Can Christianity and evolution ever be reconciled?

yea

>>1602437
Yes, trivially.

Stop listening to a fringe of American Protestantism.

>>1602437
No, to godcucks the most basic forms of logic are either painful or invisible, truly subhuman garbage.

God can do whatever he wants, so yes.

>>1602437
>Can Christianity and evolution ever be reconciled?
Christianity does not deny that evolution is true. There is no discrepancy between god's word and god's works. What you see in nature is as true as what you read in the bible. If there is conflict then that lies within yourself and you need to rethink your perspective.

>>1602459
Woah there, Edgy McBismuth. You're gonna cut yourself if you're not careful.

>>1602481
>Christianity does not deny that evolution is true.
Except you don't speak for Christianity, and Christianity isn't a single, monolithic belief system. There is a significant portion of Christianity that believes that and evolutionary origin of species is at odds with the Bible. It's intellectually dishonest to act like there's not an issue there.

>>1602453
/thread

>>1602523
>significant portion

more like retarded americans

>>1602532
/thread
I just unthreaded your thread, fag.

>>1602437
Christians are delusional morons who practice a slave morality and partake in sadomasochism on a daily basis. The only reason any of them believe in evolution is so that they aren't made fun of like protestants in the US.

>>1602437
>Can Christianity and heliocentrism ever be reconciled?
>Can Christianity and republicanism ever be reconciled?
>Can Christianity and masturbation ever be reconciled?
>Can Christianity and female suffrage ever be reconciled?

Just stop spending so much time in that evangelical echo chamber and you will realize that for many many, probably most, christians this is not an issue at all.

>>1602516
Not him but fuck off. Basic logic is not edgy. Grow a pair and deal with reality.

>>1602552
this, /thread

>>1602552
edgy

>>1602555
nice trips bra

>>1602563
top argument there faggot

File: faggotpope.jpg (46KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 615x409px

>>1602563
Not an argument.

>>1602576
their goddamn faces man

>>1602437
>EVILution

File: download (5).jpg (6KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 197x256px

>>1602523
>Except you don't speak for Christianity, and Christianity isn't a single, monolithic belief system.
This guy does though

>There is a significant portion of Christianity that believes that and evolutionary origin of species is at odds with the Bible.
heretics iywamtopfahwyp*

*If you will allow me to be perfectly frank and honest with you, phamme

>>1602598
this triggers the proddie

File: bad_religion_icon_by_serenarobinson666-d6kd1pb.png (11KB, 526x546px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 526x546px

>>1602597
Wow, what a high level of discourse! I'm sure glad I'm on /his/ and not /pol/!

Kys.

>>1602552
>I read "the Antichrist" and now I am vastly superior to them christian sheeples, the post.

>>1602437
no they cant

i purely evolutionary terms behaviour like rape is awarded by reproductive success

thats why rape is so common among other animales for example orangutans ( roughly every second child is the product of rape )

and thats why even in some countries rape is still common among humans ( south-africa for example )

but you dont even need to go that far

lying for example is another example of an evolutionary adaptation thats commonly practised by virtually all humans

you can already observe similar behaviour in animals as well like ravens

so why would god create humanity by a process that favors or in other words rewards behaviour that he himself forbids ?

he is the debaucher of lies and rape because he created a system in which these deeds are favored

and that is an obvious contradiction

The Catholic Church is perfectly fine with evolution.

Literally the only people who have a problem with it are Muslims, Jews, and Americans. Basically all the people who mutilate their dicks.

>>1602620
Not vastly superior, but at least able to clearly think about one single thing that befuddles Christians: actual, solid evidence.

File: 1417820537210.gif (537KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 480x270px

>>1602622
>if you believe in evolution you must rape everything you see

>>1602622
The way you type gives me cancer

>>1602625
actually most mainline/non-fundie protestant denominations (including american) are okay with it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#Contemporary_Christian_denominations

>>1602622
What is free will though? As far as I understand judeochristian thought, a central point of it is that, in order to redeem himself on a collective and individual level, man must consiously choose todo good rather than evil. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don´t think that the fall of man is placed in the beginning of the torah/bible is not a coincidence.

>>1602642
is that supposed to be a serious objection ?

im just saying that in the framework of evolution one can say that you are awarded for raping someone because you are able to pass your genes to the next generation

and a system in which such behaviours are favorable contradicts the notion of the christian god

>>1602653
the point is that god is the debaucher of lies and rape

he debauched our ancestors into committing sins by making them evolutinarily attractive ( beneficial to reproductive success )

>>1602653
i would accept your objection if god would not actively seed temptation to do evil

>>1602675
God doesn't "actively seed temptation," Satan is responsible for that.

>B-but God made Satan!

Which makes God at worst the secondary cause of temptation, or rather that He permits Satan to tempt people. Either way, God does not "actively" cause temptation.

>>1602634
With all due respect, that is a huge strawman. Christianity, as most other religions that I am aware of, is not just an way to "explain away" phaenomena of unknown origin. In my opinion, the quintessential function of religions is to serve as a language that permits comunication about the rationally not fathomable. In other words, it provides answers to that, that can not objectively be answered as true or false. It is not the only langiuage of that sourt of course. Nitzsche is actually moving in that realm. A lot. Unfortunately he has a very bloomy language, and is oftenly interpreted superficially. His whole conception of the will to power as a fundamental propiety of all "sein" is a great example of that.

>>1602702
so is god not the inventor of the evolutionary process ?

because if he is you have to attack my argument concering evolution
and god being the secondary cause of temptation seems to fly in the face of christianity too

>>1602675
>>1602665
I think that judeochristian text makes it quite clear that god is beyond good and evil. Take the book of Iob for example. God behaves quite dickishly there... The conception of a purely just good and an evil world/hunamanity is one that is rooted in early modern, rationalistic thought and is plagued by the idiosyncratic way of thinking of the time.

>>1602718
not him, but I would like you to invite you to consider that not al christians see god as an old man in the sky. good and evil are human categorys. god, in my view, transcends those categories. In the original meaning of the word transcend that is.

>>1602734
i dont see how that reconciles the contradiction between the biblical commandment " thou shalt not lie " and the evolutionary benefits of lying that he set up by creating evolution in the first place

>>1602757
>good and evil are human categorys. god, in my view, transcends those categories. In the original meaning of the word transcend that is.

yeah but >>1602768

or do you think that god is not bound to his own words that clearly forbid lying ?

yes. our intelligence allow us to adapt infinitely. we will stop evolving or at least halt the process.
>this is my final form

>>1602775
Of course god is not bound to his own words. god=/=man
That is another central axiom of judeochristian thought. Man is considered to be created to the image of god. to the image. An image is not a copy, it is by definition less.

>>1602768
Basically because what you are saying is:
>god is bad/wrong because he asks us to take the hard stony road, instead of letting us bathe in the pool of perfection

What I say is:
> You are making a categorial error. In judeochristian thought god is beyond the categorys you try to apply to him.

And again: Fall of men. The metaphor of the lost paradise. Animals can not act right or wrong. Those categorys do not applyto them. Men (after the fall of man, read: after having adquired self consciousness and therefore free will) can reflect on their actions, judge them to be right or wrong and has to live with that. God is yet at a higher state, since he is all encompasing he transcends right or wrong or even free will. He is the will within itself if you like.

(I am not atheologican though, the last part about the nature of god was rather improviseda, and I don´t know if I´ll stand to it tomorrow)

File: 1455225713465.jpg (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

>>1602622
>i purely evolutionary terms behaviour like rape is awarded by reproductive success
are you actually retarded?

>>1602437
In orthodoxy literally the most loved contemporary theologians are against evolution - books that are published in 2016 are against it.

The majority of saints from the last 2 centuries are against it, and the ones that aren't simply did not have an opinion about it...

>>1602775
>do you think that god is not bound to his own words

There are whole chapters of the bible dedicated to the fact that god is not bound to his own words. It is one of the central themes of the damn book man! You don´t have to agree with it, but if you want to argue within the system at least be consistent with it.

>>1602598
>iywamtopfahwyp
I swore it was welsh for a second.

What is the Christian argument against antinatalism?

>>1602852
is this influenced in any way by american protestantist fundie creationism? do they use 'intelligent design' type theories?

>>1602862
not an argument

>>1602868
>someone post´s a question remotly related to the topic
>NOT AN ARGUMENT

jesus dude, at least google antinatalism...

>>1602867
Yea, but it's mainly the early church fathers which Orthodoxy value very much that had an opinion about it - an opinion which can't be interpreted in favor of evolution in any way.

Seraphim Rose - this guy quoted in his books against evolution lots of protestant literature.

No - intelligent design, science is considered demonic - from Satan, evolution is a lie cooked by demons.

It's like in medieval age but only in 21st century.

>>1602852
I can´t judge the orthodoxy thing, might be true considering how backwards they are for the most part. But what the hell do you mean with the saint´s thing? Are prominent Orthodox theologicians revered as saints or something?

>>1602885
No but there are multiple human beings that lived in 20th century and been canonized as saints.

Majority of them some which are very mainstream on internet - openly spoke against evolution.

I repeat they're canonized - they have churches built in their name, icons... people pray to them in their homes.

File: EVILution.png (3MB, 500x5655px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x5655px

posting to counter creationcucks

What does /his/ think of Old Earth Creationism?

>>1602888
canonized by whom? By greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? I just want to know who you are talking about...

And, in all fairness, I think that if similar attention would have been posed on masturbation beeing a terrible terrible depraved act, results would be similar. Yet, imho it is just as irrelevant to the contemporary understanding of the faith of most adepts. Wouldn´t you agree?

File: BP-AF-9000.jpg (71KB, 564x734px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 564x734px

>>1602897
Close, but no cigar.

>>1602906
For example some saints that lived in Greece - have been recognized by every single Orthodox Church - the ones that are in communion of course.

There can't be a church that canonizes a saint - and others pretend that dude is just an ordinary human - it means no communion.

Just google 20th century orthodox saints.... they all lived, some like Paisios been to TV, took interviews... most of them wrote books.

They are considered saints because people demnaded it - they said that they done miracles while living and Church went and verified it - with their medieval methods of verification... the miracles were confirmed and wrote down in canonization documents.

For example Paisios is mentioned to have done some magical stuff, but no prophecy is mentioned in the document - so officially any prophecy of him on internet is not recognized by Church.

I'm telling you that in 21st century in many eastern countries where orthodoxy is prevalent - people bow down in the corner of their room and pray to the image of some dead human being which supposedly done magic just few decades ago.

They ask them to ask Marry to ask Jesus to ask God to pass their exams or gain favors in material life.


Anti-scientific movement inside Church is very toxic - it's what driven me away from it 100%, I'm not even looking back after it - and I don't care what it does or will ever do.

File: sediba-hyperpronation.jpg (28KB, 400x301px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x301px

>>1602907
Your monkey bones won't work on me. Just look at the ape-like characteristics shown here.

File: 1468624230803.jpg (84KB, 612x690px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 612x690px

>>1602890
for fun.

File: 1461533894788.png (33KB, 1020x426px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1020x426px

>>1602944
>HURR

>>1602928
has the anti-science movement been a recent development? is it increasing?

>>1602928
No need to get all upset, I was just interested.

>Anti-scientific movement inside Church is very toxic
agreed.

Also >>1602953


Is there been an orthodox equivalent to the jesuits or protestant positivism or something like that?

>>1602953
Of course it's increasing - evidence from sciences build a strong case against religions over all.

But what's most importantly scientific method has been applied even on scriptural study... it's been proven that there have been additions, church manipulations - the interests of institutionalized churches was never the soul of people, but rather keeping the machine alive.

Orthodoxy is not something you should consider if you insist of being a member of a Christian community.

>>1602437
I believe they can, through an idea like intelligent design, which, as I understand it, is the idea that God guided evolution. Perhaps, presuming there is a God as Christianity understands it, he did not create all life as it stands, but instead developed it over time in the way that we ourselves do with science and technology.

File: HELL.png (2MB, 1300x1158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x1158px

>>1602949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WNCBPdetG4

>>1602961
>Orthodoxy is not something you should consider if you insist of being a member of a Christian community.

this triggers the Constantine

>>1602967
Show me the evidence first of all of a force, impersonal or personal - that takes action in various events... such as evolution which you mentioned - there show me the evidence for that force or w/e actually altering in measurable way the process of evolution.

All evidence is against the God scenario, design scenario, everything even in evolution is quite pointless - it's just chaos reaching a complexity state

>>1602970
This actually why I became an atheist.

>god loves you
>well, except if you don't accept these claims without evidence, in which case he'll subject you to the worst possible torture for the rest of your life

>>1602976
Doesn't even sound like the plan of some medieval age priests that tried to maintain control.

>>1602967
>through an idea like intelligent design, which, as I understand it, is the idea that God guided evolution

you're thinking of theistic evolution

intelligent design (TM) is an american protestant young earth creationism belief (God created all species in their present form 6000 years ago)

of course 'intelligent design' generically could apply to old earth theories

File: Payday_TheHorror_without_a_Head_2010_600.jpg (211KB, 600x612px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 600x612px

>>1602976
People choose Hell.

>>1602988
>if you don't kiss my feet I'll stab you in the ribs
>but it's totally your choice, you can walk away as long as you take the stab in the ribs, I'm being fair

>>1602847
in purely sorry for that typo

>>1602993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo1IwmaUz90

>>1602988
True story, I was a devoted Episcopalian until I picked up a pamphlet for some fundie religious group and thought about what Christianity actually means.

If god existed, he would be infinitely worse than any human being who ever lived.

>>1603003
The video matches biblical God perfectly. Look how God also dodged all important questions with magic tricks.

File: A.Goy.s.Life.jpg (517KB, 1632x1088px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1632x1088px

>>1602993
God is your Dad who literally gives you everything you need to not only survive but to THRIVE and all He asks in return is for you to trust Him.

Yet despite these advantages which He lavishes upon us, there will always be ungrateful children who insist on rebelling against Daddy.

File: Attention.jpg (3KB, 117x126px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 117x126px

>>1603006
Jesus is God. Do you think Jesus is worse than any human being who ever lived?

>>1602576
>>1602598
Please don't confuse Christians with Catholics

>>1602832
the categories of good and evil dont have anything to do with my argument whatsoever

god Doesnt want us to lie
god Creates a system which awards lying

that is the argument

or are contradictions only bad if humans committ them ?

>>1602794
sorry i should have put it differently

god is bound to his words in the sense that his commandments are binding for humanity

he cant say that he acutally didnt forbid them to lie

>>1603022
You can't be serious.

>>1603036
heretic pls

>>1603034
Well, logically, if he was responsible for the eternal torment of tens of billions of people, purely for the sake of his own vanity, then yes.

If he isn't, then he isn't god.

File: 1442974177774.jpg (24KB, 306x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 306x480px

>>1603041
I am serious.

>>1603045
People are responsible for their own sins. However,

>God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

- John 3:16

>>1603006
>Episcopalian
Found the problem

>>1603062
Our sins are imputed to Christ on the cross

>>1603062
why is it noteworthy that he "gave his one and only son" ?

he returned to him anyway

>>1603073
It's the best denomination of Christianity.

If you don't agree, you can fight me IRL.

>>1603062
Why is it a sin to behave righteously, help other people whenever you can, but choose not to believe in something because you have no evidence of it?

>because if it wasn't, Christianity wouldn't exist

>>1603073
why?

File: tumblr_inline_o7ro8jDW0n1rchvrx_400[1].jpg (32KB, 280x378px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 280x378px

>>1603062

File: 1453861844216.jpg (200KB, 928x960px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 928x960px

>>1603080
Amen.

>>1603082
He didn't need to do and it was excruciatingly painful even if it was only temporary.

>>1603084
No one is able to behave righteously all the time. Sincere repentance is about acknowledging your failures.

>>1603084
God grants belief, or doesn't grant it. You don't go to hell for not believing. You aren't forgiven for your sins. The difference is large.
You're on a sinking boat. You take the life jacket or you don't. The boat is sinking either way.

>>1603036
>claim to be a christian
>don't belong to the church founded by Christ
leave heretical protestant

>>1602576
I love this

The whole doctrine of Christianity is about turning the other cheek to violence and forgiving those who hurt

And then when the symbol of Christianity does something very humble like this he gets laughed at as a cuck

File: tumblr_m5fk39AUi11rseywjo5_500[1].jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>1603096
Lmao you, or your group of friends literally - responded with *tips fedora* to half of thread.

For you it's pretty easy I guess - you see a moment where you can't provide arguments, or when you would rather say some retarded shit and insert that there *tips fedora* hurr durr we iz Godz chozen ones.

>>1603108
maybe on /pol/ and by racist proddies

>>1603100
but the emphasis on "the one and only" kinda falls apart if you consider that god did not lose his son

>>1603101
Why precisely would god not take people who were good to other human beings, regardless of spiritual belief?

File: 152fcaf501662adb42014e54714f0cca[1].jpg (33KB, 320x333px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 320x333px

>>1603109

File: 1402242968941.jpg (86KB, 687x1024px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 687x1024px

>>1603116
The Son literally died on the cross.

File: Adam and Eve with Baby in Garden of Eden.jpg (378KB, 481x609px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 481x609px

>I-I-It's just a metaphor bro!

Who do Christians hide behind this so much?

>>1603100
>that image
never seen so much wrong in my life

>>1603106
>claim to be christian
>don't believe the teachings of Christ
papist heretic

>>1603136
nestorius pls

File: Who could it be?.gif (2MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x202px

>>1603133

>>1603117
If you like, let's talk.

If a man kills someone, but gives all that he has away, will that make up for it?
Why are we moral? To please man, or God? Are we supposed to make others happy? Does God owe us anything because we are good?

>>1603144
>implying

>>1603168
Well, typically if you have a kid, and you just kind of leave it out in the field to die, this is considered immoral.

I think creating intelligent life must come with a moral responsibility.

>>1602656
your point is invalid because rape is a social construct, ie rape didn't exist before humans did
and now that society is advanced enough rape actually goes against your chances at passing genes to the next generation because in all probability you will either get an abortion or the child will have an unsuccessful (unlikely to survive) life

File: 1467481717607.jpg (74KB, 491x491px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 491x491px

>>1603148

>>1603195
obviously rape is not a "social construct"

its observed in many other species as well and its certain that it was practised long before humans

>>1603180
Deep waters quickly, I see. Let's talk.

I agree with you. We all have duties to one another, and a parent especially has one to his child. So, you would say that a parent's duty to his child is different than the one he has with, say his servant? What if they had done something wrong? Stolen something? Murdered? What then is the duty? Does that change depending on the relationship?

>>1603213
No, he means to say that the concept of "Rape" didn't exist before humans, i.e. that animals do not consider forcibly having sex as a bad thing

File: übermensch.png (94KB, 344x340px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 344x340px

>>1603200
>implying

>>1603133
>bruh just be a degenerate till you die what can go wrong xDDD

>>1603062
When you grow up you'd understand how naive your ideology is. I don't really know how to explain this to you.
First, "God gave you everything you need"

Is that so? For thousands of years mankind has toiled and suffered just to get their meals on the table, and yet so much blood was shed for wars just because we couldn't feed ourselves. I can't imagine how much pain we went through just to get here, this century, where after you feed on people's effort and the next second you are on the Internet showing your gratitude to a God.
But pain is still lasting. People are still starving. Everyone is still struggling.
Your food and these entertainment are still made by our bare hands.
The human minds are still so oppressed and twisted.

I really don't know how young you had to be to hold such flippant ideas about this world.
And
>all He asks in return is for you to trust Him
According to what? A tale? Or that "Holy Bible"? It's a moral problem to not trust others, of course, but not if the objective is only a myth, an imaginary idol made by you people who discourage reason.

And how sad this salve morality is, that you have to count anyone who speaks of reason "a rebel against Daddy".

Speaking of this,
To be honest I don't know how serious this problem is inside this country. The anti-intellectual religion practices are simply affecting too many. And your next generation clearly will, again, be forced to carve the religious concepts in mind because of the family all-in-1 brainwash.

But don't worry, as in the future we China will try to get you all out of this mess as hard as we can. It's about time this mental disease that deeply humiliated humanity come to an end.

>>1603283
Who let you out of Hell Nietzsche?

>>1603248
that is irrelevant because it is still an evolutionary adaptation

our ability to rape was still formed by evolution

and the guys who practise it today do so because of their evolutionary heritage

but i agree that lying is a better example of my point because its still practised throughout the world by anyone

File: infinite love.png (44KB, 740x630px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 740x630px

>>1603283
God blessed us with the capacity to create all those things. We are the only species that wears clothes; we are unique on Earth and we ought to be thankful for this.

Jesus is a living person who asks you to trust Him. There is nothing wrong with reason but it simply isn't enough. Reason is only a tool but God teaches us how to use it with love.

File: 1467491477582.png (148KB, 2500x1645px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 2500x1645px

>>1603276
>lol you can only be good if you're religious

>>1603308
being a christian is about acknowledging that you aren't good

>>1603100
>>1603100

>>1603315
so you're gonna be an asshole no matter what if you're not a christian?

>>1603317
unfortunately from time to time, yes. but being a christian requires you to admit it when you mess up.

>>1603326
>from time to time
Then that's just a sign of immaturity. Humans in modern society don't act like that because then everyone will think they're an asshole and not want to be around them. Society teaches us not to be an asshole, not the Bible.

>>1603346
i don't care who you are, everyone is insensitive and dickish on occasion. if you can't admit this youre delusional.

File: church.jpg (115KB, 1008x950px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1008x950px

>>1603300
>God blessed us with the capacity to create all those things
If so, of course everyone should be thankful for this, at least out of courtesy. But the thing is simpler than you think. In a daily basis we thank different people because of their sacrifices, and that's just it. The only thing "the gratitude to God" is lacking compared to the latter, which is also all that we seek, is an evidence.
Otherwise……
You must know the purpose behind all religious practices in this world can be extremely obvious. No one knows what is true but, for whatever sick psychology it is, they want others to belive what they believe, or want to believe. Like the Christians, they have build such a complicated system with the popes and things, to do what? I say it's nothing but to feel safe,
Pathetic dreams.
>Jesus is a living person who asks you to trust Him
Very well.
What a pity he never bothered to try to at least show up in the television, when he can't reach everyone personally, to inform others to trust him. I'm sure that way the whole mankind will embrace the light within one night.
Instead I have to read an obscure western book out of a billion religion texts in this world and choose to trust him blindly without any possible evidence.
To me, it just doesn't make too much sense.

And I believe whether God is real not, religion is a fucking cancer to human mind. I have seen so much of how people turned into zombies because of this.

>>1603413
The last one should be "no matter God is real or not"*

Inexpert.

File: Reliability of NT.jpg (1MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3508x2480px

>>1603413
there is evidence everywhere you look but only if you look

>>1603410
Yes I know, but i will repeat. Society tells us its bad to be an asshole, not the Bible.

>>1603430
Manipulation yes.

Scientific evidence - I don't think so. Maybe I've missed it, show it to me.

File: 10CBradfordCountyCourthouseStarkeFL.8x10.jpg (3MB, 3000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2250px

>>1603452
western society is based off the bible

>>1602620
>I sporadically read some bible verses and now I know more about the universe than everyone else.

>>1603464
says who?

File: Faith Walk.jpg (1MB, 2502x1650px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2502x1650px

>>1603461
Reason is necessary but insufficient.

Faith is essential.

>>1603037
could someone reply to my argument there ?

>>1603464

Are you suggesting pre-Christian western societies such as the Romans and the Greeks didn't have any influence?

Are you also asserting that neither of those civilizations had a "don't be an asshole" standard?

File: 1443373623062.png (335KB, 870x1730px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 870x1730px

>>1603471
We do.

>>1603464
I think the Bible just repeated what moral looked like at that time.
Nevertheless, this religion was indeed having long-lasting influences over the entire western culture for hundreds of years.

File: Alpha+e+Omega1.jpg (37KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x333px

>>1603482
Christianity is also heavily influenced by Greek and Roman philosophy so it's all included. Jesus Himself (i.e. the Logos made flesh) was impressed by the Centurion's faith.

>>1603493

Yes. So "don't be a dick" predates Christian teachings and Christianity isn't requisite for a moral society.

File: Mystery babylon.jpg (758KB, 1989x1326px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1989x1326px

>>1603517
There is no such thing as a "moral society" on Earth.

>>1603485
but Christianity is jewish, it stems from Judaism so its a jewish religion. Its also not European as Jesus lived in Israel, a.k.a not Europe

File: Ecce Homo.jpg (520KB, 2526x1750px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 2526x1750px

>>1603535
Rome plays a pivotal role in the Gospel narrative and most of the early churches were founded in Greece. If anything, Christianity is a fusion of Hellenistic and Semitic philosophy.

>>1603474
Faith is essential. But faith of men should be about love, about justice, not some slave morality that other people teach you and want you to believe while you know nothing about it.

To be honest I don't like using the word faith on religion, because it just messes up the meaning of the word.
What's the point of turning yourselves into mindless sheep for things you only know because of what others tell you? What is a man when he gives up on his dignity and the will to think and judge?
Why would you call that faith?

>>1603547
So its Jewish

>>1603474
Faith comes trough manipulation - that's sad.

File: Christ-killing-monster-jew1.jpg (150KB, 966x716px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 966x716px

>>1603551
Jesus came to set the captives free; to release us from the slavery of sin.

>>1603563
And goyishe.

>>1603567
Then weep.

>>1602592
>>>/vr/

>>1603551
>slave morality
nice meme

>>1603631
what did he mean by this?

>>1602794
>>1603037
>the categories of good and evil dont have anything to do with my argument whatsoever

Two sentences later:

>or are contradictions only bad if humans committ them ?

You did it again. Do you even relize that?

>he cant say that he acutally didnt forbid them to lie
yes. So? I am starting to have a suspicion: Are you seriously trying to buld some sort of theodicy argument based on the notion that a sinful life is easyer than a not sinful life?
Read Genesis. It is very clear in there, that this layout of the worldis completely intended.
>bu-but is god not suposed to be the purest form of goodness?
People have thought about these problems for thousands of years. It may be the reason why you choose not to believe (if for some reason you need a reason to not believe, which I find just as odd as those people who need a reasn to believe), and that is fine. This thought is not new however, and in no way is an argument "against" christianity. Profoundly religious people have written whole libraries about it.

>>1602523
Then why ask a Guatemalan basketweaving message board?

Considering one of the popes, not even talking about francis said that evolution is possible it just the soul is a separate entity.
Yeah.
America is the only real place that has the problem of thinking it can't.

>>1602437

The problem is that if evolution is true and Adam and Eve are a myth, then where does original sin come from? What could we have done during our evolutionary history that is so unforgivable that God required a divine blood sacrifice to forgive it? Christians can accept Big Bang cosmology, they can accept Quantum Mechanics, they can accept any and all of science, but they can't accept the loss of Adam and Eve because without them, their religion is a nonsense.

>>1605099
Easily. Adam and Eve were simply the first humans created via a guided evolution put in place and watched over by God. Though do you really take Genesis as being not heavily metaphorical? This is pretty simple anon, you could have come to this conclusion yourself.

>>1605109
>Easily. Adam and Eve were simply the first humans created via a guided evolution put in place and watched over by God.

Except that's not what happened, mitochondrial Even and ancestral Adam didn't live at teh same time or in the same place, and they certainly weren't the first humans. In fact there was no "first human", it was a process that involved a whole breeding population of pre-humans.

>>1605109
>Though do you really take Genesis as being not heavily metaphorical?

I take the whole Bible as metaphor, especially the part about "God". Many believers don;t share our enlightened view, however, both now and especially in the past when scientific explanations for many of these things were not available.

>>1605113
Gee anon, I didn't know you were there, you should really contact some researchers though if you've figured out the entire evolution of mankind though.

Also
>There were no first humans

It's literally impossible for something to exist without there being a first of it. Pre-humans are not humans as we know them.

>>1605117
I'm referring specifically to Genesis, there's many parts of the Bible that are clearly intended to be taken literally that refer to God.

>>1605123
>Gee anon, I didn't know you were there, you should really contact some researchers though if you've figured out the entire evolution of mankind though

Gosh Anon I didn't realise God himself took you to the beginning of time to explain what happened, here I was thinking you'd just read about it in some book!

>It's literally impossible for something to exist without there being a first of it. Pre-humans are not humans as we know them.

You're wrong, it's a process and the barrier between one species and another is often difficult to pin down.

> clearly intended to be taken literally

Really? What distinguishes these passages? Is it the fact that they haven't been disproven by science yet? How do you explain the fact that different people can take different passages to be literal or metaphor after reading it? Doesn't this suggest it is not at all clear what is meant to be real and what figurative?

>>1605138
>Gosh Anon I didn't realise God himself took you to the beginning of time to explain what happened, here I was thinking you'd just read about it in some book!

It's a good thing I simply proposed a possible solution instead of going "no you're wrong, this is what happened" then, isn't it?

>You're wrong, it's a process and the barrier between one species and another is often difficult to pin down.

If there is no first example of a thing, there is no thing anon. For something to exist, it must first come into existence, obviously, and it stands to reason humans didn't all just appear here at the exact same time, that there were a first few.

>Really? What distinguishes these passages?

The clear use of metaphor to imply other things? Do you read shakespeare and sperg out when he uses a metaphor because it doesn't make sense and you don't understand how to pick up when someone's not being literal as well?

Shit like the fruit of knowledge is clearly metaphorical, for example.

>How do you explain the fact that different people can take different passages to be literal or metaphor after reading it? Doesn't this suggest it is not at all clear what is meant to be real and what figurative?

I'm speaking from the understanding of the major denominations, not personal ones. Someone's personal views on it don't actually impact anything but how they see it.

>>1605150
>I simply proposed a possible solution

One that is laughably wrong, as the science would tell you if you knew the slightest thing about it. When I tell you our last common male and female ancestors did not live near one another in time or space, it's not my opinion, it's what I have discovered by reading up on the topic.

>If there is no first example of a thing, there is no thing anon. For something to exist, it must first come into existence, obviously, and it stands to reason humans didn't all just appear here at the exact same time, that there were a first few.

Again you are simply wrong. There were countless gradations between prehumans and us, every single person is a transitional form. Speciation is gradual, only Creationists think species just pop into being from nothing.

>The clear use of metaphor to imply other things?

So what makes it clear is the fact that it's clear? That clears that up.

>I'm speaking from the understanding of the major denominations, not personal ones

That's irrelevant since YEC is a major denomination in the US. It's also irrelevant because these very same major denominations historically did NOT think that accounts such as that in Genesis were metaphor, thus showing that it is NOT clear which parts are meant to be taken metaphorically.

>>1605167
>One that is laughably wrong, as the science would tell you if you knew the slightest thing about it. When I tell you our last common male and female ancestors did not live near one another in time or space, it's not my opinion, it's what I have discovered by reading up on the topic.

Source? Are you saying that the first humans never met? And you can prove that they never met, even if we consider the possibility of a literal God in the equation? Because if your argument is going to be "lol god don't real", why even ask about how the idea of adam and eve works with it?

>There were countless gradations between prehumans and us, every single person is a transitional form. Speciation is gradual, only Creationists think species just pop into being from nothing.

So, what you're claiming is that there are actually no true humans, we're all just different grades of similar species? Are you retarded? Do you not know how species classification works? It is literally impossible for there to not be a first human, how is this so hard for you to get? If something exists, it objectively must have started to exist somewhere. This point of original existence in the case of a species, would be the first organism capable of being classified as that species.

>So what makes it clear is the fact that it's clear? That clears that up.

What makes it clear is having basic literacy skills anon, they teach you about metaphors in high school. If you want a further education on the topic, there are many, many literary analysis classes that can help you further understand how to identify these techniques.


>That's irrelevant since YEC is a major denomination in the US.

Really? Because I'd say that Catholics are a major denomination, YEC is a possible belief shared by many minor churches, but isn't a denomination in itself. You should learn what words mean before you use them anon.

Also when did the vatican decide it then anon? And why?

>>1605185
Also, to clarify for you, yes I understand how evolution works, but there is a point where we stop classifying something as "weird looking pre-human" and start to classify it as human. That point, the being that is first able to be classified as a new species (if we accept macro-evolution, I don't believe it's ever actually been observed, just variations within a species) must be classified as the first human. Does this make more sense to you now?

>>1605185
>Are you saying that the first humans never met?

No, I'm saying our common ancestor as humans was not the first human, just as our common ancestor with chimps was not the first ape.

>Because if your argument is going to be "lol god don't real", why even ask about how the idea of adam and eve works with it?

Because this is the one point of scientific fact that Christians cannot accept, because it makes a nonsense of original sin and so renders Jesus' death pointless.

>Do you not know how species classification works?
>It is literally impossible for there to not be a first human, how is this so hard for you to get?

If you understood how species classification works, you would not be so hilariously wrong about this. There was a whole population of apemen that you /could/ point to as the "first humans", but then you /could/ say the same of the apemen before them, or the apemen after them. You cannot pin down a new species with ONE example, you need a breeding population for the classification even to make sense.

>What makes it clear is having basic literacy skills anon, they teach you about metaphors in high school

So when Jesus says he's the Son of God, that's a metaphor for being holy and nto a silly literal claim, right?

>MUH SEMATICS

So no answer at all for why all those great theologians of the past were so silly that they thought Genesis was a literal account?

>>1605190
>(if we accept macro-evolution, I don't believe it's ever actually been observed, just variations within a species)

Well you should try relying on research rather than faith because whether you believe it or not "macro" evolution has been observed in laboratory conditions.

Incidentally "macro" evolution isn't a thing, all evolution is "micro". What Creatiotards call "macro" is really "cumulative", the result of generations of "micro" evolution accumulating, as it were.

>>1605197
>No, I'm saying our common ancestor as humans was not the first human, just as our common ancestor with chimps was not the first ape.

Why the fuck would you bring that up when I explicitly said "First human" then?

>Because this is the one point of scientific fact that Christians cannot accept

But most Christians have, we get that evolution exists, but it doesn't actually mean that it's not a process by which God created humans.

>If you understood how species classification works, you would not be so hilariously wrong about this

Jesus christ anon, how can you be so retarded? Species have particular features. When an organism first develops those particular features to the point where it's notably different to the species it was originally, it's classified as a new species. Not a subtype, but when it's differed so greatly that it would be inaccurate to compare the two as the same thing.

You can't just go "Yeah well there was some that looked simila before so they were humans too, right?", because that's not only semantics (ironic seeing as you bitched about them later in your post), but also just ignoring what I said completely. The first being that was noticeably able to be classified as a human being, would be the first human being. There is literally no other way around this.

>So when Jesus says he's the Son of God, that's a metaphor for being holy and nto a silly literal claim, right?

No, that was a literal claim, as demonstrated by the text surrounding it and the importance it had in them. Reading comprehension anon.

>So no answer at all for why all those great theologians of the past were so silly that they thought Genesis was a literal account?

Asking when in particular the position apparently changed isn't semantics. You made a claim that they did, which implies you know for certain that they did, which means you would have to know when. So when was it?

>>1605204
Source? And once again, you're arguing semantics with the macro/micro shit.

>>1605216
>but it doesn't actually mean that it's not a process by which God created humans.

But it DOES mean the Garden of Eden is a myth, which means original sin is also a myth. SO remind why Jesus committed suicide, again?

Speciation is not a hard science and again you CANNOT classify a new species from a single example, otherwise every single person is a new species. Species is a category of breeding groups, individuals are merely it's vector.

>No, that was a literal claim

Again, how can you tell? To me it seems like a metaphor. Likewise, to me, Genesis looks like a myth. But I can go and find very well learned Christian scholars who will insist it is literal,and who will have reams of scripture to quote at me to demonstrate this. The problem is, THE BOOK ITSELF does not make clear what is and what is not metaphor. You can claim all you like that your reading is clear, it's only clear to you and you're not an authority.

>Source

if you're interested try google. I'm not interested in educating you.

>>1605228
>But it DOES mean the Garden of Eden is a myth, which means original sin is also a myth

But it doesn't, at all. You're implying that it's impossible for a literal god to move the original humans to a garden like area to educate them (which was the plan for the garden, though I assume you already know this).

>Speciation is not a hard science

>how does this work if you take into account X?
>Well it could work like this, ultimately we aren't sure though, that's why we have the debate
>HAha guessing isn't science so therefore my guesses are right checkmate Cuckationists!

Wew,

>otherwise every single person is a new species

No? A species is defined as a separate lineage that creates its own gene pool. This species must begin at some point, with the original of its kind that can also be genetically distinct from its predecessors. You're acting like there's a hard definition for species, which there isn't, there's at best a "it works for now" one.

>Again, how can you tell?

Maybe by reading the rest of my post? That might help you out.

And metaphors aren't necessarily myths. They're completely different concepts. A metaphor can be used to describe something that absolutely happened. I can use a metaphor to describe the chips I'm eating right now, I'm still eating them though.

Once again though, please answer my question about when the vatican changed their mind about genesis, seeing as you're saying people believed it was all objectively and literally true at some undefined point. When was this? Who developed the change? Why? Was it scientific or theological discovery? How are YEC's even relevant seeing as they didn't even exist until what, the 20's or so?

>if you're interested try google. I'm not interested in educating you.

I googled it, fuck all about us having seen species evolve into clearly separate species in a lab showed up, just something about bacteria changing to have different capabilities.

>>1605257
Anyway, this is turning into a retarded argument I'm not interesting in having. You asked how it could work together from a Christian point of view. I explained to you.

If you want to move the goal posts to something else feel free, you're entitled to your beliefs.

File: Some of you guys are alright, don't go to france tomorrow.jpg (76KB, 1065x859px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1065x859px

>>1602552
>>1602558
You're not fooling any of us with your samefagging

>>1605257
>You're implying that it's impossible for a literal god to move the original humans to a garden like area to educate them (which was the plan for the garden, though I assume you already know this).

Yes I am assuming magic isn't real and that the account is a parable of the lost golden age of hunting and gathering before the age of agriculture. You, apparently, are too educated to see this obvious myth as anything but literal.

>A species is defined as a separate lineage that creates its own gene pool

Not even close, try again.

>I googled it, fuck all about us having seen species evolve into clearly separate species in a lab showed up

Yes it did, but as you've shown you have no clue what a species even is.

Also stop trying to change the subject and answer my question. How do you explain the fact that theologians today and in the past have such wildly different takes on which parts of the Bible are factual? This is clear proof that it is NOT clear which parts are meant literally.

>>1605257
>A species is defined as a separate lineage that creates its own gene pool
How do you know when it's separate? What does "its own gene pool" mean?
>This species must begin at some point
Not really. Just like you couldn't pinpoint a specific moment in your life when you began having grey hair, or began to be old. Species gradually change over time; every single time a new generation is born, it is necessarily the same species as its parents.

Go away you dirty Jew, we all know you are a shill here to make Christianity look bad.

Reminder that Young Earth Creationism is anti-Christian and is an example of judaizing.

File: christian cosmos.gif (221KB, 1024x597px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1024x597px

>>1605283
>Young Earth Creationism is a demonic delusion.

All doctrines of Hellfire are. God is love, there is no hell and even Lucifer will be redeemed. But this true Good News isn't useful for bilking the goyim out of their shekels to pay for priests and temples to Satan so it got swept aside in favor of the so-called "churches" of the late Classical and modern periods.

Wow, this thread reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution. Anyone interested?

>>1605324

No but don't let that stop you.

>>1605029
contradiction are FALSE if god committs them

they are FALSE

of course you can strip of every critera from god even logical consistensy to make your god unattackable

but please dont engage in this ridiculous sophistry

cant you see that i intentionally used the word bad to show how ridiculous your unrelated objection was ?

>are yout trying to build some theodicy argument

NO i clearly stated my argument that has NOTHING at all to do with theodicy

a sinful life is REWARDED by the system of evolution that god set up

and at the same time he forbids it

thats the contradtiction thats the argument

>>1602437
This is assuming that Christianity is just one homogeneous group. Many will and do accept evolution, others probably never will. Just don't fall for 'muh science is god now'

>>1602437
The Catholic Church, which includes the majority of the world's christians, accepted it a long time ago. So have nearly all Lutherans and Anglicans, as well as most Orthodox Christians. The only real holdouts are segments of the Baptist, Methodist, and "born again" evangelical sects.

>>1603482
The influence of Greek ethos in our society is overrated. Greek tragedies, for instance, would be decried today as being riddled with cheap ass-pulls. Their democracy has less to do with our own than the ancient and medieval republics, the Norse Things or the articles of piracy - there were a ton of systems more democratic by our standards than Greek democracy. They looked on labor, which is antithetical to both Capitalism and Socialism. They practiced slavery which is antithetical to our liberal ideology and pederasty which is antithetical to our Christian/Humanistic background.

>>1605395
>They looked on labor
They looked down on labor

>>1603085
>allows homosexual priests
>displaced Anglicans
for starters

>>1603136
muh sola scriptura

File: nietzsche-is-dead.jpg (207KB, 700x449px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 700x449px

>>1603289

>>1605340
>NO i clearly stated my argument that has NOTHING at all to do with theodicy

I must have missed reading that. I just find your argument to be structuraly related to theodice, that´s all.

>of course you can strip of every critera from god even logical consistensy to make your god unattackable

That was sort of my point in writing this >>1602707
Of course god is beyond the rational. I don´t know if you are the same anon I replied to there.

>a sinful life is REWARDED by the system of evolution that god set up
>and at the same time he forbids it
Yes, that is one of the central themes of the bible. I believe I tangeated the subject here >>1602832 when talking with you.

Of course, in my opinion, we have to be rational when we argue about god. But, as I understand christianity, god himself is clearly seen as beeing beyond the rational.
Allow me to draw a parallel: when one talks about love, one should do it in arational way. Love itself however is not rational, but beyond rationality. Of course there are scientific, rational explanation about why love exists, spanning from the neuroscientific to the evolutionary. Yet, the subjective experience of love is still beyond rational. Do you catch my drift now?

>>1602453
Eeeh catholics in the third world are basically american protestants but worse.

>>1602622
Nope, it depends on whst kind of reproductive strategy a species adopts you moron.
Also, morality and reality are distinct.

>>1605458

so is it impossible in your view to argue about god because human rationality is not able to touch him anyway ?

i accept that god is beyond the rational but his word handed to humans is not

the purpose of the bible is to make some rules that apply to us accessible

if there is something that contradicts other facts about the world then that is crucial

and your view seems to make the whole basis for christianity vacuous

in your view it seems that i could not even praise god for anything because i cannot apply my human version of "good" to him

and i still dont see how anything you said reconciles the contradiction i stated

its not "bad" or "good" in a moral sense to contradict yourself its simply logically inconistent

i dont see how love can be a analogy if every single nuance of it can be explained rationally

of course feelings are not rational

>>1603100
>all good things are exclusive to my religion
Why are Christians such sociopaths?

File: crucifixion.jpg (86KB, 731x1100px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 731x1100px

>>1603551
>love
>justice

>>1605487
in what sense is that an objection ?

i really dont understand what you are trying to say

>>1605509
Just because something is, it doesn't mean it must be.
Reality is a state, morality is assigning value to it or alternatives.

That and rape isn't rewarded like he is saying, it's not a constant among all beings. And even if it were it doesn't mean it should be.

>>1605500
https://youtu.be/XA6aIhHzXkw?t=14m19s

File: gradient.jpg (44KB, 1690x933px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1690x933px

>>1605123
>It's literally impossible for something to exist without there being a first of it. Pre-humans are not humans as we know them.

You're actually right in a way. Species don't exist - they're just something humans invented to help us categorize the world. As such there really is no "human species" as it is impossible for us to a draw a clear line between what is human and what is not human in an evolutionary time frame. Sure, we can state with certainity that something such as a a very ancient ape ancestor isn't human - the problem its when over time that ape ancestor's lineage becomes so close to human that it's difficult to draw the line on what is and isn't humans. And we have the advantage of being able to determine in retrospect - imagine if you were some alien observer of evolution throughout time and you had no knowledge of what modern humans look like - at what point, while watching these animals evolve, do you say "Stop! That's a new species!"

For comparison, imagine a gradient like this one. At what point does green end and blue begin? Where is the line between red and pink?

>>1605519
>Just because something is, it doesn't mean it must be

i know that but in evolutionary terms the reward of something is measured by its reproductive success

and raping and lying clearly contributes to your reproductive success otherwise if would not evolve in humans and other species like ravens

and if god is the creator of the proccess of evolution he is also responsible for these rewards

>>1602437
We didn't come from a monkey sorry bros

>>1605564
What is this tinfoil shit?

>>1605676
Smart post anon. Your argument is similar to the Sorites Paradox, vaguely.

>>1605490
I am afraid wa are talking past each other.

>so is it impossible in your view to argue about god because human rationality is not able to touch him anyway ?

I think I clearly stated that one can and should talk ABOUT god rationally. Rationality is however not a PROPERTY of god. And yes, akaik jewish and christian theologicans agree, that the nature of god is unfathomable. One of the central christian dogmas, the one of trinity, is a logical contradiction within itself. God is threfold yet he is one. From a logical standpoint that is clearly false as false can be. God is viewed as x and y at the same time, whilst the defining property of x is that it is not y. Rational thought, as well as contemplation are amongst the paths to understand aspects of god. Some would argue that the only way to experience the totality of god is mystic experience, some would argue against it. human rationality and contemplation (e.g. science) are not the only dimensions of the human experience, don´t you agree?


>i accept that god is beyond the rational but his word handed to humans is not
I think that religious texts are essentially dogmatic. they are based on unfalsifiable premisses, if you accept them, you can build rational arguments with them.

>the purpose of the bible is to make some rules that apply to us accessible
That is a fairly simplistic view of the bible imho

>if there is something that contradicts other facts about the world then that is crucial
>and your view seems to make the whole basis for christianity vacuous
I did not understand that point, sorry. I mean within the commandments of the old testament there are tons of contradictions.

>in your view it seems that i could not even praise god for anything because i cannot apply my human version of "good" to him
no, you can not praise god for beeing god as you would praise a human for beeing good.

>>1605490
>and i still dont see how anything you said reconciles the contradiction i stated
>its not "bad" or "good" in a moral sense to contradict yourself its simply logically inconistent

I am getting sort of frustrated, because I really don´t know what you mean by contradiction. Yes, judeochristian god commands men to be good and at the same time creates a world which allows men to profit from braking his commandments. That is the point of departure of the whole religion. that´s literally what the fall of men is about. It literally says that men is cursed after he exits paradise. I don´t see the contradiction.

>i dont see how love can be a analogy if every single nuance of it can be explained rationally
what?
If you don´t experience love you can explain it rationally as an evolutionally adapted mechanism, as a social construct or a fiction or whatever. You can do the same with god as long as you don´t have faith (faith beeing an experience of god). These two descriptions of the same phaenomena are not necesarilly mutually exclusive.
>of course feelings are not rational
Is love not a feeling?

>>1605826
sorry, forgot a phrase there
>and i still dont see how anything you said reconciles the contradiction i stated
>its not "bad" or "good" in a moral sense to contradict yourself its simply logically inconistent
I am getting sort of frustrated, because I really don´t know what you mean by contradiction. Yes, judeochristian god commands men to be good and at the same time creates a world which allows men to profit from braking his commandments. That is the point of departure of the whole religion. that´s literally what the fall of men is about. It literally says that men is cursed after he exits paradise. I don´t see the contradiction. If it wheren´t so the whole commandments thing, the whole religion as a matter of fact, would be utterly nonsensical. There are religions like yainism that have a different view, that have a good god oposed to a bad god, but we are talking christianiti and judaism here.

>>1602437
I am a Christian and I studied enough to debate for evolution, yeah?

>>1605826
im getting frustrated too because i stated the contradiction clearly over and over again

i get that sin and death entered the world after original sin but how is that an excuse or explanation for god Debauching evil by setting up an evolutionary framework that awards sins

or dont you think that god invented evolution ?

here is the contradiction

god forbids lying
god sets up a framework that awards lying

and i should have put the statement of course feelings are not rational before the part about love sorry

feelings are not rational but they can be explained fully by science

the subjective experience of it is not an "alternative description" but an illusion that does not contribute to the understanding of love at all

and you seem to think that god is Not fully explainable by science so thats why i think it is not a valid analogy

>>1606048
my point is that you cant free god from any responsibility if he is the one who sets up the framework in which sin is rewarded

>>1606056
this a of course based on the notion that god designed evolution

>>1602437
Can light and dark be reconciled?

>>1605826

What does it profit a man to gain the entire world, but lose his soul?

Or what would a man take in exchange for his very soul?

No, the god of this world is not the God Who made this world, not yet.

>>1606048
The devil sets up a framework to reward lying, because he is the inventor of lies, and all he does is lie.

And the devil is the god this world chose, at the Fall of Man, not the Creator.

>>1606048
>god forbids lying
>god sets up a framework that awards lying
This is only a contradiction if you suppose that god does not "want" lies to exist. He does not "want" you to lie, which is a different thing. If there is no way to break a commandment there is no need for one. And if there is no wincentive to break a comandement it would also be sort of useless, don´t you agree?
now of course you can say that god is quite an asswhole if he tempts us and at the same time expects us to resist the temptation. that´s why I started to talk about the whole beyond good and evil thing in the first place.

>feelings are not rational but they can be explained fully by science
I think our views digress here, I am saying this as someone that has worked 5 years in cognitive science and currently is dooing the formation to become a psicoanalyst. Nobody I ever met in the psychological research community ever said that feelings can be explained. You can explain the neurological correlate, the evolutionary use, the social implications and causes, but not the feeling itself. Find one peer reviewed paper that tries to explain love. You will find tons of it about it´s conditions, about different ways to live it, but none about love itself. That is the realm of poetry, religion or philosophy.
I think god is scientifically explainable just as much as love is. As a social phenomenom or as a evolutionary byproduct or a neurological dysfunction or as a false atribution of cause or whatever. I would advise you to read up on the qualia debate. It is quite fascinating stuff, and just by reading the first paragraphs of the wikipedia article you will know what I mean. It is beautyful because it is not about something as complicated as feelings, but about something as relatively straight forward as qualia. But the question is parallel.

>>1606154
I just checked, and there does not seem to be a wikipedia page about the qualia debate, rather just about qualia. Man, to what the world has come... :^(

>>1606161
just google "Mary the super-scientist thought experiment" instead.

>>1606154
>This is only a contradiction if you suppose that god does not "want" lies to exist. He does not "want" you to lie, which is a different thing

sorry i honestly dont understand the difference there

>I think our views digress here

yeah i agree i dont think philosophy religion or poetry are in the business of explaining love

i know a bit about the qualia debate but i think it will be resolved by science

>>1603430
AKA
>there is evidence, but only if you think exactly like me

File: T-Rex-Soft-Tissue.jpg (51KB, 800x217px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x217px

>>1607342
Goes both ways, bud.

>>1605339
So the main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. Don't get me wrong, I beleive in evolltion and all, but if humans evoulved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

>>1608168
is this pasta?

>>1607577
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

>>1608174
How Can Evolution Be Real If Our DNA Isn't Real?

>>1608168
fucking autism. it doesn't mean the common ancestor has all the features of chimps and humans, just that the common ancestor had traits that both humans and chimps have

>>1608168
>has no idea about evolution
>believes in it anyway

>>1608173
yes. there are many parts to it, including a pretty mind numbing aside on how many legs ancient species had.

>>1608168
Watch some documentaries about evolution and it'll clear everything up for you just like that. No more how's and why's in your life regarding this question, just the answers you need, easy as shit.

Give it a try or continue being naive.

File: Photoresponse.jpg (2MB, 1353x2263px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1353x2263px

>>1608168

>>1602642
You're gif really goes along well with what you posted.

>>1603022
What a shit dad.

Here you go, thrive my children! But if you don't trust me unconditionally despite all evidence pointing the other way, then I will condemn you to be tortured for eternity.

The most abusive parent in history isn't quite that evil, they can also brainwash you into blind trust but at least they can't doom your soul into agony forever because you hurt their feelings.

What the fuck is free will for if the alternative to agreeing is 100% guaranteed unimaginable pain and terror.

>>1603022
Not to mention these 'advantages' he lavishes upon us is only given to people lucky enough to be born in the right country under the right circumstances in the right faith. Every other baby can go fuck themselves right? Sound fair?

IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR BEING BORN IN A MUSLIM FAMILY AND KNOWING NO OTHER WAY. BURN IN HELL FOREVER AHAHAHA - A loving, fatherly God (call me Dad)

>>1603474
>lenin in that fighting pose

With natural selection, yes, because it answers How. But not with evolution, which answers Why. Catholics that claim otherwise do it because their are concerned about their image, not by their faith. The same that those who are cool with gays. Not true catholics.

>>1610372
I don't get how Christians square up "infinite loving kindness god" with "burn gay people in hell forever" .
Hating gays is clearly some biased human stance. How can you think God emanates the highest virtues yet conveniently shares your petty quibbles. Doesn't that go against the basis of your cosmology?

What's equally weird, is that Christians are genuinely shocked when they catch flak for displaying wanton hatred contrary to their creed, like they didn't expect anyone would notice the hypocrisy. Why relish in hate and then be offended when people call you out? Is it a lack of self awareness?

For me this behavior undermines any claimed moral high ground. I don't trust people who hold two contradictory standards and who bounce between whichever is convenient for themselves.

>>1610507
>Hating gays

Is condemned by most sects of Christianity, especially the Catholic church. There is no such thing as gay people, some people commit homosexual acts, those acts are sins, just like the other sins. It is possible to repent and be forgiven, and it is Christian's duty to help these people move away from sin for their own good just like with any other sins they commit.

>>1610532
>There is no such thing as gay people, some people commit homosexual acts, those acts are sins
Interesting rationalization. The fact is that some people are attracted to the same sex and we refer to those as "gay", so it ends up being Denial of reality. However it still contains the kernel of human bias claiming divine authority, it's still the same illogical premise. The twist I suppose is the difference between "Evil" and "Wrong". In your example the Christian shows his compassion and love by trying to make the gay person conform to the Christians own views. Ultimately you'd be in the same place were it not for Theocracy falling out of favor.

>>1610573
>Interesting rationalization
That's pretty much the basic Christian understanding of "sin" for thousands of years. People are, by nature, sinful. They have sinful inclinations. The fact that they have inclinations isn't, in and of itself, sinful. It's just evidence of their sin nature. The sin is when they act on those inclinations.

>so it ends up being Denial of reality
Christians have never denied that some people are born with certain desires. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you act on those desires.

>>1605274
>Yes I am assuming magic isn't real and that the account is a parable of the lost golden age of hunting and gathering before the age of agriculture. You, apparently, are too educated to see this obvious myth as anything but literal.

Why the fuck would you ask a question about how evolution and God can be reconciled, and then when given a way they could be, go "Yeah well God isn't real so it doesn't count" as a response? Do you not see how retarded that is?

>Not even close, try again.

Why don't you share then anon?

And which theologians are you referring to? Preferably point out ones who's opinions were adopted by a major Church too, because some random disagreeing isn't really much of a point to be made.

>>1602437
No.

For one.
Abrahamic sex restrictions place artificial barriers around otherwise successful genes, stifling them, while also providing handicaps to detrimental mutations allowing them to survive.

>>1610532
There's no such thing as 'sin'

And being a faggot certainly wouldn't be one of them if it was.

>>1613399
kek

Not if you want to maintain even a modicum of intellectual honesty. It takes olympic levels of mental gymnastics to get from "man is so perfect and made in God's image" to "man is a descendant of ape-like beings and filled to the brim with shit design philosophy".

>>1605476
Third world Catholic here (Philippines)

We have no problems with evolution at all. It's an accepted fact.

Only Filipino protestants were ever so weird. especially Baptist freaks.

>>1602622
is-ought-fallacy all over dem shiz