. Please get your facts straight before you debate with people because I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. 2. +1 to what SBF said. 3. 1 person versus 10 million "Mormons" worldwide. Yeah, we are christians. 4. Ah, your logic being you can only worship Christ if you're perfect about everything, huh? Humans aren't perfect. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and is my personal savior? So I'm not Christian, you say? 5. The Pope has a tall hat, but that doesn't make him right (although he is a very spiritual man no doubt, and I would say he's about 75% right on the issues.) My spiritual leader after God and Jesus Christ is a man named Thomas S. Monson, a Prophet called and appointed by God. He's got it 100% right. Enjoy your pope.

1. the mormon founder had about 16 wives, some of them underaged. polygamy is always uncivilised, and is in direct opposite with christianity.

2. no, the catholic church is the 1 right interpretation of the bible and the original, true old christianity. I'm in no way a religious person, but that's how it is.

3. 1,147 billion catholics.... you know what I want to say^^

4. I wanted to say, that just a "Jesus Christ" in the name of your religion name doesn't make you christian

5. the pope isn't nearly 75% right, but that doesn't matter. he's the successor of petrus, and legitimated through the gospel according to matthew. I don't know what there is to debate about.

anyways, that's not very important in terms of creationism... I showed you, that evangelists and catholics both disagree with creationism. thats:

1,147 billion and 400 milion evangelists (if you want to count them as christians). thats 1,547 from about 1,937 faggots who call themselves christian.
means: christianity doesn't approve creationism (even though I think the catholic opinion is way more than enough). that shouldn't be deniable anymore don't you think -.-

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

means: christianity doesn't approve creationism (even though I think the catholic opinion is way more than enough). that shouldn't be deniable anymore don't you think -.-

I won't touch the stuff about the LDS church as I'm not LDS myself. However, I think Genesis 1:1 sums it up pretty nicely: In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Contrary to popular belief in the Theory of Evolution, and I'm pretty sure it's damned widespread through any sect of Christianity, that you can't exactly dispute or interpret God creating Adam from the dust of the earth into a human being, as well of God creating Eve from one of Adam's rib. Unless God Himself is a giant ape, I really, REALLY doubt that we're descended from apes. That would be a direct contradiction to both what Christians DO believe (since if they follow the bible, different sects or not, that is undeniable, indisputable, and pretty self-explanatory in itself for a Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and so on in the Christian faith), so... I fail to see how Evolution would be accepted by the Catholic church if it goes against its own teachings.

Also, Catholicism and Christianity are only a few years in difference from when they were founded. I'd rather go with the church that didn't try to scam their members (paying for their family members to get out of "Purgatory"? There is no inbetween in the afterlife like that!) I don't follow the Pope. He's only human, and humans are all imperfect creatures. I don't really care who you are, holy man or not. You are not my God, I don't have to follow you.

So again: why wouldn't Christianity approve Creationism? Believing anything different would go against the writing of God. Catholics don't speak for each and every sect of Christianity.

[SoulBlazerFan]

[quote="psychokind"]

Jason Tandro wrote:

1,147 billion and 400 milion evangelists (if you want to count them as christians). thats 1,547 from about 1,937 faggots who call themselves christian. means: christianity doesn't approve creationism (even though I think the catholic opinion is way more than enough). that shouldn't be deniable anymore don't you think -.-

Was it really necessary to attack other people that way? Calling your so called "Non-Christians" faggots? Was that really necessary?

Lemme go to a proverb here;
Do not judge, lest ye be judged.

A person of faith doesn't attack other peoples faith, I don't care how hardcore you are into it. Have you asked for forgivness from your God for that? I certainly hope so.

Also, I'm pretty sure we've mentioned we didn't want to start a flame war here, psychokind. That is the bullshit that starts flame wars- we're trying to avoid something, I'm just glad it hasn't. That's really insulting and hurtful to completely ignore someone elses faith- especially if we all believe in the same universal God. I don't believe any one religion is more right than the other- but as I said, it's the egotists who drive me nuts, and I wish we could return to the original topic.

So I digress (I love using that term )

I believe enough has been said on the topic of Teaching Creationism. I'll stick to my believe it's the responsbility of the parent to teach it- or let their church teach it. I was once taken to a fascinating seminar with Christian scientists who, through their science, made the claim that carbon dating was an off science (Something I've come to believe myself) and did a presentation showing how, despite the fact we said it takes millions of years to make diamonds, a test was made where the discovered it only took them fifty years, or something to that extent. They claimed the world is probably closer to 5000 years old as opposed to the millions we've come to know.

Not sure which I really believe, I do believe carbon-dating is a weak science (It's easy for carbon-dating to be misread- anyone remember the Shroud of Torin? They said it was from the 1,500's... but because it was in a fire, the carbon-dating was off. I personally always felt that should it actually be a religious artifact, God would want us to put our faith into it instead of actual proof. )

[psychokind]

SoulBlazerFan wrote:

Was it really necessary to attack other people that way? Calling your so called "Non-Christians" faggots? Was that really necessary?

ah I'm sorry! I wanted to call all of the christians faggots. you could replace it with "humans". I'm really sorry on that one, my dialect usually replaces every third(?) word (that's the second most in germany as far as I know ) with some swearword, and normally I don't mix that up with my "internet language".

"could you please hand me the pepper?"
becomes "hey wanker, hand me the shit fucking filthpepper!" when I'm talking to friends.

radio carbon is indeed not always right, but you don't really need that. you can use sediment examination and calculate it downwards, no problem.

@raini: as pope pius XII. already stated in 1950(!), nobody can say what "Adam" exactly means, and that there's no definition of reflection of god (since we're not allowed to make one) and that "originator" is also not explained. that's why there's no problem between genesis and evolution, since evolution is not sure what the "first living thing" was exactly, as far as I know.

[Jason Tandro]

@psychokind: regarding Joseph Smith, I actually think it was more like 6, and the term "underage" wasn't even around then. The youngest was maybe 17? Still, polygamy is about one of the weakest ways to attack my church, especially since there is so much more to make fun of.

Secondly, if the Catholic Church didn't have the authority of God (again, I don't mean to offend any Catholics here) then the lineage from Peter means nothing. Peter had the authority of God, I don't believe that the Pope does. But we'll never agree on the authority of the Pope, so let's drop that digression.

Although that is one thing I should point out. The reason the LDS church schismed is because some people thought that Joseph Smith's son (his heir, if you will) should have been the next Prophet, but God knew better and appointed Brigham Young. Lineage doesn't matter except that which is ordained by God.

Secondly... or thirdly for those keeping track ... psychokind, I did refrain from using several fabulous derogatory terms that I have wanted to use since this digression began. I should hope that you do the same honor and let's all of us try to keep a civil tongue at least. Your "faggot" comment was not very far at all removed from flaming, which is not tolerated on this board. I'm not a Moderator of this board, but I still consider myself it's "daddy" if you will, and I'd rather not see it devolve into useless banter.

Also, it seems your argument is that the Catholic Church is right because it has the most members and because its the "original" church. Well allow me to break down both arguments for you.

First, there are even more Hindus than Christians. Secondly there are 1,247,000,000 CHRISTIANS but not all of those are Catholic. As I said around 10-12 million of those are Mormons.

Secondly, the modern Roman Catholic church is not based on the Orthodox (original Catholic Church). It is based on that which was in Byzantine, which was a schism of the original... so even your Catholic Church isn't the original!

[tay120n64]

psychokind wrote:

no, the catholic church is the 1 right interpretation of the bible and the original, true old christianity. I'm in no way a religious person, but that's how it is.

This is why I hate denominations. This is exactly why I refuse to associate with other Christians or ever step foot in a Church or religiously-affiliated sanction ever again. This is what has irked me about followers of Christ ever since I was old enough to legitimately understand what it meant to be a Christian.

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

You'd think that would be enough. Enough to convince people that it is theoretically impossible to correctly interpret God's Word. No one can do it. Not the Pope, not Thomas Monson, no one. (sorry about talking in absolutes there, guys, if it bothers you just ignore it, I'm only trying to make a point ) No one is perfect, so how can anyone comprehend something that is? If we are to believe that God is perfect, then his word is absolute. If his word is absolute, we would have to have experienced absolutes to understand them. And as we are not perfect, we can not comprehend something that is. We can only do our best. And if you want to believe that the founder of your denomination has a direct connection with God, more power to you. But don't force your idiosyncrasies on other people.

I get so tired of every single effing denomination trying to tell the other denominations "ur doin it rong". We all know that accepting Jesus is the first step. We all know that emulating his love and generosity are second. So what if other things are different between us? We all believe in the same God, the same Christ, and the same fundamental principles of justice and love.

What difference does it make who is more right?

Because no matter how right any one of us is, we're still all mostly wrong.

[psychokind]

tay120n64 wrote:

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ? We all believe in the same God, the same Christ, and the same fundamental principles of justice and love. What difference does it make who is more right? Because no matter how right any one of us is, we're still all mostly wrong.

we don't believe in the same god and the same christ. if you believe in the god of christianity and its jesus, you believe in the catholic church. judaism and islam has the "same" god, and they have jesus too (in a bad role though ).

" MT 16; 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

that's the pope. you can call yourself the descender of petrus, and if you find more followers than him you made it. otherwise, he's the one.

Quote:

Secondly, if the Catholic Church didn't have the authority of God (again, I don't mean to offend any Catholics here) then the lineage from Peter means nothing. Peter had the authority of God, I don't believe that the Pope does. But we'll never agree on the authority of the Pope, so let's drop that digression. Although that is one thing I should point out. The reason the LDS church schismed is because some people thought that Joseph Smith's son (his heir, if you will) should have been the next Prophet, but God knew better and appointed Brigham Young. Lineage doesn't matter except that which is ordained by God.

self explaining. lineage means nothing, god decides the next heir. pope, pope, next pope. 16 wives, 6 wives, 2 wives. polygamy =! christian.
but I agree on not involving the pope. he doesn't matter too much on the debate about creationism. only if you still want to rely on christianity as support of this belief...

Quote:

First, there are even more Hindus than Christians. Secondly there are 1,247,000,000 CHRISTIANS but not all of those are Catholic. As I said around 10-12 million of those are Mormons. Wink

we talking about hindus now? do they support creationism? I thought you were talking about christians your numbers are wrong anyways. 1,973,000,000 christians - 1,147,000,000 are catholic. 12,000,000 are mormons... impressive

Quote:

Secondly, the modern Roman Catholic church is not based on the Orthodox (original Catholic Church). It is based on that which was in Byzantine, which was a schism of the original... so even your Catholic Church isn't the original!

roman church is older than the orthodox, and orthodox don't even have the sacraments of the holy bible!

Quote:

Secondly... or thirdly for those keeping track Very Happy ... psychokind, I did refrain from using several fabulous derogatory terms that I have wanted to use since this digression began. I should hope that you do the same honor and let's all of us try to keep a civil tongue at least. Your "faggot" comment was not very far at all removed from flaming, which is not tolerated on this board. I'm not a Moderator of this board, but I still consider myself it's "daddy" if you will, and I'd rather not see it devolve into useless banter.

as I said before, it was a language-mistake and included myself as well as everyone else, just a cunfision of words. please read the post directly above yours -.-

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

we don't believe in the same god and the same christ. if you believe in the god of christianity and its jesus, you believe in the catholic church. judaism and islam has the "same" god, and they have jesus too (in a bad role though ).

God = Jesus. They're one and the same.

Quote:

we talking about hindus now? do they support creationism?

Actually, yes. Their gods created the world, life, and everything in it. If I can find my World's Wisdom book, I'll quote stuff out of their sacred texts.

Just throwing that out there, though I'm in a pretty good agreement with Tay in the matter.

[psychokind]

rainichan wrote:

God = Jesus. They're one and the same.

jesus = the son of god. self explaining, god doesn't have a shape we can imagine, and we're not allowed to make ourselves a picture of god. that's why god =! jesus, and jesus being the mediator from humans to god.

it's not that the bible doesn't tell all the time that jesus is the son of god and not god

Quote:

Actually, yes. Their gods created the world, life, and everything in it. If I can find my World's Wisdom book, I'll quote stuff out of their sacred texts. Just throwing that out there, though I'm in a pretty good agreement with Tay in the matter.

hinduism believes humans walk on earth since billions of years (when there wasn't even oxygen and earth was still terraforming btw), I thought creationism only had 10,000 at hand?

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

rainichan wrote: God = Jesus. They're one and the same. jesus = the son of god. self explaining, god doesn't have a shape we can imagine, and we're not allowed to make ourselves a picture of god. that's why god =! jesus, and jesus being the mediator from humans to god. it's not that the bible doesn't tell all the time that jesus is the son of god and not god

Three in One. God = Jesus = The Holy Spirit. Jesus is God in human form. It's easiest to think of Him as God's son, but God walked the earth as Jesus.

Quote:

hinduism believes humans walk on earth since billions of years (when there wasn't even oxygen and earth was still terraforming btw), I thought creationism only had 10,000 at hand?

That's if you're going by Christianity's version of Creationism, for the MAYBE 10,000 years the earth has been around. Hinduism still believes in the fact that their gods created the world and cosmos, and it didn't happen by some freak big bang. That's what I was getting at.

[tay120n64]

rainichan wrote:

That's if you're going by Christianity's version of Creationism, for the MAYBE 10,000 years the earth has been around. Hinduism still believes in the fact that their gods created the world and cosmos, and it didn't happen by some freak big bang. That's what I was getting at.

Another something-something to think about is the idea that the Earth did exist for an insane amount of time, and the majority of that time passed through those "Seven Days of Creation" or during Adam and Eve's time in the garden. There really isn't any evidence of what was actually considered a "day" for God when he made existence, and technically, Adam and Eve were immortal (sort of) before they ate the fruit.

I'm not saying for sure, but I've always felt it was something interesting to think about.

[inferiare]

tay120n64 wrote:

rainichan wrote: That's if you're going by Christianity's version of Creationism, for the MAYBE 10,000 years the earth has been around. Hinduism still believes in the fact that their gods created the world and cosmos, and it didn't happen by some freak big bang. That's what I was getting at. Another something-something to think about is the idea that the Earth did exist for an insane amount of time, and the majority of that time passed through those "Seven Days of Creation" or during Adam and Eve's time in the garden. There really isn't any evidence of what was actually considered a "day" for God when he made existence, and technically, Adam and Eve were immortal (sort of) before they ate the fruit. I'm not saying for sure, but I've always felt it was something interesting to think about.

Well yes, of course. It isn't to say that "seven days" should be a literal one week time, it can possibly be interpreted to "seven days = seven thousand years", and it's entirely possible that Adam and Eve were in the garden for a really long time (I don't think it says just how long they were in the garden in the bible either.) But I do agree with Jason that carbon dating isn't always accurate, so it's really up in the air with how long the earth really has been around.