Religion Debates and Discussions

''I know a righteous anger is not a sin, BECAUSE the King James Bible says WITHOUT A CAUSE! But your beloved NASB does make Jesus a sinner. In the NASB it clearly says ''everyone who is angry with his brother''. As for John 7:8, the NASB clearly says: ''I do not go up unto this feast''. Even in modern English, ''yet'' isn't placed in an explanation.

You didn't answer the question. Do you believe that God was able to preserve his words in an infallible copy (Psalm 12:6-7 KJV, Matthew 24:35 KJV) or are you a Bible-agnostic?

Also, what is your statement of faith concerning salvation?''

 

You don't bieleve in Macro evolution because there isn't proof? Ok, well where's the proof for the dude in the sky? 65 pages and counting of waiting.

It's funny how some people can be such logical thinkers but can't apply it to religion.

 

Whatever the answer is, it ends up with the two options that I stated previously: either God's stance on morality is founded in his own whim, or there is a force that influenced God to choose certain morals.

 

Then I guess I'll let this do the explaining: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/angry-without-cause-in-matthew-522
That gnostic website is claiming that the ''oldest and best'' manuscripts don't contain those words. That's true, because those ''oldest and best'' manuscripts are absolute trash. If they are supposed to be your source for christianity, then you have debunked christianity altogether already. First of all, ''older'' (and that's even up to debate whether they are truly older) doesn't mean better in the world of manuscripts. They were found in a good condition because nobody ever used them! Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus contain the Apocrypha and the Shepherd of Hermes. That should tell you a lot.

Well tell me. Which Bible version/manuscript do you believe to be the perfect, preserved word of God without errors? None of the Bible versions and the manuscripts are 100% the same, so which one do you believe to be infallible?

I mean, how do you believe a person gets saved?

 

- Yeah, see I don't give a fck if there's no salvation. Sorry.

- I mean, people have asked (maybe you, I forget) for proof of macro evolution. I've given proof of the macro, which you haven't addressed. I've also explained that micro and macro evolution ARE THE SAME THING. It's a not a goddamn false cause fallacy because micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing.

Let me explain with the metaphor of a person walking. I'm trying to prove that a person can walk 100 metres. I've got lots of proof of this happening (but you're ignoring it, so maybe we'll leave that for now). You acknowledge that a person is able to walk 1 Metre (micro-evolution). I tell you that each step is exactly as difficult as the first, so if a human can walk 1 Metre with no problem, they can walk 100 m (macro evolution). What about this idea is hard to understand?

- "I'm not one of these snowflakes."

2 minutes later

"Evolution and creationism should be taught as theories"

HAHhhahahHahahahahahahahaha

OK buddy two things here. Firstly, why only teach Christian creationism? If you think all theories should be accepted, why not teach the origins of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Hinduism, or any other religion? And secondly, if you can give me evidence of creationism happening that's on par with the evidence for evolution, you'll have a good case. Until then, you're speaking out of your a$$. Evolution should be taught as a theory the same way the shape of the earth is taught as a theory. We should all know it's true, we just know it's not an absolute 100% truth. But it's often hard to get absolute truths in science, so we'll have to make do.

 

I don't know how far back you've read on this thread, but this use of the word "theory" is really, really far off the truth.
A scientific theory is a hypothesis that is the best and simplest explanation for the natural world as we can observe it, and it has to have gone through rigorous testing, with no signs of falling apart.
Evolution is a "theory" in the same way that the Bible is "just a book." You take the Bible as the word of God, and for someone to say the Bible is "just a book" is pretty stupid, as is calling evolution "just a theory."
Here's a list of some other things that are "just theories."

• Gravity
• General & special relativity
• Newton's laws
• The Doppler effect
• Heisenberg uncertainty principle
• Kepler's laws

I think that education where creationism is addressed could be nice, but it should not be taught in the same manner that evolution is, because evolution has literal, real, observable evidence and has stood up to study after study. If you've found a flaw in evolution, and think that evolution has only as much real-world evidence as creationism, go on ahead and present your ideas. The science world is willing to listen to any hypotheses.

As for the proofs of evolution, and whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, here's an essay I wrote in ninth grade about that:

Spoiler: Evolution Essay

The issue of whether or not evolution should be taught in school has been a debate lasting decades. On one side of the argument is the stance that since evolution is backed by so much evidence that the theory is strong enough to be taught as fact. The other side argues that since separation of church and state make teaching religions in public schools illegal, the same should be done to evolution, since it is not supported as fact. This debate has roots in many thoughts, people, and proofs; therefore, a compromise can almost assuredly not be reached in a reasonable time. However, while this is a controversial subject, it is always useful to propose new reasoning and ideas to either side. Based on the evidence given in class, private research, and prior knowledge, evolution has enough support and not enough dissent to be taught in schools.

What is a Theory?

In common speech, a theory is something that has not enough support to be thought of as fact, but has enough proof to be considered. On the contrary, “a theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word ‘theory.’ A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena” (www.geo.sunysb.edu). While some people make the claim that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools as fact because it is “only a theory,” evolution is a scientific theory. For scientists, this means that the hypothesis has been through rigorous testing and has held up against and supported observed phenomena and evidence. Saying that evolution is “only a theory” in biology is analogous to saying gravity is “only a theory” in physics. Evolution is the pinnacle and cornerstone of biological studies, since all biological research assumes evolution to be true. Incredible amounts of evidence and testing have gone into proving and supporting evolution, and it would be a very bad decision to remove evolution from school curricula, or even to teach it as “only a theory,” as this would promote a non-scientific use of the word “theory”.

Fossil Evidence

A fossil is “any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age” (www.dictionary.com). Fossil evidences of evolution include any trace of ancient life that show increasing complexity in species over time. Scientists can date fossils using a variety of methods. Most commonly, and for rough dating, scientists will analyze the layer of rock the fossil was found in to estimate the age of the fossil. This method is reliable because fossils are deposited on top of rock, and so become a part of the rock layer they fall in. This method isn’t perfect, since fossils are often displaced slightly from their rock layer, and often will sink far into sand or loose soil. The other method is more accurate but also more time consuming and expensive. Scientists can measure the amount of carbon 14 in a fossil and compare it to the amount that should be found in a living animal. Then, using half-lives of radioactive substances, they can determine the age of the fossil. Since half-lives are constant for any given radioactive substance, this method relies only on accuracy of measurements and random chance. This evidence for evolution is sound, since scientists can date and analyze fossils accurately. For example, fossils dating from Cambrian or Ordovician eras are often very simple. Trilobites, classic examples of Cambrian species, are perfect to showcase the simplicity of these fossils. Trilobites consist of a cephalon, or head; segmented thorax; and pygidium, or tail piece. Trilobites are named for their distinct 3-lobed body. They have a large axial lobe sided by a left and right lobe. While the category of all trilobites is vast and contains thousands of species, all trilobites have this unique and simple form (www.trilobites.info). Ordovician fossils mark the rise of marine invertebrates, which are still very simple fossils. As the fossil record goes on, species grow larger and more intricate, indicating that they evolved to meet needs. The fossil record is, therefore, a solid proof of evolution.

Transitional Fossils

“Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms” (evolution.berkeley.edu). In simpler terms, a transitional form is any evidence that species have been changing over time. For example, whales posed a problem to biologists for a long time, since they are mammals, which is out of place for marine animals. Furthermore, whales’ style of swimming is different from that of all other marine animals. New studies show that whales probably evolved from a land scavenger which took to the water to avoid predators and to find abundant food. Gradually, this species of scavenger wolf lost its paws to form larger, more flat flippers, its nostrils rose to the top of its head for maximum efficiency, and its back paws may have formed into the whale’s powerful tail (www.evolution.berkeley.edu). Transitional species are an evidence for evolution since they show that species change over time to enter new environments.

Vestigial Structures

Vestigial structures are those that seem to have no purpose in the body of whatever species they exist in. Vestigial structures, also known as vestigial organs, are commonly thought to have been made irrelevant because of evolutionary change as the species no longer needed them. (evolution.about.com). Since it would waste precious energy, a developing embryo may not spend time developing organs that won’t provide an advantage. Examples of vestigial structures are found in huge numbers throughout species. Examples in humans are the coccyx, or the tailbone; the plica luminaris, the remnant of a third eyelid; and the appendix, although new research suggests some possible use. (evolution.about.com). The assumed use of the tailbone was as the base for a tailbone in monkeys, which lost the need for a tail when they left the trees and began walking on two legs. Vestigial structures support the theory of evolution because there would be no reason for a species to develop useless organs or tissue. The descent of a species from an earlier species provides an explanation for this. Vestigial structures, therefore, are a solid reason to believe evolution should be taught in public schools.

Homologous Structures

Homologous structures are one of the strongest supports for evolution. Homologous structures are “structures derived from a common ancestor or same evolutionary or developmental origin” (www.biology-online.org). In simpler terms, these are forms that have similar or nearly identical structure for a similar or identical purpose. Examples of homologous structures are abundant throughout history and species. Legs are a classic example of this evidence for evolution, as this structure is found is almost every animal, especially mammals. Legs of cats, dogs, arms of humans, and legs most other mammals use a distinct pattern. Even wings of bats and whale flippers have an extremely similar pattern. Their upper limb consists of one bone connected to two bones in the lower part of the limb. Those are connected to a wrist bone, and several protruding bones. In humans, these bones make up fingers, in cats and dogs they extend into claws and are used for support, in bats the digits are extended into supports for the wing, and in whales they support and shape the flipper. The evidence seen in homologous structures is strong support for evolution and subsequently its teaching in schools. Homologous structures evidence, therefore, supports the idea that evolution should be taught in school as scientific theory.

Embryo Similarities

There are many similarities in shape and structure of developing embryos across many species. Embryonic similarities are, although weak, a support for evolution. While it may not be a strong proof, embryos can provide some evidence. Embryos are unborn and developing offspring of any species. They are, notably, also very similar in appearance. This is due to very similar methods of development in every species of animal. Even species as dissimilar as humans and fish share many shape similarities in embryos. The main difference is size of the head and how far it protrudes from the body. Another example of how embryological similarities can support evolution is that some species of snake embryos often have legs in early stages, but rapidly lose them as they develop (www.evolution.berkeley.edu).

Biochemistry

Biochemistry provides the strongest proof for evolution in this paper. The DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) found in every species is identical in form, structure, and function. DNA codes for protein synthesis and development in every species, which strongly suggests a common ancestor. RNA in any species is involved in protein synthesis and is again identical to RNA in any other species. Dissenting opinions on evolution may argue that such a complex molecule would be impossible to form from random chance, especially with the ability to self-reproduce. While this event may seem unlikely, recent research suggests that it may have happened faster than previously believed. In class, we were taught of an experiment in which Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were able to create simple amino acids from abiotic material. They essentially heated, electrically charged, and exposed to UV radiation a sample of “primordial soup,” which is our best guess about early-Earth conditions. After a while, glycine and alanine were generated. This experiment has not gone unnoticed by the science community, and further attempts have been made to create organic molecules. Recently, a team of scientists have been able to actually produce RNA-like strings of the nucleotide bases barbituric acid and melamine. The article explains that these two acids may have been sort of place holders, allowing for adenine and uracil to take their place later (Cafferty et al. 2016). This study works to show that essential life components like DNA may come much faster on new planets than previously expected. Therefore, life beginning on Earth did not necessarily require intelligent design, as scientists have been able to reproduce what may have taken place early in Earth’s history. In addition, the existence of self-replicating DNA and RNA that can mutate spontaneously provides a mechanism by which change in species over time can occur. Biochemical evidence provides very strong support for evolution.

Conclusion

While a person might lean toward one side, they do not necessarily disagree with or ridicule the claims of the other side. Evolution, being an essential part of biology, should be taught in school. Evolution is such an important part of biology teachings that it would be a dire mistake to remove it from teaching in schools. Removing it would limit students’ exposure to the real science world and would have negative effects on the future of biology studies. Religion is a sound set of morals and is good for peoples’ conscience, but should not be taught in public schools, nor is it strongly supported enough by science to remove vital topics from classes based only on differing opinion. Science subjects should be based on what can be nearly proven with fact and not on what personal beliefs determine. If anything, evolution should be taught alongside teachings of what a scientific theory is. Doing this would strengthen the future’s understanding of the science community and would promote a more understanding mindset. Teaching of evolution should include clear statements that belief is on the individual and that schools will not forcibly make students take a certain opinion, but also should make sure to say that evolution is the best explanation that is supported by scientific fact. Public schools could offer non-mandatory classes that would discuss other opinions and beliefs such as intelligent design and creationism along with the political controversy over the teaching of evolution, but those classes should be separated from the sciences.

Works Cited

Bracher, Paul J. "Origin of Life: Primordial Soup That Cooks Itself." Nature Chemistry 7.5 (2015): 273-74. Http://www.nature.com/. Web. 2 May 2016.

"Developmental Biology." Lines of Evidence: Developmental Biology, Page 1 of 2. University of California, Berkeley, n.d. Web. 05 May 2016.

Scoville, Heather. "How Is Your Appendix Evidence of Evolution?" About.com Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016.

Cafferty, Brian J., David M. Fialho, Jaheda Khanam, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, and Nicholas V. Hud. "Spontaneous Formation and Base Pairing of Plausible Prebiotic Nucleotides in Water." Nature Communications (2016): n. pag. Web.

 

This^^

 

1. I highly doubt the contradictions part it could be true but that is a very strong statement to make. The prophecies can be said about many things. For example, the Simpsons predicted 9/11, the election of Donald Trump, and many other events. The same can be said for Back to the Future. Look up yt videos for more proof. This shows that even "mere men" can create accurate prophecies.

2. I will agree with the political statement. But everything else is pretty much talking about how when your book says something it is always right? You never explained why your god exists and the Greek and Egyptian ones don't.

3. Fair enough, but why would God allow priests or other religious figures to molest/rape children?

 

But, again, where did the reasons come from? Either God's decisions were arbitrary, meaning that He decided on them (or said reasons for them) with no power outside of Himself; or God's decisions were not arbitrary, which would mean that some power with the ability to influence God's initial decisions exists.

 

Then the reasons are arbitrary? As in God created the reasons from his own whim?

 

I already believe what you say about a righteous anger, but that's not the issue here. The problem is that the NASB says that anyone who is angry is sinning (now I know there are verses that show that Jesus' angry in the NASB), but that is clearly a contradiction. If there is only one contradiction, it cannot be the word of God.

When God says: ''without a cause'' then ofcourse the cause must be within his laws. Again, the problem with the modern versions is the clear contradiction.

I do believe people can get saved from another version than the KJV, BUT whenever that person is exposed to the Bible version issue, then he/she will repent. I don't believe that saved people can defend Bible versions filled with contradictions and false doctrine. John 8:47 KJV is clear on the matter.

''A person must also repent of their sins (stop living a sinful life) ... '' - That's worksalvation. The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, Romans 4:5 KJV, Romans 11:6 KJV) in how that Jesus, God in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV), died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) for the payment of sins, salvation from hell and eternal life. God's word is the source of faith (Romans 10:17 KJV) and in order to hear (understand) that, it's to be received as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV).

Worksalvation leads to hell as we can read in Matthew 7:21-23 KJV. Notice how Jesus NEVER them (not once knew them, like the ''lose your salvationists'' think). These people are mentioning their wonderful WORKS (stop living a sinful life is also defined as a work in the Bible. Read: Jonah 3:10 KJV). These people weren't saved, because they failed to do the will of the Father which is found in John 6:39-40 KJV; verse 39 teaching once saved always saved and verse 40 teaching immediate eternal life by faith alone.

 

yeah but it's all BS so why are you arguing about the virtues of different forms of BS

 

It's been an honor serving with you, Gehenna.

 

Have fun, and always question everything, including your own faith, because if you are right, then it will strengthen your beliefs, and the fallacies will be clear to you. But more importantly, question yourself and make the right decisions for the rest of your life. Good luck in the future Gehenna.

 

if you havent learned anything from this, at least go with this: at least attempt to imagine god not existing instead of blindly following