2000+ years old

[Buddha 3]

I can only presume from that reply that you do accept evolution, however correct me if otherwise.




If so, what makes Evolution different, why does it not go hand in hand?

Judgment is the act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.... in this case using your judgement to interoperate what you agree/disagree with based on developments made since the time that the original statement, in this case Evolution.

In essence, is this not 'picking'? Granted, its picking based on the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting that choice, but by excluding one of the fundamentals does that not undermine the credibility of the others?


I don’t want to come across as being difficult (which I probably am) but it is hugely interesting to me to what makes one thing more believable than an other? How can one element of faith be taken any more literal than another?

C'mon, this is easy. It all depends on your view of the Bible. Do you consider it a book that explains EVERYTHING (as creationists tend to do), or do you consider it a book that explains only the parts of history (for as far as you can call it that) relevant to Christianity? Meaning that more than what is written in the Bible has happened.

 

[Homewrecker]

Oh I understand why people choose to drop some of the original statements the Bible makes, obviously it was a different world at the time. (I understand that these statements may or may not be ‘original’)

What I would like to understand is when one or two of these main religious beliefs start being debunked by their own followers, does this not but the rest of them into question? How does a person justify (to themselves - forget other people's opinion) one thing as truth when another previously stated truth has now been discounted. Do they even feel they in a position to do this, is Christianity or any other faith for that matter comfortable with its members choosing what parts of it they believe and what parts they don't?

I don't think I put my point across very well (this is my 14th consecutive working day - my brain is a bit frazzled) - I'm not trying to argue against someone’s belief, I'm just interested in the thought process behind what people choose (or choose not) to believe.

 

[Buddha 3]

Oh I understand why people choose to drop some of the original statements the Bible makes, obviously it was a different world at the time. (I understand that these statements may or may not be ‘original’)

What I would like to understand is when one or two of these main religious beliefs start being debunked by their own followers, does this not but the rest of them into question? How does a person justify (to themselves - forget other people's opinion) one thing as truth when another previously stated truth has now been discounted. Do they even feel they in a position to do this, is Christianity or any other faith for that matter comfortable with its members choosing what parts of it they believe and what parts they don't?

I don't think I put my point across very well (this is my 14th consecutive working day - my brain is a bit frazzled) - I'm not trying to argue against someone’s belief, I'm just interested in the thought process behind what people choose (or choose not) to believe.

I think you missed my point. You don't need to drop any parts of the Bible to able to explain it all from a Biblical point of view, even when modern science is included in the debate.
Mind you, you have to be pretty good at reasoning though, but it can be done.

By the way, I'm not religious, but I have a great interest in the world's religions.

 

[Homewrecker]

My point was only that as a Christian; does coming to the realisation that you don't believe in one of the more signifcant teachings in the Bible, something previously considered fact, make a person question other parts? I've never have been religious, it just never occured to me. So I'm fasinated by how it affects other people.

Aye me too, I highly recomend the The Psychology of Religion and Coping... its a tad 'text booky' since its aimed at education but once your about a third into it, it's really interesting.

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

My point was only that as a Christian; does coming to the realisation that you don't believe in one of the more signifcant teachings in the Bible, something previously considered fact, make a person question other parts? I've never have been religious, it just never occured to me. So I'm fasinated by how it affects other people. .

The Bible iinspired by God but interpreted by man. The scriptures traditional interpretations change with our understanding, just as scientific understanding changes.

Its not a case of not believing something you previously considered fact, it's developing your understanding.

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

If 'coming to the realisation' refers to the assumption that I believe in the thoery of evolution I have difficulty in accepting man comes from apes.

 

[Tom Allen]

If 'coming to the realisation' refers to the assumption that I believe in the thoery of evolution I have difficulty in accepting man comes from apes.

on a lighter note.......Wayne Rooney....

 

[Homewrecker]

If 'coming to the realisation' refers to the assumption that I believe in the thoery of evolution I have difficulty in accepting man comes from apes.

Maybe I'm just being stupid, possibly because it's the wrong side of midday..but is this a yes, no or undecided?

It doesn’t matter anyway, I was just interested in how 'developing an understanding’ that contradicts one script in the Bible effects how you view the other scripts in the Bible. Is it a case of "I believe it until proven categorically otherwise" or does it encourage questions to emerge to challenge other interpretations?

 

[Return of the Silver Fox]

It's an undecided based on the lack of any evidence of a missing link.

 

[Tom Allen]

It's an undecided based on the lack of any evidence of a missing link.

see post 77