PDA

View Full Version : to grow or not to grow, wwjd?



dancingqueen
12-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Just saw a quote on Facebook.

"The bible never says "figure it out". It says "Trust God". He already has it figured out!!"

This was a post made by one of our local esteemed Christians,
Does this attitude not stifle personal growth? Would God have us do this? Not question anything, just trust in a book? A man made book? Would Jesus have done this? Or would he have not wanted us to use our own brains, our own thoughts?
The Bible is so convoluted that I would suggest it impossible to not be using our own interpretations and thoughts, and thus "figuring it out" is imperative.
Thoughts?

Bluesky
12-07-2012, 09:25 AM
DQ, you are right on this score. The Bible does encourage us to inquire, and to do our best to understand. SB is expressing his own opinion, and he sometimes reflects views that I would vigorously disagree with.

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 11:15 AM
And why do you think there are so many denominations?? Everybody's take is slightly different. Blue and I agree on many things, but where we don't, what should be our response??

How about trusting that God knows what is true, and where I don't really understand, I should not be concerned.

Nothing I love better than a good bible study, where I can "figure it out". But I have little use for those where some guy's opinions are given to us in a so-called "study guide". Let the Word lead, rabbit trails and all.

IMO too many Christians worship knowledge and theological training more than God, and are actually afraid of what the bible has to say.

bilbo79
12-07-2012, 01:46 PM
How about trusting that God knows what is true, and where I don't really understand, I should not be concerned.


You've already made the worst concession and admitted you are a slave. I suppose this is really just following orders.
http://rlv.zcache.com/jesus_saves_satire_atheist_bumper_sticker-p128195307486426028en8ys_400.jpg

NewCasa
12-07-2012, 02:54 PM
Everybody's take is slightly different.

Slightly?

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 03:45 PM
You've already made the worst concession and admitted you are a slave. I suppose this is really just following orders.
http://rlv.zcache.com/jesus_saves_satire_atheist_bumper_sticker-p128195307486426028en8ys_400.jpg

My Lord died on a cross for me. Why should I do any less??

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 03:49 PM
Slightly?

Certainly. There ARE denominations of millions who agree together. And even where Christians disagree on some points, their theology agrees much more than some would like to admit.

Bluesky
12-07-2012, 04:12 PM
But I have little use for those where some guy's opinions are given to us in a so-called "study guide". Let the Word lead, rabbit trails and all.

What this means (unpacking this comment for the uninitiate because I recognize it from 40 paces) is "Let the strongest person in teh group lead, rabbit trails and all. People who want control really dislike study guides.

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 05:11 PM
What this means (unpacking this comment for the uninitiate because I recognize it from 40 paces) is "Let the strongest person in teh group lead, rabbit trails and all. People who want control really dislike study guides.

Izzat so?? Best study I was ever in was like that, and I sure was NOT the leader.

Learned a lot.

Seems to me that the books KEEP people from God's word. There's lots of scripture that our denominations NEVER touch. Those who embrace rather than fear God's word will be open to let God lead through every part of it, rather than follow a man made book.

Bluesky
12-07-2012, 07:29 PM
Those who embrace rather than fear God's word will be open to let God lead

Why must everything be an either / or with you? Why can't it be both / and?

Hans
12-07-2012, 07:53 PM
My Lord died on a cross for me. Why should I do any less??

I thought Jesus died on a cross?

KDawg
12-07-2012, 08:17 PM
I thought Jesus died on a cross?
Hans, are you really that ignorant of Christianity, or are you just trying to be d.ick?

Hans
12-07-2012, 09:48 PM
Are you saying Jesus = Lord

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 10:04 PM
Why must everything be an either / or with you? Why can't it be both / and?

After "recognize from 40 paces" your comment strikes me as pretty funny!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
12-07-2012, 10:05 PM
Are you saying Jesus = Lord

Yes, Hans, there are plenty of references in the bible that show Jesus as God, therefore Lord.

Bluesky
12-07-2012, 10:24 PM
So getting backon topic, DQ asked
Does this attitude not stifle personal growth? Would God have us do this? Not question anything, just trust in a book? A man made book? Would Jesus have done this? Or would he have not wanted us to use our own brains, our own thoughts?
The Bible is so convoluted that I would suggest it impossible to not be using our own interpretations and thoughts, and thus "figuring it out" is imperative.
Thoughts?

To be totally fair to the context in which I believe SB might have meant this - when you run into a wall, and you cannot figure out the answer, God is still trustworthy when there are no answers to your questions. I do not believe it is right to suggest that people shouldn't do their best to use their brains when considering matters of faith. We are given brains for a reason. If by convoluted, you mean complicated, I partly agree. The Bible is hard to understand in some places.

So is there a particular part of the Bible you find convoluted, DQ? Is there a question somewhere in the back of your mind?

Bluesky
12-07-2012, 10:28 PM
SB, you are speaking from the experiences you have had. And I likewise. I have experienced the group leader who wants control. In fact, you know how small groups often go. They can become little fiefdoms, and if the church leadership tries to influence and give direction, suddenly this protectionists attitude shows itself. I have seen group leaders tell their pastor in no uncertain terms to butt out. So like I said, we each have our backgrounds, which influence how we perceive things.

Barry Morris
12-08-2012, 08:50 AM
SB, you are speaking from the experiences you have had. And I likewise. I have experienced the group leader who wants control. In fact, you know how small groups often go. They can become little fiefdoms, and if the church leadership tries to influence and give direction, suddenly this protectionists attitude shows itself. I have seen group leaders tell their pastor in no uncertain terms to butt out. So like I said, we each have our backgrounds, which influence how we perceive things.

The desire to control shows up in every area of the life of the church, so small groups certainly aren't any different.

The study that did so much for me so many years ago was an official, assembly sanctioned and advertised group. It predated the small group name now in use, but it operated just the same way.

In attendance at every meeting were one or more elders of the church and that probably helped to keep the control issues under wraps. A group leader who unilaterally tells the pastor to butt out probably has a problem. If however, the elders of the church are closely involved in the group, that should not happen.

Unless the pastor is the controller!!! :) :) :)

Hans
12-08-2012, 02:55 PM
Yes, Hans, there are plenty of references in the bible that show Jesus as God, therefore Lord.

And also human?

Barry Morris
12-08-2012, 04:43 PM
And also human?

Yes, that is correct.

Bluesky
12-08-2012, 10:03 PM
Hans, are you really that ignorant of Christianity, or are you just trying to be d.ick?

A good pedagogue would not advise this kind of exhortation :)

Hans
12-09-2012, 03:47 PM
Yes, that is correct.

Human, Lord and God all in one?

KDawg
12-09-2012, 05:13 PM
A good pedagogue would not advise this kind of exhortation :)
True, but sometimes one just has to ask.

Barry Morris
12-09-2012, 05:35 PM
Human, Lord and God all in one?

Yes, amazing isn't it.

God, ya know.

Hans
12-10-2012, 06:15 AM
That has far reaching implications.

The Left Sock
12-10-2012, 07:44 AM
Yeah, if God has a split personality, you're talking a cosmic Brady Bunch, all rolled up into one Almighty!

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 08:24 AM
Yeah, if God has a split personality, you're talking a cosmic Brady Bunch, all rolled up into one Almighty!

Can God be fully defined in human terms?

dancingqueen
12-10-2012, 08:51 AM
So getting backon topic, DQ asked

To be totally fair to the context in which I believe SB might have meant this - when you run into a wall, and you cannot figure out the answer, God is still trustworthy when there are no answers to your questions. I do not believe it is right to suggest that people shouldn't do their best to use their brains when considering matters of faith. We are given brains for a reason. If by convoluted, you mean complicated, I partly agree. The Bible is hard to understand in some places.

So is there a particular part of the Bible you find convoluted, DQ? Is there a question somewhere in the back of your mind?

I don't really have any particular questions insofar as what the Bible says, more about how people justify following some parts of the Bible, yet ignore other parts both implied and not implied, but mostly implied. I'm sure it happens with other religions, and to be fair I certainly do see it in atheism I just bring this up in Christian format because I am more familiar with it. Furthurmore, I do see more societal harm that comes from this dissonance than with atheism.

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 09:10 AM
I.... Furthurmore, I do see more societal harm that comes from this dissonance than with atheism.

Such as???

The Left Sock
12-10-2012, 09:35 AM
"Can God be fully defined in human terms?"

That's just what I did!

dancingqueen
12-10-2012, 10:04 AM
Such as???

The satisfaction of not thinking or expanding one's own horizons for starters.
Self actualization if you will

Bluesky
12-10-2012, 11:36 AM
The satisfaction of not thinking or expanding one's own horizons for starters

I fail to see this as a uniquely "Christian" problem This is endemic to the human race, don't you think?

People tend to reach for systems that confirm their biases, but this is not the fault or result of that system of belief.
It may be a false motive for faith, but that does not make the object of faith any less or more true.

In fact, the question of motive or even how I use/abuse the tenet of my faith is irrelevant when it comes to deciding on the truth of a belief system.

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 01:44 PM
The satisfaction of not thinking or expanding one's own horizons for starters.
Self actualization if you will

When I think of how much science has been advanced by Christians, I can certainly reject any such opinions.

dancingqueen
12-10-2012, 01:53 PM
I fail to see this as a uniquely "Christian" problem This is endemic to the human race, don't you think?


I'm sure it happens with other religions, and to be fair I certainly do see it in atheism I just bring this up in Christian format because I am more familiar with it.


People tend to reach for systems that confirm their biases, but this is not the fault or result of that system of belief.
It may be a false motive for faith, but that does not make the object of faith any less or more true.
I think you misunderstand my motives. I never said that it is the fault of the belief, however, I will suggest that the motive of the faith is directly correlated to the object of the faith, perhaps not always intentional, but we all know good intentions can still be harmful.


In fact, the question of motive or even how I use/abuse the tenet of my faith is irrelevant when it comes to deciding on the truth of a belief system.
I will not deny your intent to remain objective, however, as you just pointed out people will reach for the belief systems that confirm their biases. I suspect you, along with the rest of humanity is not immune to the detrimental effects of cognitive dissonance.

dancingqueen
12-10-2012, 01:56 PM
When I think of how much science has been advanced by Christians, I can certainly reject any such opinions.

can you think of much insofar as how Christianity has advanced science?
Science is a separate entity from religion. When advancing in the scientific field, one's religious beliefs are not being applied, rather the laws of science are. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Bluesky
12-10-2012, 04:50 PM
"immune to the detrimental effects of cognitive dissonance."

Please give me your definition of cognitive dissonance.

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 06:42 PM
"Can God be fully defined in human terms?"

That's just what I did!

Nope.

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 06:48 PM
can you think of much insofar as how Christianity has advanced science?
Science is a separate entity from religion. When advancing in the scientific field, one's religious beliefs are not being applied, rather the laws of science are. You are comparing apples to oranges.

No, you are saying that they oppose each other. Obviously many scientists would disagree,

And I did not say Christianity advanced science. I said Christians had done so. Quite a difference.

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 06:51 PM
From Wiki:
"Cognitive dissonance is a term used in modern psychology to describe the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] "

Would that be like the evolutionist who digs up fossils, expecting to find transition forms at at least a 10 to one ratio to previous and later forms, yet finding nothing??

Hans
12-10-2012, 07:14 PM
From Wiki:
"Cognitive dissonance is a term used in modern psychology to describe the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] "

Would that be like the evolutionist who digs up fossils, expecting to find transition forms at at least a 10 to one ratio to previous and later forms, yet finding nothing??

Are you stating dinosaur fossils are not real?
Are you not agreeing with the approximate age of the dinosaur fossils?

Barry Morris
12-10-2012, 10:05 PM
Are you stating dinosaur fossils are not real?
Are you not agreeing with the approximate age of the dinosaur fossils?

Why don't you read what I said, and then ask your questions one a t a time.

dancingqueen
12-11-2012, 05:20 AM
No, you are saying that they oppose each other. Obviously many scientists would disagree,
No I am not. I would be interested in you showing me anytime in the recent past that I have ever stated as much.


And I did not say Christianity advanced science. I said Christians had done so. Quite a difference.
Yes, there is quite a difference, one being the topic of my discussion, and the other not at all relevant. You built the strawman, I just took it down before you could.

dancingqueen
12-11-2012, 05:24 AM
"immune to the detrimental effects of cognitive dissonance."

Please give me your definition of cognitive dissonance.

The idea of one having conflicting thoughts, values, opinions etc... from one's behaviors.

dancingqueen
12-11-2012, 05:26 AM
From Wiki:
"Cognitive dissonance is a term used in modern psychology to describe the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] "

Would that be like the evolutionist who digs up fossils, expecting to find transition forms at at least a 10 to one ratio to previous and later forms, yet finding nothing??

The wiki article is not completely accurate.

Hans
12-11-2012, 06:13 AM
Why don't you read what I said, and then ask your questions one a t a time.

You ask about transitions. Dinosaur fossil records show such transitions over very long periods of time.
So you do not believe in Dinosaur fossil records?

Bluesky
12-11-2012, 06:55 PM
The idea of one having conflicting thoughts, values, opinions etc... from one's behaviors.

Can you spell out a circumstance in which you see a Christian having this and how it is destructive or limiting his/her growth?

Barry Morris
12-11-2012, 07:38 PM
The wiki article is not completely accurate.

Naturally you don't point out exactly why.

Barry Morris
12-11-2012, 07:40 PM
You ask about transitions. Dinosaur fossil records show such transitions over very long periods of time.
So you do not believe in Dinosaur fossil records?

I am unaware of ANY transitional fossils.

Barry Morris
12-11-2012, 07:47 PM
No I am not. I would be interested in you showing me anytime in the recent past that I have ever stated as much.

You said; "Science is a separate entity from religion. When advancing in the scientific field, one's religious beliefs are not being applied, rather the laws of science are. You are comparing apples to oranges."

Considering "separate", not applied" "apples and oranges", that's what I understood.




Yes, there is quite a difference, one being the topic of my discussion, and the other not at all relevant. You built the strawman, I just took it down before you could.

The aim of Christianity is to lead people to Christ.

Christians have and will continue to advance science without the "cognitive dissonance" you seem to think applies.

Hans
12-11-2012, 08:57 PM
I am unaware of ANY transitional fossils.

You should read more about the world around you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

bilbo79
12-11-2012, 09:24 PM
I am unaware of ANY transitional fossils.

Have you actually looked?

The fossils are really just the icing on the cake. We have the DNA evidence, geographical distribution and yes, fossils as well.

Have you seen not seen Australopithecus? Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus? Homo Sapiens? These intermediates can be found at almost any major museum.

Barry Morris
12-11-2012, 10:47 PM
Have you actually looked?

The fossils are really just the icing on the cake. We have the DNA evidence, geographical distribution and yes, fossils as well.

Have you seen not seen Australopithecus? Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus? Homo Sapiens? These intermediates can be found at almost any major museum.





Really?? Seems to me they are complete functioning creatures, without any "halfway" points.

What's more, some existed at the same time. Or so they would have us believe.

If a water dweller evolved into a land dweller, over millions of years, then transitional forms should outnumber the first and the last 10 to one or way more.

They don't.

Barry Morris
12-11-2012, 10:51 PM
You should read more about the world around you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

I'll be reading it.

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 09:28 AM
Can you spell out a circumstance in which you see a Christian having this and how it is destructive or limiting his/her growth?

Hate the sin, love the person, yet the person who God so loves must suffer an eternity in hell despite what God would want because this almighty, all powerful being is incapable of allowing sin around them? this is obvious the detrimental effects it can have on humanity, I would be disappointed if I had to spell it out.

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 09:30 AM
Naturally you don't point out exactly why.

I provided a definition from my text books, as well as from my professors, Hans provided the wiki article. If you cannot identify the differences you have a much bigger problem.

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 09:40 AM
You said; "Science is a separate entity from religion. When advancing in the scientific field, one's religious beliefs are not being applied, rather the laws of science are. You are comparing apples to oranges."

Considering "separate", not applied" "apples and oranges", that's what I understood.

Okay what?
Science is non-applicable to religion, scientific methodologies cannot be applied under the premise of religion, nor can religious beliefs be applied under the premise of science. Science makes no claim to be able to prove nor disprove religion....
I am not saying they oppose each other.





The aim of Christianity is to lead people to Christ.

Christians have and will continue to advance science without the "cognitive dissonance" you seem to think applies.
Scientists do not use Christianity to come to their conclusions, thus Christianity is not the cause of any scientific advancements.

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 09:43 AM
Really?? Seems to me they are complete functioning creatures, without any "halfway" points.

What's more, some existed at the same time. Or so they would have us believe.

If a water dweller evolved into a land dweller, over millions of years, then transitional forms should outnumber the first and the last 10 to one or way more.

They don't.

It's funny when you try to be all "sciency" and logical, It is clear you have no idea how to logically conclude anything. Can you show how you come to the conclusion that transitional fossils MUST outnumber the transitioned forms?

Barry Morris
12-12-2012, 10:28 AM
Scientists do not use Christianity to come to their conclusions, thus Christianity is not the cause of any scientific advancements.

Never said they did. Christians have and will continue to be sources of scientific advancement.

Barry Morris
12-12-2012, 10:29 AM
It's funny when you try to be all "sciency" and logical, It is clear you have no idea how to logically conclude anything. Can you show how you come to the conclusion that transitional fossils MUST outnumber the transitioned forms?

Simply because evolution is supposed to work in small steps.

I don't think a fish would grow wings in one shot.

Barry Morris
12-12-2012, 10:30 AM
I provided a definition from my text books, as well as from my professors, Hans provided the wiki article. If you cannot identify the differences you have a much bigger problem.

Still didn't.

bilbo79
12-12-2012, 11:52 AM
Simply because evolution is supposed to work in small steps.

I don't think a fish would grow wings in one shot.

I gave you an example of some steps. These are the transitional fossils. We will someday be transitional fossils and yes they are/were also complete functioning creatures at that time. Life is a continuous process that started a billion or so years ago and just keeps rolling on.

We are also talking millions of years, and we're lucky to have the fossils we do. You can also look at the DNA evidence. We share something like 99% of the same DNA with chimps, apes a little less so and all the way down the line until you reach the flowers in your garden. Then you can look at the geographical evidence. All life is just different branches of the same big tree.

"It'll not be we who reach Alpha Centauri and the other near by stars, it'll be a species very like us, but with more of our strengths and fewer of our weaknesses. More confident, farseeing, capable and prudent." - Carl Sagan

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 12:46 PM
Never said they did. Christians have and will continue to be sources of scientific advancement.

So are atheists, so are buddists.... but they do not apply their religious beliefs to their studies. The fact that Christians do as well is irrelevant because their religion is NOT the source, and if you would bother reading what I have to say instead of drawing your own conclusions out of nothing and making up what I'm saying THAT is what I am saying, I am NOT saying Christians do not forward science, I am saying CHRISTIANITY itself does not. You arguing this by saying Christians help develop science is just a strawman and I, along with anyone else with half a brain can conclude you a) have no argument, or b) cannot comprehend my argument.
In either case, you should just step down.

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 12:54 PM
Naturally you don't point out exactly why.

I cannot explain "why" except perhaps because anyone can edit a wiki article.
Perhaps it is an evil scientists way to slowly change the meaning of words
perhaps the person contributing did not paraphrase correctly
perhaps a series of major type-o's
perhaps there is a virus changing words in wiki articles
These are the only reasons I can think of as to "why" the article is not completely accurate, keep in mind it is mostly accurate.
I am open to other possibilities, but I don't really care that much, and they don't contribute to the discussion in any way.
Now if you want to know "in what way" the wiki article is different, I can explain, but again, I did show this and again, does not really contribute to the discussion much.
But, this has always been your tactic

dancingqueen
12-12-2012, 12:57 PM
Simply because evolution is supposed to work in small steps.

I don't think a fish would grow wings in one shot.

You will have to elaborate on how this means transitional fossils MUST outnumber the transitioned fossils.

Barry Morris
12-12-2012, 02:47 PM
You will have to elaborate on how this means transitional fossils MUST outnumber the transitioned fossils.

You honestly don't think that's obvious??

Bluesky
12-12-2012, 03:33 PM
How many transitional forms of life might there have been between a fish with fins and a fish with wings?

bilbo79
12-12-2012, 04:41 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk
How many transitional forms of life might there have been between a fish with fins and a fish with wings?

You might find the section on mutation particularly interesting.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk

Hans
12-12-2012, 06:57 PM
How many transitional forms of life might there have been between a fish with fins and a fish with wings?

I don't think you or Soundbear understand what a transitional fossil is...
It's a fossil where the "newer" version shares one or more features of a "previous" version.

A fish with fins and a fish with wings is not a transitional fossil.
A fish with a fin, and a fish with a fin + a wing would be a transitional fossil.

Barry Morris
12-12-2012, 07:38 PM
...A fish with a fin, and a fish with a fin + a wing would be a transitional fossil.

Cool, ya must have lots of them, right??? :) :) :)

Hans
12-13-2012, 06:17 AM
According to your own theory there must be, because you said they would have to outnumber their predecessor.
Alas, that is not a true statement since fish with a combination of fin(s) and wing(s) do not exist in large numbers.

http://fishindex.blogspot.ca/2009/04/oriental-flying-gurnard-dactyloptena.html
http://www.coralreefphotos.com/flying-gurnards-dactylopterus-volitans-fish-with-wings/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish

I should add some have fins + wings + legs.

Barry Morris
12-13-2012, 08:26 AM
So are atheists, so are buddists.... but they do not apply their religious beliefs to their studies. The fact that Christians do as well is irrelevant because their religion is NOT the source, and if you would bother reading what I have to say instead of drawing your own conclusions out of nothing and making up what I'm saying THAT is what I am saying, I am NOT saying Christians do not forward science, I am saying CHRISTIANITY itself does not. You arguing this by saying Christians help develop science is just a strawman and I, along with anyone else with half a brain can conclude you a) have no argument, or b) cannot comprehend my argument.
In either case, you should just step down.

What a load.

I suggest you point out where Christians apply their beliefs to science.

".. I am saying CHRISTIANITY itself does not (forward science).. " Yeah, so. Why would you think it would?? Why would I??

I wouldn't. Neither do the beliefs of Christians affect the real science and research they do. Any science would be garbage if it ignored obvious physical facts.

Barry Morris
12-13-2012, 08:27 AM
According to your own theory there must be, because you said they would have to outnumber their predecessor.
Alas, that is not a true statement since fish with a combination of fin(s) and wing(s) do not exist in large numbers.

http://fishindex.blogspot.ca/2009/04/oriental-flying-gurnard-dactyloptena.html
http://www.coralreefphotos.com/flying-gurnards-dactylopterus-volitans-fish-with-wings/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_fish

I should add some have fins + wings + legs.

Now show us why these are transitional.

Oh dear, whee to put the platypus!!!

dancingqueen
12-13-2012, 08:54 AM
What a load.

I suggest you point out where Christians apply their beliefs to science.
OMG That's what I have been saying you They don't!
Therefore, your statement about Christians forwarding science is irrelevant, Christians may have done so, with a host of others, but CHRISTIANITY is not responsible for any advances at all, as a matter of fact, Christianity (Among many other beliefs) retard the growth of a society....
This circular argument around the merry-go-round is a good example



".. I am saying CHRISTIANITY itself does not (forward science).. " Yeah, so. Why would you think it would?? Why would I??
seemed to have been your argument in the beginning... what a strawman you've made.

Barry Morris
12-13-2012, 10:43 AM
OMG That's what I have been saying you They don't!
Therefore, your statement about Christians forwarding science is irrelevant, Christians may have done so, with a host of others, but CHRISTIANITY is not responsible for any advances at all, as a matter of fact, Christianity (Among many other beliefs) retard the growth of a society....
This circular argument around the merry-go-round is a good example



seemed to have been your argument in the beginning... what a strawman you've made.

Frankly, DQ, I don't know what you're talking about, or care for that matter.

Hans
12-13-2012, 01:40 PM
Now show us why these are transitional.

Oh dear, whee to put the platypus!!!

I never said they were. They were simply examples to illustrate fish with wings do exist, contrary to your obvious disbelief of such existence.

Barry Morris
12-13-2012, 10:37 PM
I never said they were. They were simply examples to illustrate fish with wings do exist, contrary to your obvious disbelief of such existence.

Poor Hans, you really get lost don't you.

dancingqueen
12-14-2012, 05:21 AM
another discussion completely obliterated...

Barry Morris
12-14-2012, 07:57 AM
another discussion completely obliterated...

Your insults helped how??

dancingqueen
12-14-2012, 09:24 AM
I insulted you once, a lapse in judgement.
Now lets go back to the beginning:

This was a post made by one of our local esteemed Christians,
Does this attitude not stifle personal growth? Would God have us do this? Not question anything, just trust in a book? A man made book? Would Jesus have done this? Or would he have not wanted us to use our own brains, our own thoughts?
The Bible is so convoluted that I would suggest it impossible to not be using our own interpretations and thoughts, and thus "figuring it out" is imperative.
Thoughts?

You will note I am not talking about Christians, rather Christianity itself. Can you try to stay on topic this time please? Future disruptions and I will be forced to notify the moderator.