Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Child rape? see the Sermon on the Mount.

Do quote.

 

[cannibal.horse]

Just because the "Church" in question is not creationist, that - most emphatically - does not mean that their congregations follow that particular (often rather quietly admitted) allowance.

I mean, really. 40% of surveyed respondents to a 1999 Gallup poll in the US (to use an extreme Western example; I'm certain it's greater in the less educated corners of the world) essentially stated that creationism > evolution. In the 2007 census, 78.4% of respondents classified themselves as Christian, and 24% of that affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

That study sounds dubious at best.

After Vatican II the Catholic church accepted evolution, nobody is teaching otherwise. And with a universal understanding of Genesis the two are largely relative.

I can tell you for certain this is also the stance of the Orthodox and High Anglican church, which equate for the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country.

 

[moll.]

I suppose you could say from many 'vessels' - see Job 38: 1-41 outlining God's presence in natural phenomina (Bernards)

The bible is where it is on immaculate conception, along with church doctrine in Vatican II and various older doctines I hardly spend hours reading.

You'd be aware that the current Papacy is linked historically and can be traced back to Peter, 'the rock' of the church.

The ability to grant indulgences was largely overturned post reformation, that was a rather dark day in our church's history I'll agree.

Child rape? see the Sermon on the Mount.

What an appropriate title.

 

[cannibal.horse]

Hillsong and planetshakers and the other christianity-lite kids are on the rise.

With their whooping 2% of the population. The losers are that moronic they've been naming themselves under dozens of different churches for the census over the last 20 years.

 

[cannibal.horse]

What an appropriate title.

DA-DOOM-TISH !!!11

 

[moll.]

DA-DOOM-TISH !!!11

eh?

 

[Kwayera]

That study sounds dubious at best.

After Vatican II the Catholic church accepted evolution, nobody is teaching otherwise. And with a universal understanding of Genesis the two are largely relative.

Given that South Africa only introduced the teaching of evolution into its national schools this year, and that SA is 80% Christian (7% Catholic - that's 3.5 million people), and that this pattern is repeated on a larger scale on the continent and worldwide, do you want to revise your equally dubious "statistic" that 100% of the 1 billion Catholics worldwide believe in evolution?


This is all besides the point, anyway. I said that a large proportion of Christians worldwide take the Bible (specifically Genesis) literally. I still stand by that statement, because no matter what your Church says, you're still going to have Catholics (for example) getting divorced and getting abortions and what have you - but oh, wait, that means they're not real Catholics/Christians, right?

 

[cannibal.horse]

eh?

I thought it needed a drumroll.

My point is this: you lot are having a debate on whether God exists. Fantastic.

However, the crux of 90% of your arguements is this 'literal reading of Genesis' vs Evolution debate as well as jabs at various Halachah. Which would be fine if we were talking Baptists or Exclusive Brethren.

All liturgy centred worship varients (which make up over 1 billion of the Christian population) and some scripture centred varients (uniting, presbyterian etc) accept evolution. You cannot compare/contrast Genesis and Evolution as if the are opposites because from a universal understanding these are complimentary.

Don't strawman all christian varients together because a bunch of fucks who make a connection between religion and tax evasion take it literally, because they account for a tiny minority of Christians.


While I'm here a big shout out goes to all those Christians out there with those bizarre and contradictionary arguements who basically eat out of the Atheist's hands. You not only skew and confuse this debate, but also your own varients. Christ would be proud.

 

[cannibal.horse]

Given that South Africa only introduced the teaching of evolution into its national schools this year, and that SA is 80% Christian (7% Catholic - that's 3.5 million people), and that this pattern is repeated on a larger scale on the continent and worldwide, do you want to revise your equally dubious "statistic" that 100% of the 1 billion Catholics worldwide believe in evolution?

Considering Vatican II allows it, the most significant doctrine created by Pope John XXIII and his successor John Paul II which reformed the treatment of scripture, the mass and the church hierarchy, I'd say yes, yes my figure is entirely right.

Unless they're imposing some other secular/spiritual viewpoint contradicting church doctrine.

 

[Kwayera]

Considering Vatican II allows it, the most significant doctrine created by Pope John XXIII and his successor John Paul II which reformed the treatment of scripture, the mass and the church hierarchy, I'd say yes, yes my figure is entirely right.

I dunno, Hank, I think that darn statement there needs some proof, doncha think? All brazen-like.


EDIT: Feel welcome to say "most" or "a statistically significant proportion (p < 0.05)" of Catholics believe in evolution, because the Vatican II "allows it". That I'd be willing to accept, the latter with supporting references. Otherwise, you cannot purport to speak for all those 1 billion people, and attempting to do so is egotistic on your part (at best).

 

[cannibal.horse]

This is all besides the point, anyway. I said that a large proportion of Christians worldwide take the Bible (specifically Genesis) literally. I still stand by that statement, because no matter what your Church says, you're still going to have Catholics (for example) getting divorced and getting abortions and what have you - but oh, wait, that means they're not real Catholics/Christians, right?

Quit editing shit in.

I'll agree if by 'large portion' you mean that there are many of the minority who agree.

Hang on, if you want to find church opinions on it why don't you dig up doctrines of my church, other liturgy centred varients (which I've already said constituted a majority) and church leaders because what, they direct the laity at all? how can you have our current Cardinal Pell accepting evolution as complimentary to the Genesis story on one hand and 'the church being against evolution' on the other?

I am willing to admit, as this thread prooves, that there are a lot of very confused lay members out there. But that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

And no, according to Vatican II there are many paths to Christ, I can't dismiss other varients as non-Christian. However, I cannot accept sacraments or communion from Anglican priests because they are invalid.

 

[nikolas]

I thought it needed a drumroll.

My point is this: you lot are having a debate on whether God exists. Fantastic.

However, the crux of 90% of your arguements is this 'literal reading of Genesis' vs Evolution debate as well as jabs at various Halachah. Which would be fine if we were talking Baptists or Exclusive Brethren.

All liturgy centred worship varients (which make up over 1 billion of the Christian population) and some scripture centred varients (uniting, presbyterian etc) accept evolution. You cannot compare/contrast Genesis and Evolution as if the are opposites because from a universal understanding these are complimentary.

Don't strawman all christian varients together because a bunch of fucks who make a connection between religion and tax evasion take it literally, because they account for a tiny minority of Christians.


While I'm here a big shout out goes to all those Christians out there with those bizarre and contradictionary arguements who basically eat out of the Atheist's hands. You not only skew and confuse this debate, but also your own varients. Christ would be proud.

The main argument of atheists is lack of reason/evidence to believe in god. The rest is all background static.

Its Funny though, how so much of the bible is interpreted as metaphor, yet the main character is thought to be real.

She is not committing a strawman fallacy at all, theists in this thread actually argue against evolution.

 

[Kwayera]

Hang on, if you want to find church opinions on it why don't you dig up doctrines of my church, other liturgy centred varients (which I've already said constituted a majority) and church leaders because what, they direct the laity at all?

Actually I had a quick flick through Vatican II and Dei Verbum, and deep beyond the metaphysical mumbojumbo, I found this gem: "But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written."

To be honest, I think it's rather arrogant to point at something and say "it's metaphor", centuries after the fact. How can they know, and how can they know that their interpretation is the correct "sacred spirit in which it was written?" And don't take that as an attack - it's an honest question, and one that has never been adequately explained to me beyond "the interpretation was divinely inspired", which doesn't answer the question.

how can you have our current Cardinal Pell accepting evolution as complimentary to the Genesis story on one hand and 'the church being against evolution' on the other?

Fucked if I know. I have beefs with all of Christianity, and Catholicism doesn't escape my wrath because it's "modern" on some fronts.

 

[cannibal.horse]

I dunno, Hank, I think that darn statement there needs some proof, doncha think? All brazen-like.


EDIT: Feel welcome to say "most" or "a statistically significant proportion (p < 0.05)" of Catholics believe in evolution, because the Vatican II "allows it". That I'd be willing to accept, the latter with supporting references. Otherwise, you cannot purport to speak for all those 1 billion people, and attempting to do so is egotistic on your part (at best).

check this.

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Pope Benedict II, deferring to scientific method.

 

[Kwayera]

I know. I've read it, and I never denied that the Catholic church supports evolution.

What I denied is that every single one of the 1 billion Catholics supports it, for whatever reason - indoctrination, lack of education, whatever - and that you still have yet to provide evidence for.


EDIT: To be continued, I'm going to bed.

 

[Graney]

I know. I've read it, and I never denied that the Catholic church supports evolution.

What I denied is that every single one of the 1 billion Catholics supports it, for whatever reason - indoctrination, lack of education, whatever - and that you still have yet to provide evidence for.


EDIT: To be continued, I'm going to bed.

Pedant

 

[cannibal.horse]

Actually I had a quick flick through Vatican II and Dei Verbum, and deep beyond the metaphysical mumbojumbo, I found this gem: "But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written.".

Yup.

To be honest, I think it's rather arrogant to point at something and say "it's metaphor", centuries after the fact. How can they know, and how can they know that their interpretation is the correct "sacred spirit in which it was written?" And don't take that as an attack - it's an honest question, and one that has never been adequately explained to me beyond "the interpretation was divinely inspired", which doesn't answer the question.

Quite simply Christ spoke to his followers in many ways (summaries, parables, guidelines, clear rules etc). Even clear teachings (eg the Lords prayer) can be interpreted on many levels. And as people and society change that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Fucked if I know. I have beefs with all of Christianity, and Catholicism doesn't escape my wrath because it's "modern" on some fronts.

Well it was your assumption. What is your 'beef' with organised religion anyway? Religious hierarchy is made up of people. Naturally when there are people who want to hold onto power they’re going to take more conservative viewpoints. The Catholic church has had its problems sure, but generally it is a positive force. I’d back it over state Labor anyday.

What I denied is that every single one of the 1 billion Catholics supports it, for whatever reason - indoctrination, lack of education, whatever - and that you still have yet to provide evidence for.

Again, a religion is made up of people. Some Catholics have red hair and others don’t. But that the Papacy is deferring to scientists, as well as the opinions of a number of Australian bishops supports evolution then one would have to say that those Catholics who are choosing to ignore it - due to spiritual and non-spiritual beliefs - are really going out on a limb.


I'm out for the night too, fuck I'm going to be fucked tomorrow morning.

 

[cannibal.horse]

Before I go,

The main argument of atheists is lack of reason/evidence to believe in god. The rest is all background static.

Great, you keep debating the evidence for God, but as I have argued if evolution is complimentary to Christian beliefs then it should not be a point of contention.

Its Funny though, how so much of the bible is interpreted as metaphor, yet the main character is thought to be real.

Who would have thought?

She is not committing a strawman fallacy at all, theists in this thread actually argue against evolution.

As I pointed out, I do not condone those theists. They're eatting out of your hand.

 

[55HS]

All liturgy centred worship varients (which make up over 1 billion of the Christian population) and some scripture centred varients (uniting, presbyterian etc) accept evolution. You cannot compare/contrast Genesis and Evolution as if the are opposites because from a universal understanding these are complimentary.

It appears to me that there is nothing which science could come up with which would/could not be complimentary to your idea of God.

 

[Hajime]

It appears to me that there is nothing which science could come up with which would/could not be complimentary to your idea of God.

Lol! 11,000+ Posts!








Ooooh! nearly 12,000!