https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/5/8/18535475/denver-psilocybin-psychedelic-magic-mushrooms-decriminalization-vote
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
I sense that you may be speaking to yourself.
Also, you know that these arguments have been presented hundreds of times before, right?
But if it helps you... enjoy.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.This is an assertion that must be proved.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.This is a conclusion based on an unproven assertion.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.Again, this is an assertion that would need to be proved.
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.Again, this is a conclusion based on an unproven assertion.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.If all assertions above were actually proven then at best you could claim there was a first cause. This first cause could just as easily be the 'big bang' or any other number of things - jumping to the conclusion that it would be any sort of 'God' is simply an assertion with no backing.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.This is an assertion that must be proved.Quote3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.This is a conclusion based on an unproven assertion.
It also attempt to smuggle in the existence of a "world of things we cannot perceive," which is something that would have to be proven.Quote6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.Again, this is an assertion that would need to be proved.Quote8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.Again, this is a conclusion based on an unproven assertion.Quote9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.If all assertions above were actually proven then at best you could claim there was a first cause. This first cause could just as easily be the 'big bang' or any other number of things - jumping to the conclusion that it would be any sort of 'God' is simply an assertion with no backing.
can you provide an example of something that exists prior to itself with no cause?I'm not required to provide anything, I'm not the one making a claim.
using this logic the Big Bang could not be the first cause because there had to be something that caused the Big Bang etc.
can you provide an example of something that exists prior to itself with no cause?
using this logic the Big Bang could not be the first cause because there had to be something that caused the Big Bang etc.
Yeah, I remember my first beer.
can you provide an example of something that exists prior to itself with no cause?God?
If we're getting into quantum mechanics . . . the act observing something changes it from what it was into something different. Therefore it follows that it's impossible to know anything since ultimately our only source of knowledge is observation.
Now we can all go about our business.
Yeah, I remember my first beer.
are you familiar with Esau of the Bible?
Noodle baking fact:My favorite neural copulator of this nature that photons basically don't experience time. From their reference frame, they are emitted and absorbed with no time in between, even if from our perspective they traveled for billions/trillions of years.
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.
It's turtles all the way down.
-W
It's turtles all the way down.
-W
Simulations* all the way down! :)
It seems this thread is now heading towards an infinite regress.
It seems this thread is now heading towards an infinite regress.
It was a trolling thread straight from the start. ( :
It's turtles all the way down.
-W
If we're getting into quantum mechanics . . . the act observing something changes it from what it was into something different. Therefore it follows that it's impossible to know anything since ultimately our only source of knowledge is observation.
Now we can all go about our business.
Building on the best way to approach the universe, all math is a lie.
One third is 0.3 repeating
1/3 = 0.33333333333....
3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.33333333333....
Therefore:
1 = 0.9999999999.....
1 != 1
Chaos ensues.
If we're getting into quantum mechanics . . . the act observing something changes it from what it was into something different. Therefore it follows that it's impossible to know anything since ultimately our only source of knowledge is observation.
Now we can all go about our business.
Building on the best way to approach the universe, all math is a lie.
One third is 0.3 repeating
1/3 = 0.33333333333....
3 * 1/3 = 3 * 0.33333333333....
Therefore:
1 = 0.9999999999.....
1 != 1
Chaos ensues.
But notice, 1/3 when using hexadecimal over decimal you get a non-repeating number (0.55555555555555554598) so perhaps it the language this is the limiting factor.
"We exist therefore something outside of this world made us"
Why does it have to be something outside of this world? That's odd.
Evolution made us. It wasn't on purpose, it was just millions(billions, trillions?) of random mutations over hundreds of thousands of years(billions of years if we go back to single cells) and the mutations best suited for our environment were the most likely to carry on.
We can see evolution within our lifetimes now. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and passing those resistances on to their offspring is evolution.
What created the first life? Likely also trillions+ random events happening over and over until the right set of actions occurred.
If we did follow the logic that we were created by something outside of this world, the idea I've heard that made the most logical sense was that we are part of a massive computer simulation.
Not like the matrix, robots don't need us for warmth... The idea is that once a sentient species reaches a certain level of technological advancement, hundreds or thousands of years more advanced that us, after they have colonized their own solar system, and begin to venture further, they will have to confront an important question. "Are we the most advanced in our galaxy? If not, will the more advanced species help us or destroy us?" If you aren't the most advanced and the more advanced are likely to destroy you then you would prefer to keep your territory small. If you are the most advanced or other species are likely to be peaceful then you can expand as quickly as you want. How do you answer this question when you know nothing about hypothetical species outside your solar system? You run simulations of the entire galaxy or even the universe. The only assumptions would be the laws of physics and a set amount of matter/energy. Then let the simulations run and measure how long it takes life to form, life to reach intelligence, intelligent life to reach space, and whether those intelligent beings are peaceful or destructive towards others. Such technology would also help answer many other questions.
We might create this technology in the future, but that begs the question... did someone else already create it and we are the intelligent lifeforms being measured? The 'on' button for that simulation would look a lot like the big bang.
I don't believe that, but it seemed really interesting while we are on the topic of belief systems where we were created by someone outside of our world. The creator doesn't have to be a god that looks like us, gives us a rules, and punishes or rewards us. It could be a massive computer measuring outcomes and we are tiny specs on one of hundreds of billions of planets in one galaxy out of hundreds of billions of galaxies.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
Abiogenesis is a separate issue which still needs a lot of study, but evolution by means of natural selection is considered to be an accepted fact (no different than the germ theory, theory of gravity, etc).
Whether or not it is hard for an individual to believe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy) has zero bearing on the mountains of evidence and the conclusions they lead to.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
This is a great example of just how limited our understanding truly is. I’m sure 100 years ago landing on the moon seemed impossible. Thankfully science marches on.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
This is a great example of just how limited our understanding truly is. I’m sure 100 years ago landing on the moon seemed impossible. Thankfully science marches on.
The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed exactly how complex life can spontaneously generate from primordial ooze. It's mostly just chemistry. You create the right conditions, and the building blocks of life will reliably appear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
Hey @mastrr, who says I exist?
and...But who made the Aliens?
Do aliens procreate the same way humans do?
Do aliens procreate the same way humans do?
alien means something foreign, beyond ourselves, as well as our limits of understanding. So the answer is no. They do enjoy live human vivisection as much as the next person though.
We exist therefore something outside of this world made us
Do aliens procreate the same way humans do?
alien means something foreign, beyond ourselves, as well as our limits of understanding. So the answer is no. They do enjoy live human vivisection as much as the next person though.
James Tiberious Kirk begs to differ.
Re: jhm555's belief that complex life can't come from primordial ooze. Yes it can. And does. You may not want to accept it, but it's true. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable.Wow, you know that for a fact. Theory is not fact. Complex life systems somehow can just magically appear from goo is on its face absurd. The Fermi paradox says life should be abundant in the universe, yet no evidence of it existing anywhere has been discovered.
At any rate, I don't find the belief in abiogenesis or evolution inconsistent with a belief in God, an acceptance of Christ as Savior, or a life of service to the common good of all humankind.How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:27
I doesn't say He created puddles of goo that evolved into man. It says man was created, both sexes. No way can you shoehorn evolution into that.
No, the poster was saying he can reconcile the Bible and evolution, I am saying you can't.How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:27
I doesn't say He created puddles of goo that evolved into man. It says man was created, both sexes. No way can you shoehorn evolution into that.
I think you might have that backwards.
The bible would need to be reconciled with empirical findings, not the other way around.
Re: jhm555's belief that complex life can't come from primordial ooze. Yes it can. And does. You may not want to accept it, but it's true. Sorry it makes you uncomfortable.Wow, you know that for a fact. Theory is not fact. Complex life systems somehow can just magically appear from goo is on its face absurd. The Fermi paradox says life should be abundant in the universe, yet no evidence of it existing anywhere has been discovered.
No, the poster was saying he can reconcile the Bible and evolution, I am saying you can't.How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:27
I doesn't say He created puddles of goo that evolved into man. It says man was created, both sexes. No way can you shoehorn evolution into that.
I think you might have that backwards.
The bible would need to be reconciled with empirical findings, not the other way around.
No, the poster was saying he can reconcile the Bible and evolution, I am saying you can't.How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:27
I doesn't say He created puddles of goo that evolved into man. It says man was created, both sexes. No way can you shoehorn evolution into that.
I think you might have that backwards.
The bible would need to be reconciled with empirical findings, not the other way around.
I think most theistic evolution proponents (I am not one) say that God used evolution as a tool to create man in his image.Theistic is not Christian. Christian theology has some very specific doctrinal particulars. One of them is the Bible is the Word of God, and as such, is by definition without error.
I think most theistic evolution proponents (I am not one) say that God used evolution as a tool to create man in his image.Theistic is not Christian. Christian theology has some very specific doctrinal particulars. One of them is the Bible is the Word of God, and as such, is by definition without error.
At any rate, I don't find the belief in abiogenesis or evolution inconsistent with a belief in God, an acceptance of Christ as Savior, or a life of service to the common good of all humankind.How do you reconcile the Bible that says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen 1:27
I doesn't say He created puddles of goo that evolved into man. It says man was created, both sexes. No way can you shoehorn evolution into that.
It also doesn't say that God created hermaphrodites. But we have many recorded cases of them existing.Adam and Eve were created male and female. The introduction of the Fall created a situation where genetic damage can happen.
Were hermaphrodites created against God's wishes (and if so, what being has powers of creation equal to those of God - and why should we worship God instead of this being)? Were they created by God in His image (and if so, why doesn't the bible list them)?
As a biblical literalist I'm interested to hear your take on this.
It also doesn't say that God created hermaphrodites. But we have many recorded cases of them existing.Adam and Eve were created male and female. The introduction of the Fall created a situation where genetic damage can happen.
Were hermaphrodites created against God's wishes (and if so, what being has powers of creation equal to those of God - and why should we worship God instead of this being)? Were they created by God in His image (and if so, why doesn't the bible list them)?
As a biblical literalist I'm interested to hear your take on this.
Man became subject to decay and death as a curse for the Fall.
Adam and Eve were created male and female. The introduction of the Fall created a situation where genetic damage can happen.
Where does it say that in the bible?
This is boring. Where is the talk about conditions of the universe before the universe came to be? Multiverses, simulations, etc?
Man became subject to decay and death as a curse for the Fall.
Adam and Eve were created male and female. The introduction of the Fall created a situation where genetic damage can happen.
Where does it say that in the bible?
Man became subject to decay and death as a curse for the Fall.
Adam and Eve were created male and female. The introduction of the Fall created a situation where genetic damage can happen.
Where does it say that in the bible?
My argument is that the theory is absurd just from logical deduction and complexity. The Bible backs that up, but I was refuting those who say Christian doctrine allows for evolution, which I assert is impossible.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Where's your proof? Bible doesn't count. In fact, ANY argument that starts with "if we accept that the Bible is the word of God, then XXXXXX". And that's true for any holy text, not just the Bible.
Sigh, part of me knows I'm wasting my time, since it's been my experience that anyone who flat out ignores the overwhelming evidence for a scientific world view is never, ever going to be convinced by anything I can say. Well, Camus did posit that Sisyphus was actually happy.
My argument is that the theory is absurd just from logical deduction and complexity. The Bible backs that up, but I was refuting those who say Christian doctrine allows for evolution, which I assert is impossible.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Where's your proof? Bible doesn't count. In fact, ANY argument that starts with "if we accept that the Bible is the word of God, then XXXXXX". And that's true for any holy text, not just the Bible.
Sigh, part of me knows I'm wasting my time, since it's been my experience that anyone who flat out ignores the overwhelming evidence for a scientific world view is never, ever going to be convinced by anything I can say. Well, Camus did posit that Sisyphus was actually happy.
You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
My argument is that the theory is absurd just from logical deduction and complexity. The Bible backs that up, but I was refuting those who say Christian doctrine allows for evolution, which I assert is impossible.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Where's your proof? Bible doesn't count. In fact, ANY argument that starts with "if we accept that the Bible is the word of God, then XXXXXX". And that's true for any holy text, not just the Bible.
Sigh, part of me knows I'm wasting my time, since it's been my experience that anyone who flat out ignores the overwhelming evidence for a scientific world view is never, ever going to be convinced by anything I can say. Well, Camus did posit that Sisyphus was actually happy.
You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
Because the topic is directly addressed several times.You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
Right. You interpreted a response that seems reasonable to you from the scriptures.
It's not clear why you think that someone who reasonably interprets the 'God creating man' part as 'God creating man via evolution' is wrong. Near as I can remember, evolution wasn't addressed in the bible either.
Because the topic is directly addressed several times.You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
Right. You interpreted a response that seems reasonable to you from the scriptures.
It's not clear why you think that someone who reasonably interprets the 'God creating man' part as 'God creating man via evolution' is wrong. Near as I can remember, evolution wasn't addressed in the bible either.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
This is rich. The Bible is so full of absurdities and contradictions it isn’t the basis of any rational arguments, certainly not about things in nature that can be fact checked and tested.My argument is that the theory is absurd just from logical deduction and complexity. The Bible backs that up, but I was refuting those who say Christian doctrine allows for evolution, which I assert is impossible.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Where's your proof? Bible doesn't count. In fact, ANY argument that starts with "if we accept that the Bible is the word of God, then XXXXXX". And that's true for any holy text, not just the Bible.
Sigh, part of me knows I'm wasting my time, since it's been my experience that anyone who flat out ignores the overwhelming evidence for a scientific world view is never, ever going to be convinced by anything I can say. Well, Camus did posit that Sisyphus was actually happy.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
Right. But it doesn't say how they're created. Could be instantly, or over millions of years of evolution, right?
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
Wresting scriptures will give you any answer you want.Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
Right. But it doesn't say how they're created. Could be instantly, or over millions of years of evolution, right?
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?Why would He bother with evolution when He can just bring it into existence directly?
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?Why would He bother with evolution when He can just bring it into existence directly?
Wresting scriptures will give you any answer you want.Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
Right. But it doesn't say how they're created. Could be instantly, or over millions of years of evolution, right?
I don't claim to know the mind of God where I can assign it motivations. Why bother with creation at all?The Christian answer is God does all things for His own glory.
If that's the case, then I'd say that your argument about evolution not being supported by Christian doctrine is pretty shaky then, isn't it?No. You are the one doing the wresting not me.
I don't claim to know the mind of God where I can assign it motivations. Why bother with creation at all?The Christian answer is God does all things for His own glory.
I think most theistic evolution proponents (I am not one) say that God used evolution as a tool to create man in his image.Theistic is not Christian. Christian theology has some very specific doctrinal particulars. One of them is the Bible is the Word of God, and as such, is by definition without error.
If that's the case, then I'd say that your argument about evolution not being supported by Christian doctrine is pretty shaky then, isn't it?No. You are the one doing the wresting not me.
Because the topic is directly addressed several times.You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
Right. You interpreted a response that seems reasonable to you from the scriptures.
It's not clear why you think that someone who reasonably interprets the 'God creating man' part as 'God creating man via evolution' is wrong. Near as I can remember, evolution wasn't addressed in the bible either.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:27
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:4
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
You are right that no one in a "lab" has created life from non-life.
You are right that no one in a "lab" has created life from non-life.
Ah... err...
Oh, you're right. I thought that they had, but they created a new form of life by creating a genome from scratch and having it take over the rest of an existing cell.
https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/10/how-craig-venter-created-life/
Working on it, though. Pretty darn fast.
First they created life that has protein components that never existed before - producing an entirely new form of life, though admittedly they still added the new components to existing life. Started in 2014.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/artificial-life-synthetic-dna-scientists-living-organisms-create-scripps-research-institute-floyd-a8083966.html
Now 17 labs in just the Netherlands are working systematically to create entirely new cells from the ground up, without ingredients from any living thing. Completion date, expected 2027.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x
Another landmark. Instead of just new living creatures that have odd pieces added to their DNA, scientists have created an entirely new living organism with numerous detailed changes within it as to how it works - accomplishing similar physical tasks but using different biological mechanisms than before, mechanisms purposefully designed by the scientists. Still a modification of existing life, though, rather than entirely from scratch.
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/05/a-new-form-of-life-scientists-create-living-organism-with-entirely-human-made-dna/
As a simulated bot, I will be less lonely starting in 2027, it seems. :)
You are right that no one in a "lab" has created life from non-life.
Ah... err...
Oh, you're right. I thought that they had, but they created a new form of life by creating a genome from scratch and having it take over the rest of an existing cell.
https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/10/how-craig-venter-created-life/
Working on it, though. Pretty darn fast.
First they created life that has protein components that never existed before - producing an entirely new form of life, though admittedly they still added the new components to existing life. Started in 2014.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/artificial-life-synthetic-dna-scientists-living-organisms-create-scripps-research-institute-floyd-a8083966.html
Now 17 labs in just the Netherlands are working systematically to create entirely new cells from the ground up, without ingredients from any living thing. Completion date, expected 2027.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x
Another landmark. Instead of just new living creatures that have odd pieces added to their DNA, scientists have created an entirely new living organism with numerous detailed changes within it as to how it works - accomplishing similar physical tasks but using different biological mechanisms than before, mechanisms purposefully designed by the scientists. Still a modification of existing life, though, rather than entirely from scratch.
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/05/a-new-form-of-life-scientists-create-living-organism-with-entirely-human-made-dna/
As a simulated bot, I will be less lonely starting in 2027, it seems. :)
Once life is created from scratch, in a lab, the anti-science Christians will just move the goal posts and refuse to accept the results for some other/different made up reason.
Once life is created from scratch, in a lab, the anti-science Christians will just move the goal posts and refuse to accept the results for some other/different made up reason.
Along the lines of?
Just because it was done in a lab doesn't mean it happened that way for real.
How does the complexity of life come from a primordial ooze? Impossible. I don't care how much time passes, its never going to happen.
You are right that no one in a "lab" has created life from non-life.
Ah... err...
Oh, you're right. I thought that they had, but they created a new form of life by creating a genome from scratch and having it take over the rest of an existing cell.
https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/10/how-craig-venter-created-life/
Working on it, though. Pretty darn fast.
First they created life that has protein components that never existed before - producing an entirely new form of life, though admittedly they still added the new components to existing life. Started in 2014.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/artificial-life-synthetic-dna-scientists-living-organisms-create-scripps-research-institute-floyd-a8083966.html
Now 17 labs in just the Netherlands are working systematically to create entirely new cells from the ground up, without ingredients from any living thing. Completion date, expected 2027.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x
Another landmark. Instead of just new living creatures that have odd pieces added to their DNA, scientists have created an entirely new living organism with numerous detailed changes within it as to how it works - accomplishing similar physical tasks but using different biological mechanisms than before, mechanisms purposefully designed by the scientists. Still a modification of existing life, though, rather than entirely from scratch.
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/05/a-new-form-of-life-scientists-create-living-organism-with-entirely-human-made-dna/
As a simulated bot, I will be less lonely starting in 2027, it seems. :)
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
Even if we assume that the bible is the word of God, he's not being consistent with his biblical decrees. He has argued that interpretation must be used for things not explicitly written out in the bible, but for some reason this doesn't apply to evolution. Which is weird logic.
Because the topic is directly addressed several times.You also posted how you interpreted something in the bible to mean something other than what is literally written. Given that you're not following a literal approach to the bible, it's weird that you're making claims about Christian doctrine.The Bible doesn't address hermaphrodites, so I gave the answer that would fit with scripture, which is that genetic deformity happened to Man as a result of the Fall. I am sorry if that answer isn't working for you. On creation it states in a few places that Man was created as male and female.
Right. You interpreted a response that seems reasonable to you from the scriptures.
It's not clear why you think that someone who reasonably interprets the 'God creating man' part as 'God creating man via evolution' is wrong. Near as I can remember, evolution wasn't addressed in the bible either.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:27
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:4
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:6
The bible is not evidence of anything. It's a history/mythology written by a nomadic, semi-literate group of people between 2 and 3 thousand years ago. It's absurd to throw out the findings of science because it makes you feel bad about what's in your myth book.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Yikes I was actually joking (hence the winky face). It's good to know in your eyes there are not true Christians in the world.
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Not all christians believe this, but a subset definitely do, and it's one of the reasons I am not a Christian. A few worldly things that I value: Friendship, kindness, art, love, nature, inspiration.
I don't worship money, but I am trying to save more of it because I want to move my daughter to a better school district, because I also value family. However, I'm conflicted about this because when wealthier, stable families continue to move out of poor school districts, it leads a degradation of community, and I also value community.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
I'm sorry but you are flat wrong. "Most" do not choose to reject Jesus. In fact, "most" people go to church regularly and are believers.
However, I am seeing that church attendance is dropping rapidly, which IMO is a very good thing. The sooner we abandon primitive modes of thought, the better:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248837/church-membership-down-sharply-past-two-decades.aspx
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
Then I don't think Jim555 considers you a true christian.
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Not all christians believe this, but a subset definitely do, and it's one of the reasons I am not a Christian. A few worldly things that I value: Friendship, kindness, art, love, nature, inspiration.
I don't worship money, but I am trying to save more of it because I want to move my daughter to a better school district, because I also value family. However, I'm conflicted about this because when wealthier, stable families continue to move out of poor school districts, it leads a degradation of community, and I also value community.
None of the things your mention conflict with Christianity. Seeking improvement of your daughters life and well being is commendable and shows your devotion to her as a good Mother.
Oh boy, this escalated quickly. Religion and early retirement don't mix (-;
when one doesn't worship god, they will worship other things such as money, fame, vanity. So really God and valuing anything in this world doesn't mix. Detachment from all worldly things and pleasures and focusing only on God is fundamental to Christianity.
Not all christians believe this, but a subset definitely do, and it's one of the reasons I am not a Christian. A few worldly things that I value: Friendship, kindness, art, love, nature, inspiration.
I don't worship money, but I am trying to save more of it because I want to move my daughter to a better school district, because I also value family. However, I'm conflicted about this because when wealthier, stable families continue to move out of poor school districts, it leads a degradation of community, and I also value community.
None of the things your mention conflict with Christianity. Seeking improvement of your daughters life and well being is commendable and shows your devotion to her as a good Mother.
EvenSteven sounds like more of a fatherly name than a motherly one...
(shrug)
Even if we assume that the bible is the word of God, he's not being consistent with his biblical decrees. He has argued that interpretation must be used for things not explicitly written out in the bible, but for some reason this doesn't apply to evolution. Which is weird logic.
The Church doesn't have a defined position for or against evolution.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
No, not a catch 22 because God call pull good from bad things happening. Yet, we don't know the fullness of the good things because God's plan is a mystery to us mere humans.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
No, not a catch 22 because God call pull good from bad things happening. Yet, we don't know the fullness of the good things because God's plan is a mystery to us mere humans.
Thanks! An all good God would not allow bad things to happen. And humans, allegedly made in Gods image, would easily see the good in all bad. Why is Gods plan a mystery? So God left us here continually fighting for our lives and decided to fuck with us by not telling us why all this horrible shit is trying to kill us? And when something horrible does happen, we cannot see the good in that, as allegedly God can? Something isn't just adding up here.
Well good luck with it all. I'll continue to enjoy what nature has provided and appreciate that after billions of years of evolution, I exist. I'll enjoy my extremely brief time on this planet
Even if we assume that the bible is the word of God, he's not being consistent with his biblical decrees. He has argued that interpretation must be used for things not explicitly written out in the bible, but for some reason this doesn't apply to evolution. Which is weird logic.
The Church doesn't have a defined position for or against evolution.
Which church are you referring to . . . The Catholic church? Protestants? Anglicans? Baptists? Eastern Orthodox? Coptic? Methodist? Pentecostal? The United Church? There are thousands of different Christian churches with wildly different interpretations on most aspects of Christianity.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
No, not a catch 22 because God call pull good from bad things happening. Yet, we don't know the fullness of the good things because God's plan is a mystery to us mere humans.
Thanks! An all good God would not allow bad things to happen. And humans, allegedly made in Gods image, would easily see the good in all bad. Why is Gods plan a mystery? So God left us here continually fighting for our lives and decided to fuck with us by not telling us why all this horrible shit is trying to kill us? And when something horrible does happen, we cannot see the good in that, as allegedly God can? Something just isn't adding up here.
I rather like science, evidence and facts. I am here because my parents decided to procreate. Humans exist as do millions and billions of other species thanks to evolution. One day we won't exist. One day our planet won't exist. One day our galaxy will collide with another and annihilate everything. Ahhh, nature! Let's enjoy the ride while we can.
Only through suffering can one grow and experience joy.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
No, not a catch 22 because God call pull good from bad things happening. Yet, we don't know the fullness of the good things because God's plan is a mystery to us mere humans.
Thanks! An all good God would not allow bad things to happen. And humans, allegedly made in Gods image, would easily see the good in all bad. Why is Gods plan a mystery? So God left us here continually fighting for our lives and decided to fuck with us by not telling us why all this horrible shit is trying to kill us? And when something horrible does happen, we cannot see the good in that, as allegedly God can? Something just isn't adding up here.
I rather like science, evidence and facts. I am here because my parents decided to procreate. Humans exist as do millions and billions of other species thanks to evolution. One day we won't exist. One day our planet won't exist. One day our galaxy will collide with another and annihilate everything. Ahhh, nature! Let's enjoy the ride while we can.
Only through suffering can one grow and experience joy. If someone wants to run a marathon they have to put themselves through a bunch of suffering to develop the muscles and stamina to complete that achievement. This can be applied to virtually achieving anything, hard work and suffering are often a condition.
For a Christian the goal is to die a Holy Death and hope that God has mercy on us. Our defects and demons are often a path to holiness as they are meant to be resisted against so we can grow in our faith and virtue. If there was no suffering there would be no reason to seek God or achieve any other goal because the achievement would be without meaning.
For example of how God can pull good out of a bad situation. Let's say a person is terminally ill but continues to have strong faith in God. The illness is a bad as they may die. But if the nurses, doctors, visitors see the strength and consistent faith of the terminally ill person it could lead impact their hearts and lead them toward God. The result is that more souls would end up in Heaven than if the illness never existed.
.
The goal for a Christian is not to live a perfect life with but to die a Holy death and suffering is necessary.
For example of how God can pull good out of a bad situation. Let's say a person is terminally ill but continues to have strong faith in God. The illness is a bad as they may die. But if the nurses, doctors, visitors see the strength and consistent faith of the terminally ill person it could lead impact their hearts and lead them toward God. The result is that more souls would end up in Heaven than if the illness never existed.
.
The goal for a Christian is not to live a perfect life with but to die a Holy death and suffering is necessary.
For example of how God can pull good out of a bad situation. Let's say a person is terminally ill but continues to have strong faith in God. The illness is a bad as they may die. But if the nurses, doctors, visitors see the strength and consistent faith of the terminally ill person it could lead impact their hearts and lead them toward God. The result is that more souls would end up in Heaven than if the illness never existed.
.
The goal for a Christian is not to live a perfect life with but to die a Holy death and suffering is necessary.
Could you list the passages addressing evolution?Bible doesn't support that, it says things are created.
I'm not a theist, but I often find other people's religious ideas interesting. Do you think God is powerful enough to create things through creating the conditions that allow for evolution? Or is he not quite that powerful?
Yes, God can absolutely create the conditions that allow evolution. He can also transform our souls through grace and he gives us the tools to do but most reduce his divinity into a mere fable or regular human and choose to reject Jesus Christ.
That's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? I mean if God is all powerful and can create conditions for evolution, then you must accept that he/she created conditions for viruses, bacteria, natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes etc.), congenital birth defects, disease, so on and so forth, to also thrive and exist. The universe and planet are extremely hostile to living beings. As I stated earlier, 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Your all powerful, all good God at work, or just natural causes?
No, not a catch 22 because God call pull good from bad things happening. Yet, we don't know the fullness of the good things because God's plan is a mystery to us mere humans.
Thanks! An all good God would not allow bad things to happen. And humans, allegedly made in Gods image, would easily see the good in all bad. Why is Gods plan a mystery? So God left us here continually fighting for our lives and decided to fuck with us by not telling us why all this horrible shit is trying to kill us? And when something horrible does happen, we cannot see the good in that, as allegedly God can? Something just isn't adding up here.
I rather like science, evidence and facts. I am here because my parents decided to procreate. Humans exist as do millions and billions of other species thanks to evolution. One day we won't exist. One day our planet won't exist. One day our galaxy will collide with another and annihilate everything. Ahhh, nature! Let's enjoy the ride while we can.
Only through suffering can one grow and experience joy. If someone wants to run a marathon they have to put themselves through a bunch of suffering to develop the muscles and stamina to complete that achievement. This can be applied to virtually achieving anything, hard work and suffering are often a condition.
For a Christian the goal is to die a Holy Death and hope that God has mercy on us. Our defects and demons are often a path to holiness as they are meant to be resisted against so we can grow in our faith and virtue. If there was no suffering there would be no reason to seek God or achieve any other goal because the achievement would be without meaning.
For example of how God can pull good out of a bad situation. Let's say a person is terminally ill but continues to have strong faith in God. The illness is a bad as they may die. But if the nurses, doctors, visitors see the strength and consistent faith of the terminally ill person it could lead impact their hearts and lead them toward God. The result is that more souls would end up in Heaven than if the illness never existed.
.
The goal for a Christian is not to live a perfect life with but to die a Holy death and suffering is necessary.
I will say this - I'm a former christian (from the south, no less!). Obviously I cut ties with religion a while back. Nowadays, anytime I run across these types of statements, it hits me with full force just how bizarre they really are. It's not even a half step removed from belief in magic and voodoo. Or more accurately, as I've been reading a ton of old books in recent years, it's all sounds exactly like what the Greeks sounded like when they very calmly and very reasonably talked about Zeus and the other gods and all the power/sway those gods had.
The type of stuff you typed above is absolutely no different. Since all those "old books" are still fresh in my mind, it's even more striking just how primitive it is. I suppose some people will never give up these types of beliefs, even though we have MUCH better explanations for how the world (and universe) work nowadays. Sigh, I suppose at some point we'll have intergalactic space ships with chapels on them. Wow, just wow.
I've run marathons and experienced joy while training as much as running the marathon. Work of most kinds can be enjoyable if you've got the right mindset, or misery if you've got the wrong mindset. It's weird that someone would accept (and even embrace) needless suffering. I don't recall passages from the bible that support this argument.
For example of how God can pull good out of a bad situation. Let's say a person is terminally ill but continues to have strong faith in God. The illness is a bad as they may die. But if the nurses, doctors, visitors see the strength and consistent faith of the terminally ill person it could lead impact their hearts and lead them toward God. The result is that more souls would end up in Heaven than if the illness never existed.
.
The goal for a Christian is not to live a perfect life with but to die a Holy death and suffering is necessary.
You seem to gloss over the fact that the terminal illness exists only because God allowed it to be. So, in your example, he is pulling something 'good' out of a terrible situation he created (and should be thanked or worshiped for?)
That's like poisoning one of your children then saying, 'well, on the bright side the rest of the kids will learn about the dangers of Drano'
That may very well be - but I can't see myself applauding someone for that.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
This also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
And on top of that, Christianity isn't even the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism is. So you'd think Hinduism would have dibs on being "right" by virtue of being the oldest.
On the other hand, Christianity isn't the newest major religion either. That would be either Islam or Scientology (depending on how you measure "major").
As far as I can tell, they are all more or less the same. They all claim to be right and they also claim bad things will happen if you choose a different religion. Although if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably choose to become Hindi because there's so many gods on their religion to check out. Or maybe scientology, at least they have space ships, which seems more relevant to the modern world.
I've run marathons and experienced joy while training as much as running the marathon. Work of most kinds can be enjoyable if you've got the right mindset, or misery if you've got the wrong mindset. It's weird that someone would accept (and even embrace) needless suffering. I don't recall passages from the bible that support this argument.
I wouldn't say it's needless suffering because Christians are attempting to become more holy in the process. I may not be understanding your point about suffering because it's present in many areas - Apostles being martyred for their faith, Passion/Crucifixion of Jesus etc.
If God doesn't exist and everything is made up, sure it's needless.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
I can see your point as this line of thinking can be used for not good things. But if you look into Christian teachings it's about developing virtue and become a good person helps with our sanctification. Even Atheists tend to agree with this. Do Christians do bad things? Absolutely.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
I can see your point as this line of thinking can be used for not good things. But if you look into Christian teachings it's about developing virtue and become a good person helps with our sanctification. Even Atheists tend to agree with this. Do Christians do bad things? Absolutely.
I wasn't talking about christians doing bad things - I was talking referring to god doing bad things (using your example of terminal illness).
As far as people's need for 'sanctification,' that assumes people are actually fundamentally broken in some way from the start. The only reason people seem to believe they need sanctificaiton is because religion has taught them they are 'sinful' people and need to seek forgiveness for... being.
It's as if we're expected to thank someone for giving us a crutch after they break our legs.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
I can see your point as this line of thinking can be used for not good things. But if you look into Christian teachings it's about developing virtue and become a good person helps with our sanctification. Even Atheists tend to agree with this. Do Christians do bad things? Absolutely.
I wasn't talking about christians doing bad things - I was talking referring to god doing bad things (using your example of terminal illness).
As far as people's need for 'sanctification,' that assumes people are actually fundamentally broken in some way from the start. The only reason people seem to believe they need sanctificaiton is because religion has taught them they are 'sinful' people and need to seek forgiveness for... being.
It's as if we're expected to thank someone for giving us a crutch after they break our legs.
Here's the problem I've found re: engaging with believers - they assume a set of beliefs that are not just arbitrary but is actually counter factual. Then they assert the validity of these counterfactual beliefs and demand that you "prove otherwise". And that's impossible because they've already dismissed massive amounts of facts and knowledge in order to make room for their belief system in their heads. Net result, you can bring up facts and logic until you are blue in the face and you'll only get from them a shrug and some variation of "we can't understand god".
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
And on top of that, Christianity isn't even the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism is. So you'd think Hinduism would have dibs on being "right" by virtue of being the oldest.
On the other hand, Christianity isn't the newest major religion either. That would be either Islam or Scientology (depending on how you measure "major").
As far as I can tell, they are all more or less the same. They all claim to be right and they also claim bad things will happen if you choose a different religion. Although if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably choose to become Hindi because there's so many gods on their religion to check out. Or maybe scientology, at least they have space ships, which seems more relevant to the modern world.
Polytheism is whole other ball of wax.
I've run marathons and experienced joy while training as much as running the marathon. Work of most kinds can be enjoyable if you've got the right mindset, or misery if you've got the wrong mindset. It's weird that someone would accept (and even embrace) needless suffering. I don't recall passages from the bible that support this argument.
I wouldn't say it's needless suffering because Christians are attempting to become more holy in the process. I may not be understanding your point about suffering because it's present in many areas - Apostles being martyred for their faith, Passion/Crucifixion of Jesus etc.
If God doesn't exist and everything is made up, sure it's needless.
You don't understand what "needless" actually means. No one chooses to get cancer. Training for a marathon is not needless "suffering." People pushing their bodies mentally and physically to compete is not akin to finding out you have pancreatic cancer with a dire diagnosis. OR the two year old battling terminal brain cancer. Perhaps that 2 year old should just accept that there is good in his/her death. If their place is in Heaven next to God, then what the hell are we all doing here dodging "bullets" our entire lives? God cannot be both all good and all powerful.
Look dude, If you need to believe in a God to live a better life, more power to you. I won't chide you for that. I tried church and religion and none of it ever made sense to me. It didn't feel right. I am a very evidence based analytical person. Perhaps that's why. I absolutely love science, learning about the universe and our planet, etc. If it turns out our entire existence can be summed up in a book, it would be immensely disappointing. I am really enjoying learning about the billions of years before human existence and how we arrived to today. It's fascinating to say the least.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
I can see your point as this line of thinking can be used for not good things. But if you look into Christian teachings it's about developing virtue and become a good person helps with our sanctification. Even Atheists tend to agree with this. Do Christians do bad things? Absolutely.
I wasn't talking about christians doing bad things - I was talking referring to god doing bad things (using your example of terminal illness).
As far as people's need for 'sanctification,' that assumes people are actually fundamentally broken in some way from the start. The only reason people seem to believe they need sanctificaiton is because religion has taught them they are 'sinful' people and need to seek forgiveness for... being.
It's as if we're expected to thank someone for giving us a crutch after they break our legs.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
And on top of that, Christianity isn't even the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism is. So you'd think Hinduism would have dibs on being "right" by virtue of being the oldest.
On the other hand, Christianity isn't the newest major religion either. That would be either Islam or Scientology (depending on how you measure "major").
As far as I can tell, they are all more or less the same. They all claim to be right and they also claim bad things will happen if you choose a different religion. Although if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably choose to become Hindi because there's so many gods on their religion to check out. Or maybe scientology, at least they have space ships, which seems more relevant to the modern world.
Polytheism is whole other ball of wax.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
It's more about the end state of obtaining Heaven is the goal and the focus shouldn't be on the amount of suffering we have in this life.
The idea that this life is not as important as another imagined life is possibly the most dangerous idea humanity has ever grabbed hold of (second only to the idea that we need to seek forgiveness because by our very nature we are all broken from the moment we are born).QuoteThis also touches on the free will piece that humans have and we have the choice to either accept or reject Him.
Free will could conceivable exist without terminal diseases and the massive suffering many on earth have been forced to live with. It seems the suffering that exists is here because god simply wanted it so.
I can see your point as this line of thinking can be used for not good things. But if you look into Christian teachings it's about developing virtue and become a good person helps with our sanctification. Even Atheists tend to agree with this. Do Christians do bad things? Absolutely.
I wasn't talking about christians doing bad things - I was talking referring to god doing bad things (using your example of terminal illness).
As far as people's need for 'sanctification,' that assumes people are actually fundamentally broken in some way from the start. The only reason people seem to believe they need sanctificaiton is because religion has taught them they are 'sinful' people and need to seek forgiveness for... being.
It's as if we're expected to thank someone for giving us a crutch after they break our legs.
We all do morally bad things in our lives so we sure aren't perfect.
I would also pose the question, how does one even know what is morally good or bad.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
And on top of that, Christianity isn't even the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism is. So you'd think Hinduism would have dibs on being "right" by virtue of being the oldest.
On the other hand, Christianity isn't the newest major religion either. That would be either Islam or Scientology (depending on how you measure "major").
As far as I can tell, they are all more or less the same. They all claim to be right and they also claim bad things will happen if you choose a different religion. Although if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably choose to become Hindi because there's so many gods on their religion to check out. Or maybe scientology, at least they have space ships, which seems more relevant to the modern world.
Polytheism is whole other ball of wax.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
It's still monotheistic because all power comes from God, the Saints without God's grace are capable of nothing. We believe we can ask Saints to pray for us much like we would ask a friend to pray for us if we were going through a tough time or attempting something difficult.
For example, if a Saint excelled in a certain virtue that we wanted to improve in we could ask that Saint to pray to God for us as they are close to him in Heaven.
It's either the most absolutely absurd belief or it's true.The exact same thing can be said of every major religion.
The time to believe things is when the evidence supports the claims and not one moment before.
When dealing with potentially the 'most absolutely absurd' beliefs on earth, the evidence should be rock solid in order to accept them as true.
No religion can claim anything even remotely near solid evidence for it's claims.
It is the reason we find 'faith' to be necessary (and acceptable) with religion, when we wouldn't find it an acceptable pathway to truth in any other situation.
And on top of that, Christianity isn't even the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism is. So you'd think Hinduism would have dibs on being "right" by virtue of being the oldest.
On the other hand, Christianity isn't the newest major religion either. That would be either Islam or Scientology (depending on how you measure "major").
As far as I can tell, they are all more or less the same. They all claim to be right and they also claim bad things will happen if you choose a different religion. Although if someone put a gun to my head I'd probably choose to become Hindi because there's so many gods on their religion to check out. Or maybe scientology, at least they have space ships, which seems more relevant to the modern world.
Polytheism is whole other ball of wax.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
It's still monotheistic because all power comes from God, the Saints without God's grace are capable of nothing. We believe we can ask Saints to pray for us much like we would ask a friend to pray for us if we were going through a tough time or attempting something difficult.
For example, if a Saint excelled in a certain virtue that we wanted to improve in we could ask that Saint to pray to God for us as they are close to him in Heaven.
That's exactly how polytheism works. In Hinduism (for example) there's an all-powerful holy trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva). All of existence comes from them - creation, balance, and destruction. Then there are also are dozens of lesser Gods under them who people pray to for specific reasons.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
Basically <vast oversimplification follows> The Roman Catholic Church cut a deal with the northern barbarian tribes (Charlemagne, most notably) it would grant the barbarians the legitimacy of the emperor of the Roman Empire (which no longer existed) in exchange for becoming Christian. But the northern tribes kept many of their own religious traditions, including Easter, Yule, and polytheism. You could make an argument either which who had more influence, the barbarians or the Catholics.
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
Basically <vast oversimplification follows> The Roman Catholic Church cut a deal with the northern barbarian tribes (Charlemagne, most notably) it would grant the barbarians the legitimacy of the emperor of the Roman Empire (which no longer existed) in exchange for becoming Christian. But the northern tribes kept many of their own religious traditions, including Easter, Yule, and polytheism. You could make an argument either which who had more influence, the barbarians or the Catholics.
I suspected that there must be a historical reason for it. If you look at early Judaism and the old testament, it's very much a monotheism . . . (there is barely reference to a devil/satan mentioned and God is always portrayed as all powerful).
I've always found the veneration of saints common in many Christian sects to be quite akin to polytheistic belief. Christianity is kinda cool because it sorta does the monotheism, sorta does the duotheism, and sorta does the polytheism thing all at the same time. Not sure if this is stuff that was absorbed into it over time, or what.
Basically <vast oversimplification follows> The Roman Catholic Church cut a deal with the northern barbarian tribes (Charlemagne, most notably) it would grant the barbarians the legitimacy of the emperor of the Roman Empire (which no longer existed) in exchange for becoming Christian. But the northern tribes kept many of their own religious traditions, including Easter, Yule, and polytheism. You could make an argument either which who had more influence, the barbarians or the Catholics.
I suspected that there must be a historical reason for it. If you look at early Judaism and the old testament, it's very much a monotheism . . . (there is barely reference to a devil/satan mentioned and God is always portrayed as all powerful).
The old testament actually makes quite a few references to 'other gods.' It definitely paints a picture of Yahweh being the most powerful (not all powerful, or at least not omniscient) and the only one worthy of worship - but it treats other gods as real entities to be dealt with.
Exodus talks about Yahweh defeating all the gods of egypt. The commandments even start by god telling his chosen people, "you shall have no other gods before me." Not 'other gods don't exist,' but 'don't worship the other gods.'
There are quite a few other examples - those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Monotheism is the belief in only one god, not the belief that nobody else believes in different gods.
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Indeed:
I know that the Lord is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135%3A5-7&version=NIV
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Indeed:
I know that the Lord is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135%3A5-7&version=NIV
For some reason I was just thinking about this now and it occurred to me it was interesting that Christianity began with a belief in a world with multiple gods, in which one is most powerful ... then evolved into a belief of only one god existing.... and then even later evolved into the belief of one god represented in three entities with the holy trinity.
I guess religions have their own form of evolution. Yet, much like looking at the life that has evolved on this planet, most will look at their belief system and want to believe that it simply sprung up as it is, whole cloth, and has always been like this.
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Indeed:
I know that the Lord is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135%3A5-7&version=NIV
For some reason I was just thinking about this now and it occurred to me it was interesting that Christianity began with a belief in a world with multiple gods, in which one is most powerful ... then evolved into a belief of only one god existing.... and then even later evolved into the belief of one god represented in three entities with the holy trinity.
I guess religions have their own form of evolution. Yet, much like looking at the life that has evolved on this planet, most will look at their belief system and want to believe that it simply sprung up as it is, whole cloth, and has always been like this.
Another belief that Christians used to have is that heaven was a literal place in the sky. Because they didn't understand that "the sky" is just a bunch of atmosphere buffering us from space. They didn't really even know what "space" was. So heaven was a place "up there". Now of course that all is very foolish because we know better, but the idea of a metaphysical/spiritual heaven being 'up there' persists. There's tons and tons of stuff this applies to.
Here's another. The concept of a Messiah. Christians tend to see Jesus as a one-off, historical anomaly nowadays. ie, Jesus was the one true Messiah and his purpose was to provide a path for all mankind to God. But that's not historically accurate. Back when the Jews were under Roman rule, the term messiah meant literally someone that would come and liberate the Jewish people from the Romans. So it wasn't a religious term at all, but rather a political one. And there were tons of messiahs. So many, in fact, that they had to categorize them. Generally they fell into the "Physical" or "Mystical" categories. The physical messiah's were all like "I'm gonna be like King David, raise an army and throw off this Roman yoke, yo!". The mystical messiah's on the other hand were all like "Nah, we don't need an army, we have GOD on our side and he's going to provide a miracle to toss off this Roman yoke, yo!".
Since it was a political term and not a religious one, the Romans tended to take a pretty dim view of anyone claiming to be a messiah. And what did they do to anyone that posed a threat to Roman rule? Yeah, they crucified them. Where does this fit with Jesus? Well he was a mystical messiah and thought that God would provide a miracle to overthrow roman rule. And when that didn't happen, he was crucified, just like all the other 'messiahs' before and after him.
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Indeed:
I know that the Lord is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135%3A5-7&version=NIV
For some reason I was just thinking about this now and it occurred to me it was interesting that Christianity began with a belief in a world with multiple gods, in which one is most powerful ... then evolved into a belief of only one god existing.... and then even later evolved into the belief of one god represented in three entities with the holy trinity.
I guess religions have their own form of evolution. Yet, much like looking at the life that has evolved on this planet, most will look at their belief system and want to believe that it simply sprung up as it is, whole cloth, and has always been like this.
Another belief that Christians used to have is that heaven was a literal place in the sky. Because they didn't understand that "the sky" is just a bunch of atmosphere buffering us from space. They didn't really even know what "space" was. So heaven was a place "up there". Now of course that all is very foolish because we know better, but the idea of a metaphysical/spiritual heaven being 'up there' persists. There's tons and tons of stuff this applies to.
Here's another. The concept of a Messiah. Christians tend to see Jesus as a one-off, historical anomaly nowadays. ie, Jesus was the one true Messiah and his purpose was to provide a path for all mankind to God. But that's not historically accurate. Back when the Jews were under Roman rule, the term messiah meant literally someone that would come and liberate the Jewish people from the Romans. So it wasn't a religious term at all, but rather a political one. And there were tons of messiahs. So many, in fact, that they had to categorize them. Generally they fell into the "Physical" or "Mystical" categories. The physical messiah's were all like "I'm gonna be like King David, raise an army and throw off this Roman yoke, yo!". The mystical messiah's on the other hand were all like "Nah, we don't need an army, we have GOD on our side and he's going to provide a miracle to toss off this Roman yoke, yo!".
Since it was a political term and not a religious one, the Romans tended to take a pretty dim view of anyone claiming to be a messiah. And what did they do to anyone that posed a threat to Roman rule? Yeah, they crucified them. Where does this fit with Jesus? Well he was a mystical messiah and thought that God would provide a miracle to overthrow roman rule. And when that didn't happen, he was crucified, just like all the other 'messiahs' before and after him.
We believe that Jesus's physical body ascended into Heaven so it is a place but not limited to a certain space. Not saying Heaven is up in the sky but it is defined as a "place".
What are you basing Jesus "thought that God would provide a miracle to overthrow roman rule" on?
Jesus is God and knew he was going to be crucified before it happened.
Over time Christianity evolved into an ideology where only one god exists... and then even later added the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence - but it definitely didn't start that way. It started as an ideology where there were many gods, and Yahweh just happen to be the biggest and best of them all (according to them).
Indeed:
I know that the Lord is great,
that our Lord is greater than all gods.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+135%3A5-7&version=NIV
For some reason I was just thinking about this now and it occurred to me it was interesting that Christianity began with a belief in a world with multiple gods, in which one is most powerful ... then evolved into a belief of only one god existing.... and then even later evolved into the belief of one god represented in three entities with the holy trinity.
I guess religions have their own form of evolution. Yet, much like looking at the life that has evolved on this planet, most will look at their belief system and want to believe that it simply sprung up as it is, whole cloth, and has always been like this.
Another belief that Christians used to have is that heaven was a literal place in the sky. Because they didn't understand that "the sky" is just a bunch of atmosphere buffering us from space. They didn't really even know what "space" was. So heaven was a place "up there". Now of course that all is very foolish because we know better, but the idea of a metaphysical/spiritual heaven being 'up there' persists. There's tons and tons of stuff this applies to.
Here's another. The concept of a Messiah. Christians tend to see Jesus as a one-off, historical anomaly nowadays. ie, Jesus was the one true Messiah and his purpose was to provide a path for all mankind to God. But that's not historically accurate. Back when the Jews were under Roman rule, the term messiah meant literally someone that would come and liberate the Jewish people from the Romans. So it wasn't a religious term at all, but rather a political one. And there were tons of messiahs. So many, in fact, that they had to categorize them. Generally they fell into the "Physical" or "Mystical" categories. The physical messiah's were all like "I'm gonna be like King David, raise an army and throw off this Roman yoke, yo!". The mystical messiah's on the other hand were all like "Nah, we don't need an army, we have GOD on our side and he's going to provide a miracle to toss off this Roman yoke, yo!".
Since it was a political term and not a religious one, the Romans tended to take a pretty dim view of anyone claiming to be a messiah. And what did they do to anyone that posed a threat to Roman rule? Yeah, they crucified them. Where does this fit with Jesus? Well he was a mystical messiah and thought that God would provide a miracle to overthrow roman rule. And when that didn't happen, he was crucified, just like all the other 'messiahs' before and after him.
We believe that Jesus's physical body ascended into Heaven so it is a place but not limited to a certain space. Not saying Heaven is up in the sky but it is defined as a "place".
What are you basing Jesus "thought that God would provide a miracle to overthrow roman rule" on?
Jesus is God and knew he was going to be crucified before it happened.
Wrong. Jesus was a political rebel that was dealt with the way Rome deals with all political threats from 'the rabble' - he was crucified.
Sure, he was viewed that way and posed a threat to those who crucified him but their view doesn't necessarily take away his actual divinity.
My argument is that the theory is absurd just from logical deduction and complexity. The Bible backs that up, but I was refuting those who say Christian doctrine allows for evolution, which I assert is impossible.