Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome.

We hope you enjoy your visit to Bartiforums.com

Since 2005 we've been a place for Bart fans to come together, discuss the books and other things. Jonathan Stroud himself is also a member of our community and you have the chance to talk to him. All you need to do is register an account.

Once registering you'll have the ability to set up and customise your profile, and access the options to post replies. Registration is completely free. There are no costs for access to any part of our board.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: (Advanced Login)

Username:   Password:
Creation Vs Evolution.
Topic Started: Feb 6 2006, 05:31 PM (7,966 Views)
Ianna
Member Avatar
Marid
I hate being gone. I have to catch up.

Ok...here it goes....

Quote:
 
...They borrowed from something written 2,500 years in the future? The halo was worn in worship to the sun god.


Quote:
 

As for the halo itself, christian art adopts it as a symbol of righteousness, holiness. The same way it adopts the thought that Jesus was a frail, long-haired, mystical looking man of pale complexion. Which raises the question of, why do pictures show a middle-aged caucasian man, born in a place where dark skin is dominant. Why is it that Jews forbidded men to have long hair, but Yeshua is often depicted as such? His image is a tarnished thing, changed by the Roman Catholic Church and altered continuously.


I looked it up right after I posted that and saw no where in the Bible mentioning Jesus having a halo. It was only artists and they have nothing to do with the Bible.

And I agree that his image has been tarnished.

Quote:
 
Ianna: You say there is no concrete evidence for evolution, but there is definitly no concrete evidence for God either.

A note on the evolution of humans, why is it that we could not have developed from apes (note that I did not say monkeys)? They have the same kind of skeletal structure to us, the same organs, you name it. It would take a good few hundred thousand years, but it is very feasable that we developed from a species of ape, just one. A species that no longer exists because it evolved. The thing with evolution is, its reliant on the environment. I mean, look at the world now, it is full of humans, but there are different species of humans: caucasian, asian, african. All of us have the same type of body, but are adapted different to suit our environment, dark skin, small eyes, big feet. All developed for a purpose. To me evolution seems very possible, and I compleatly believe in it...im curious to know the argument against it.


Well, actually, there is fact. It's just the way you interpert it. Evolutionists and Creationist intepert it different ways.

A lot of animals have similar DNA and such like us and apes, right? If someone creates a chair then a table it's not going to look like two people did it and probably has some similarities. Well, like evolutionists say that's proof for evolution, I say it's proof that we have a common creator.

Quote:
 
You can't or won't contemplate the fact that you were created by chance reactions over many millions of years, but you happily believe that you were created by a 'God' that was created by... what?


I've tried looking at that way, but it seemed all wrong to me.

God wasn't created he has always been. To put it in a reasonable manner, he is outside of time. He has no beginning in time and has always exsisted.

Quote:
 
In a way, yes. It was a protein, probably tiny, that was able to self-replicate. Exactly how isn't known to any reasonable level of certainty, but perhaps a group of these molecules could react together in such a way that they'd catalyse the production of more of these molecules?


This does sound reasonable, in a way. Obviously, my textbook did not have explanations for evolution, which is were I got my research.

Quote:
 

Ah, right, so you believe the whole world was created in seven days a bit over four thousand years ago, going by dates in the Bible. Fair enough; I've already addressed the millions of years thing.
Oh? What about carbon-14 dating? Fossils of animals that don't exist on the Earth any more?


Yep.

Ok, carbon-14 dating. You know how it works, right? So I won't bother to explain that...

First point: It can only be used on things once living.
Second Point: 14C decays so that half of the amount will convert back back to 14N in 5,730 or so years. So after 5,730 more years half that will be left. This leads to anything over 50,000 years having no 14C that can be detected. So millions of years is impossible.
Third Point: Archaeologists don't always regard 14C as absolute.
Fourth Point: Also, since volcanoes produce carbon dioxide that's depleted in 14C, this might cause fossils to seem older than they really are.

And there probably are holes here because I didn't explain carefully enough but if you have any questions...

Quote:
 
Ignoring evidence and everything else, you'd rather believe that a supernatural force suddenly created us than believe that somewhere in our vast universe, over untold millions of years, life evolved from a simple self-replicating protein which was itself created by a lucky chemical reaction out of the near infinite number of reactions that have happened over the course of the universe's existance?


Evidence can go both ways in this, you know.

But I'd rather believe in created for a reason than luck.

"You belong in Gryffindor,
where dwell the brave at heart,
Their daring, nerve and chivalry
set Gryffindors apart."


Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
Wanting to believe in something that is pretty and prim is only a form of self-isolation...

I didn't say it was mentioned in the Bible, because Jesus wouldn't have worn a halo because, that's the sign of angels, is it not? The modernized angels, not the real biblical forty-headed monsters of flame which kick total ass. But he is often depicted as such as another thing to give him a sense of divinity. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with this, though.

Looking at it from the viewpoint that it is correct, but it seemed wrong? You still retained biased for your side, and you probably aren't as open-minded as you lead yourself to believe. But it is a manner of upbringing, influences, or if it is your belief, possibly divine influence.

Carbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in. You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?

But, since I am unable to disprove a negative and really should not tempt fate, I believe in evolution and possible divine intervention that aided it. Do you actually think we were going to reach some conclusion by arguing on a heated subject that has been a major controversy for several years now? This argument is pointless and all it'd accomplish is destroying that sense of protection instilled in you (but remember, if you go against the Bible, you burn for eternity. Sounds like scare tactics that have worked for millenia. Ouch.)

:| Touche.

EDIT: Since you are talking about how unbelievable the date of 4.5 billion years is, show me some facts that would support a young Earth of thousands instead of millions of years.
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Beleth
Member Avatar
Ghul
Ianna
May 25 2006, 07:49 PM
Quote:
 
Ianna: You say there is no concrete evidence for evolution, but there is definitly no concrete evidence for God either.

A note on the evolution of humans, why is it that we could not have developed from apes (note that I did not say monkeys)? They have the same kind of skeletal structure to us, the same organs, you name it. It would take a good few hundred thousand years, but it is very feasable that we developed from a species of ape, just one. A species that no longer exists because it evolved. The thing with evolution is, its reliant on the environment. I mean, look at the world now, it is full of humans, but there are different species of humans: caucasian, asian, african. All of us have the same type of body, but are adapted different to suit our environment, dark skin, small eyes, big feet. All developed for a purpose. To me evolution seems very possible, and I compleatly believe in it...im curious to know the argument against it.


Well, actually, there is fact. It's just the way you interpert it. Evolutionists and Creationist intepert it different ways.

A lot of animals have similar DNA and such like us and apes, right? If someone creates a chair then a table it's not going to look like two people did it and probably has some similarities. Well, like evolutionists say that's proof for evolution, I say it's proof that we have a common creator.

True fact shouldnt need interpretation. True fact cannot be argued with. Something that is true fact is mutation, we see it happening in bacteria all the time, you have said it yourself. Another term for mutation is evolution, these bacteria are rapidly evolving to deal with the changes to their environment.

As for the table chair argument, I see where your coming from, but I still dont see why you are picking God over evolution...darwinism is far more plausable.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Ianna
Member Avatar
Marid
Quote:
 
True fact shouldnt need interpretation. True fact cannot be argued with. Something that is true fact is mutation, we see it happening in bacteria all the time, you have said it yourself. Another term for mutation is evolution, these bacteria are rapidly evolving to deal with the changes to their environment.

As for the table chair argument, I see where your coming from, but I still dont see why you are picking God over evolution...darwinism is far more plausable.


You're right. But both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. They see it differently because God isn't in the evolutionists equation. And to some degree, evolution is within creation, such as adaption. The Bible isn't against science, you know.

Like I said, it's all the way you see things. First off, I find things more scientifically explainable with the Bible. Of course, if I said that in any sort of sciene convention I'd be laughed out, but hey.

I'd like to interrupt the points we've all made to ask this one:

If you don't believe the Bible is true, what do you believe about it?

"You belong in Gryffindor,
where dwell the brave at heart,
Their daring, nerve and chivalry
set Gryffindors apart."


Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Sentynel
Member Avatar
Nothing But The Rain

The Bible is a collection of stories and legends created with the main purpose of instilling morals into people, with the added effects of protecting them from the terror of the 'what happens when I die?' question, and other similar things.

And it's the good old argument style: "I can't counter your arguments, Krim and Sentynel, so I'm going to ask a question at a tangent from what we've been discussing so far!"

I'm interested in how you believe in some adaptation, except that there have only been four thousand years or so for it to happen in?

Further to what Krim said about rock layers, what about ice caps? The atmospheric data in them, for example, that goes back millions of years?

Finally, I'd suggest you go and read the Wikipedia page on evolution and then come back to us with arguments.
Sentynel - Head Ninja, Admin, Keeper of the Ban Afrit, Official Forum Graphics Guy, and forum code debugger.
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
- looks for a connection with bacteria mutating and God that isn't completely irrelevant. - o_O

True, it is possible they go hand-in-hand, and it is true that science and religion do work together in some points, but to say the Bible isn't against science? Then why do we have an evolutionist/creationism debate, other than creationism being a form of science, in ways? Why does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and science says 4.5 billion? Maybe the Bible is against it in ways, but who knows if God/any gods are. - shrugs. - Interesting enough, in the Goetia, demons teach men things like Algebra and Astronomy, even though the Goetia has been interpreted to be a mental state of mind where portions of your brain are enhanced through a mixture of ceremonial perfumes and sounds...but, mhm...I have not read many accounts of angels.

The subject still is Creation vrs. Evolution, not, Does Evolution and Creationism Go Together? We are arguing the points of one and the other, not if they go together. Creationism does not go along with Evolution, even though the Bible and Christianity may. The topic is not focused on that, so, allow us to return to the debate. :)
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Ianna
Member Avatar
Marid
Quote:
 
The Bible is a collection of stories and legends created with the main purpose of instilling morals into people, with the added effects of protecting them from the terror of the 'what happens when I die?' question, and other similar things.

And it's the good old argument style: "I can't counter your arguments, Krim and Sentynel, so I'm going to ask a question at a tangent from what we've been discussing so far!"


I've been countering them. But since you asked me what I believed on certain points of evolution, I decided to find out what you thought of the Bible.

Quote:
 

I didn't say it was mentioned in the Bible, because Jesus wouldn't have worn a halo because, that's the sign of angels, is it not? The modernized angels, not the real biblical forty-headed monsters of flame which kick total ass. But he is often depicted as such as another thing to give him a sense of divinity. Perhaps I went off on a tangent with this, though.

Looking at it from the viewpoint that it is correct, but it seemed wrong? You still retained biased for your side, and you probably aren't as open-minded as you lead yourself to believe. But it is a manner of upbringing, influences, or if it is your belief, possibly divineCarbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in. You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?


Well, it seemed like you did as you said:...and the fact that the Bible has mixtures of stories from a collection of religions all over the world (Jesus' halo = the halo of Bel of the Phoenicians, among numbers of other things) world, you still believe Genesis is correct.

Is it possible to be truly openminded once you've made your decision? I believe that evolution has good points. In fact, some of it is correct dealing with the gene mutations. However, it takes out God, adds in millions of years, ect. And I just can't accept that.

Quote:
 

True, it is possible they go hand-in-hand, and it is true that science and religion do work together in some points, but to say the Bible isn't against science? Then why do we have an evolutionist/creationism debate, other than creationism being a form of science, in ways?


Creationism, though arguably part of the Bible, is as you said, a science in some ways. And I consider it so, though some may not. It is people who debate, not the Bible and Evolution.

Quote:
 
Why does the Bible say the Earth is 6,000 years old, and science says 4.5 billion?  Since you are talking about how unbelievable the date of 4.5 billion years is, show me some facts that would support a young Earth of thousands instead of millions of years.


Ok, then. I will.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast: The stars in The Milky Way rotate so fast that if the galaxy was more than a few hundred years old, then it wouldn't have it's spiral shape.

2. There's not enough mud in the sea: Every year a total of 24 billion tons of sediment is left on the sea floor. If we were billions of years old then the water wouldn't be so pretty.

3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?

4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.

Quote:
 
  Carbon 14 dating isn't the only measurement of time we have anyway. I'd like to see your explanation that discredits the Law of Superpositioning and all that good stuff, and how we count rock by layers to determine the age. You're basing your argument off the fact that, since the dating is not absolutely proved, that it is a vague subject and anything concerning it must obviously be vague and have a level of impossibility behind in.



Well, that's the only one you asked me about. Part of my argument is based of that, but since you didn't bother to ask me about any of the above things doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Ok, here is my explanation that discredits all that good stuff:

I assume you all know of the flood in Genesis, right?

The thickness of rocks can be created over short periods of time with a lot of water or over long periods of time with very little water.

Let's assume there was a flood. If there was a global flood, it would have caused a lot of sediment to erode and cover organisms very quickly and they would be fossilized. This could also cause rock layers to form fast too.


Quote:
 
You can believe that a being has always existed out of time, but you can't believe in the rather good chance one planet out of numerous could support life?


Seems illogical, don't it?

Can't explain that one really.

Quote:
 
But, since I am unable to disprove a negative and really should not tempt fate, I believe in evolution and possible divine intervention that aided it. Do you actually think we were going to reach some conclusion by arguing on a heated subject that has been a major controversy for several years now? This argument is pointless and all it'd accomplish is destroying that sense of protection instilled in you (but remember, if you go against the Bible, you burn for eternity. Sounds like scare tactics that have worked for millenia. Ouch.)


Nope, but I did think I'd learn more.

No, actually it's made me research more and come to many conclusions I hadn't thought of before. Scare tatics don't work on me, sorry. If I want to go against the Bible I will, I just have no desire to.

If it's so pointless, why do you bother to reply?

"You belong in Gryffindor,
where dwell the brave at heart,
Their daring, nerve and chivalry
set Gryffindors apart."


Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Sentynel
Member Avatar
Nothing But The Rain

Quote:
 
Ok, then. I will.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast: The stars in The Milky Way rotate so fast that if the galaxy was more than a few hundred years old, then it wouldn't have it's spiral shape.

2. There's not enough mud in the sea: Every year a total of 24 billion tons of sediment is left on the sea floor. If we were billions of years old then the water wouldn't be so pretty.

3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?

4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.

1. The Milky Way couldn't have formed in the first place if pure Newtonian gravity is used. It wouldn't magically form and then fly apart after a certain amount of time. There are various physicists working on exactly what is keeping the outer stars in place.
2. Ah, yes, but it doesn't just hang around there. Over the millions of years, as more layers build up, that section of the crust sinks and the lower layers melt into the magma inside the Earth. Some of the magma gets thrown out from volcanoes and the like. Basic rock cycle - isn't that one your science course?
3. "man began didn't record history for 1,000 years" - huh?
However, from what I'm understanding of that question, you're wondering why, if they could paint caves, why they didn't write down history. I'd say that the cave paintings and monuments are their record of history as it was important to them. If you're asking for something more complicated, writing down history is much more complicated than drawing a picture of someone hunting. It would require a complicated form of written language, something which simply hadn't been developed then.
4. ""This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK.

"My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC."

Quote:
 
Well, that's the only one you asked me about. Part of my argument is based of that, but since you didn't bother to ask me about any of the above things doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

Ok, here is my explanation that discredits all that good stuff:

I assume you all know of the flood in Genesis, right?

The thickness of rocks can be created over short periods of time with a lot of water or over long periods of time with very little water.

Let's assume there was a flood. If there was a global flood, it would have caused a lot of sediment to erode and cover organisms very quickly and they would be fossilized. This could also cause rock layers to form fast too.

Different rocks would be deposited in the case of a massive global flood, however, and still not in the quantities we're talking about - you don't get kilometers of rock deposited on the bed of the see every few days, do you?

You haven't answered the atmospheric records in ice, either.
Sentynel - Head Ninja, Admin, Keeper of the Ban Afrit, Official Forum Graphics Guy, and forum code debugger.
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
I'll add to what Sentynel has already said concerning 3 and 4.

Quote:
 
3. History is too short: According to scientists who believe in an old earth, man began didn't record history for 1,000 years. However, Prehistoric people made monuments and cave paintings. So, why did they wait so long before using it all to record history?


Maybe because their life revolved around the hunt and what was depicted on monuments? What history were they supposed to fingerpaint about, baking a casserole for the Neanderthal Family down at 432 Poplar Street? Urg G'lak-Orgoth conquering the mystical lands of That Forest With All Ze Buffalo? I'm pretty sure they were more concerned with devouring the skulls of enemies than writing epic novels. :\

Quote:
 
4.Red Blood Cells in Dinosaurs: Red blood cells have been found in unfossilized dinosaur bones. They could only last for a few thousand years.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

No offense, but I suggest reading up on the facts before you try to use it as a fact...because I'm quite sure sites like this have scientific analyses that discredit most, if not all, of claims. And if you don't believe, why not read the recommended reading material or doing further research on your own?

:)
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Gladstone
Member Avatar


Krim
May 26 2006, 09:16 PM

Maybe because their life revolved around the hunt and what was depicted on monuments? What history were they supposed to fingerpaint about, baking a casserole for the Neanderthal Family down at 432 Poplar Street?

:good: :good:
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
Here, I'll give you a good summary of what that link says concerning the supposed blood found inside the dinosaur bone.

First, here is the summary given by the website:

Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact four gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, B) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.



Here is mine:



What was observed a thinsectin slide prepared from the tabular bone of a T. rex that was remarkably well preserved. Not only are the creationists who believe this taking the work out of context and bloating it completely out of porportion, they go as far as to say that the bone was unmineralized, aka unfossilized. The bone was thought to be 'fresh', according to the published works of the creationists; asinine enough, this is derived from an article in Earth, a magazine that was by no means a scientific journal.

The claim was made that hemoglobin was present, when it was actually a form of iron known as heme. Not only do articles consistently state 'further research is required onto if this is actually, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a red blood cell', but it is quite obvious the remains of a red blood cell is by no means a red blood cell, the same way a skeleton is not a human. The actual present scientists who proposed the idea red blood cells were potentially present later debated with the creationists involved with the inane publications of creationism.

Also, let it be known that these creationists are NOT EXPERTS ON THE FIELD OF IMMUNOLOGY. It's guesswork to them on how long an organism could even survive, so they decide to go in favor of the Bible and say a few thousand years.

Basically, wrong. Just another one of the sadly twisted 'facts' that support a young Earth.

EDIT: I'd also like to raise the question about why dinosaurs are a few thousand years old, when the first recorded piece of literature (The Epic of Gilgamesh) was created around 3000 BC. Five thousand years ago, and Gilgamesh didn't encounter a triceratops? The Sumerians are evil!

:(
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Beleth
Member Avatar
Ghul
Ianna
May 25 2006, 10:24 PM
I'd like to interrupt the points we've all made to ask this one:

If you don't believe the Bible is true, what do you believe about it?

Ianna: There are many things that I believe the Bible is, and unfortunatly non of them are the word of God.
I believe that the Bible was the best scientific model for its time, it explained all of the questions that people wanted answering 2000 years ago. I believe that the Bible is a moral code, it tells us how we should live our lives and it instructs us about Social and Racial Harmony. I believe that the Bible is more than a book, it is a symbol of peoples faith, and becuase of that is has to be respected, and it should be realised that no matter how far fetched some of the stories may seem, there are definite element of truth in them.
What I also realise is that when the Bible was written, life was very different to how life is now. Society was male ruled, women were ostracized. Science was a very young art, people did not have the technology then that they have now. Becuase of this, I am compelled to beleive that the explanations of orogin that are in the Bible are not factual, they are speculative. However what I will say is, that in genesis, the order of creation is correct, but the time period is not, but as you say, 1 day for god is not necessarily 1 day for us.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
That peace and order from the Bible is not necessarily peace and order. And we can find peace and order in Buddhism and the Koran. :)
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Beleth
Member Avatar
Ghul
Krim, every political model is perfect in theory, the hard part is getting everyone to follow it. My point being, that in theory, the Bible would lead to peace and order. And your right, we could find peace and order in Buddhism or Islam, no religion promotes war, its the interpretation of religious teachings that lead to conflict. One thing I will say is that whilst most religions provide an external body for the follow to rely on, religions such as Buddhism rely very much on the strength of the person themselves, which is why it does not work for everyone.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
Krim
Member Avatar
Djinni
The Bible would not lead to peace and order, it told every person if they did not convert to christianity they would burn for eternity, and that all other religions are wrong. This would, inevitably, lead to conflict. And the Old Testament is also part of the Bible, where you can stone a servant for stealing from you.

People don't have enough strength nowadays because society has taken a turn for the worse. It probably relies a good deal on a mixture of media blindsiding people, parents being too brainwashed themselves to impart knowledge to their kids, and the fact a person could murder a thousand people and still get into heaven.

- shrugs. -

Anyway, we are going off on tangents. Stick to the point of the thread.
Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Gladstone/Sentynel/Krim/Stroud/Gladstone

The three ships. Kinda like the Mayflower and all those.
Offline Profile _Quote Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic »