Things that [censored] me off about some Christians...

Darjevon said:

Creationism is ridiculous. It can be attacked by all the most basic principles of reason, and also scientific research (christians don't like carbon dating 😄 ). How can they not accept that it is far less likely to be true than the good ol' theory of evolution!!!

On a loosely related note, one of my logical arguments. It tends to leave christians thouroughly confused and even more extremist.

Christians think children should not be born out of wedlock, and believe in creationism.
Jane is a christian.
Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Jane believes in creationism.
Adam and Eve, being the only two humans in existence, could not have been married.
Jane believes that she is a descendant of Adam and Eve.
again, Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Should Jane exist?

Now, a question for all you liberal historian homies out there...
If I wanted to find flaws in the Creationist theory, where would I look?

You are generalizing a whole religion based on beliefs of a few. There are plenty of intelligent Christians out there who recognize that the bible is not meant to be taken literally. You are equal to the mindless sheep you are talking about by taking such a myopic and ignorant viewpoint.

wilmar13 said:

You are generalizing a whole religion based on beliefs of a few. There are plenty of intelligent Christians out there who recognize that the bible is not meant to be taken literally. You are equal to the mindless sheep you are talking about by taking such a myopic and ignorant viewpoint.

I do understand that there are better christians than this, but the story of adam an eve is a very, very significant part of the bible and has latched itself onto christianity in the form of a connotation

Would you say you were "in a gang" if you always hung with the same group of friends?

I think we need some new terms to replace Christian... it is now, to the ears of one of the ex-only agnostics in memphis, TN, nearly synonymous with white nationalist/black uberevangelical.

Darjevon said:

I do understand that there are better christians than this, but the story of adam an eve is a very, very significant part of the bible and has latched itself onto christianity in the form of a connotation

Adam and Eve is a metaphor, there never was an Adam or an Eve and no one with a brain (or a real Masters in Divinity) will tell you otherwise. For the most part religion is the opiate of the masses, and the masses are blithering idiots, but just be careful not to generalize everyone who may identify him/herself with some sort of belief in Christ as having the same belief system. For what it is worth, I am agnostic anyway... Of course creationism is equal in stupidity to the theory that we have evolved from a primordial ocean. The truth is somewhere between the two extremes. At any rate, I didn't see the word some in your title the first time, and yes many Christians do way more harm than good for their cause and this is just one example.

The title of your thread disgusts.

Whether you agree with someone's beliefs or not, you should be able to argue your points with out resorting to classless words.

*flame away*

Darjevon said:

Creationism is ridiculous. It can be attacked by all the most basic principles of reason, and also scientific research (christians don't like carbon dating 😄 ). How can they not accept that it is far less likely to be true than the good ol' theory of evolution!!!

On a loosely related note, one of my logical arguments. It tends to leave christians thouroughly confused and even more extremist.

Christians think children should not be born out of wedlock, and believe in creationism.
Jane is a christian.
Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Jane believes in creationism.
Adam and Eve, being the only two humans in existence, could not have been married.
Jane believes that she is a descendant of Adam and Eve.
again, Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Should Jane exist?

Now, a question for all you liberal historian homies out there...
If I wanted to find flaws in the Creationist theory, where would I look?

Hey, he's right. These are the same people that think after this guy was nailed to a cross, came from the dead & walked around for several days. These are also the people who have conversations w/ "God":eek:

Darjevon said:

Creationism is ridiculous. It can be attacked by all the most basic principles of reason, and also scientific research (christians don't like carbon dating 😄 ). How can they not accept that it is far less likely to be true than the good ol' theory of evolution!!!

On a loosely related note, one of my logical arguments. It tends to leave christians thouroughly confused and even more extremist.

Christians think children should not be born out of wedlock, and believe in creationism.
Jane is a christian.
Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Jane believes in creationism.
Adam and Eve, being the only two humans in existence, could not have been married.
Jane believes that she is a descendant of Adam and Eve.
again, Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Should Jane exist?

Now, a question for all you liberal historian homies out there...
If I wanted to find flaws in the Creationist theory, where would I look?

Darjevon, you are a godsend, of sorts 😉 We are not sheep to follow mythology, much less base foreign policy (See-GOP agenda) 😠 , on such "wives tales". Humans have the capacity to be more than that, thanks to our old friend-Evolution 😄 See my sig, below 🙂 Gotta go. Have an appointment to stone a transgressor 🙄

Darjevon said:

Creationism is ridiculous. It can be attacked by all the most basic principles of reason, and also scientific research (christians don't like carbon dating 😄 ). How can they not accept that it is far less likely to be true than the good ol' theory of evolution!!!

On a loosely related note, one of my logical arguments. It tends to leave christians thouroughly confused and even more extremist.

Christians think children should not be born out of wedlock, and believe in creationism.
Jane is a christian.
Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Jane believes in creationism.
Adam and Eve, being the only two humans in existence, could not have been married.
Jane believes that she is a descendant of Adam and Eve.
again, Jane thinks children should not be born out of wedlock.
Should Jane exist?

Now, a question for all you liberal historian homies out there...
If I wanted to find flaws in the Creationist theory, where would I look?

2 things...

wtf is Jane?

and how do you know Adam and Eve werent married? Perhaps God made special condidtions for them since they were the first human beings....no?

Perhaps God married them...

MountainPro said:

2 things...

wtf is Jane?

and how do you know Adam and Eve werent married? Perhaps God made special condidtions for them since they were the first human beings....no?

Perhaps God married them...

A losing battle MP. Someone will demand to see the marriage certificate and the bill from the reception and will only accept the bible in an original autographed copy.
You guys ever took a good look at Heidi Klume. There is no way she is an accident of nature.
Higher powers must be involved.

Tolerance boys...tolerance.

rule62 said:

Tolerance boys...tolerance.

never heard of them, a new pop band? any relation this Jane woman?

jhuskey said:

A losing battle MP. Someone will demand to see the marriage certificate and the bill from the reception and will only accept the bible in an original autographed copy.
You guys ever took a good look at Heidi Klume. There is no way she is an accident of nature.
Higher powers must be involved.

I get the same feeling frequently but woman's attractiveness is just a tribute to estogren/progesterone (hormones), nothing more.

davidmc said:

I get the same feeling frequently but woman's attractiveness is just a tribute to estogren/progesterone (hormones), nothing more.

I disagree on the basis if that were the case I could just buy a six pack of hormones and spend a delightful evening alone.

jhuskey said:

I disagree on the basis if that were the case I could just buy a six pack of hormones and spend a delightful evening alone.

All creatures have hormones to make them attractive to the opposite sex in order to perpetuate the species. Nothing "earth-shatterring" about that 😕

davidmc said:

All creatures have hormones to make them attractive to the opposite sex in order to perpetuate the species. Nothing "earth-shatterring" about that 😕

A couple of strong drinks don't hurt either.

Beauty is in the eye of the "Beerholder".

jhuskey said:

I disagree on the basis if that were the case I could just buy a six pack of hormones and spend a delightful evening alone.

this conversation is taking a strange and slightly scary direction....i am going home to lock the doors.

MountainPro said:

this conversation is taking a strange and slightly scary direction....i am going home to lock the doors.

Please note that my "key word" is "IF".

I'm happy that you clarified that JH.

I was starting to wonder.............................

Adam and Eve, not married. Okay, let's discuss this part. A marriage can be seen as a covenant that God has brought two people together to live as husband and wife. In the Adam and Eve section of the Bible, God literally does this. To God, the marriage isn't the piece of paper given to you by the state, but the blessing given.

But to be honest, that has got to be one of the MOST lame arguments against Christianity I've ever heard. You mean to tell me that you actually "thoroughly confuse" people with that statment? 😕

Carbon (C14) Dating is not reliable on fossils thought to be very old. Carbon 14 has a half life of close to 6000 years and not reliable on fossils over 30,000 years old. Potassium Argon is supposed to have a much longer halflife, though.

Just because some Christians claim a young Earth doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct. I personally believe that you can't take each of the Biblical days of creation as a literal day. Nor do I don't believe there is a way to quantify the amount of time that could have elapsed between "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and "Let there be light." Or when there was the creation of species and how long they lived and for how many of OUR known years passed, in the way we lay out our calendar. I'm pretty sure that 'years' wasn't a concept at that time.

Anyway, this whole debate is mostly an excercise in futility. I've seen arguments on both sides with no one turning the other.

jhuskey said:

Beauty is in the eye of the "Beerholder".

Ah something we all can agree on 😉