evolution

The deleted Saint Thomas memoirs were just one more perspective on the biography of Christ. If I had been alive at the time, my own interpretations would have been different again. The writers' idiosynchrasies cannot be taken as right or wrong. For the record, Thomas' gospel was deleted becasue some leader fancied that he was implying that homosexuality should not be prohibited.

I think it is best not to worry too much about the technicalities and decide whether Christ's philosophies such as that of "turning the other cheek" are useful. Many would say they are good to live by, some would say that the old testament motto of "an eye for an eye" is more appropriate. Saint Paul's teachings are merely his own, very stylised thoughts on the gospels, which are no more valid than anyone elses interpretations (Saint Paul makes alot of odd and contradictorary assertions which are entirely his own)

Ms.Understood> The Romans didn’t start to have censuses until 6 A.D. So it couldn’t possibly have been at the time of Herod who died 10 years earlier.
And Quirinius may’ve been a common name for all I know. But Luke calls him Cyrenius (granted Luke wrote to the Romans, so it may’ve been a romanification of Quirinius – which sounds rather Roman, though).
Tell me which is right?:
Mt.2:14
"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."
Lk.2:39
"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Predator> You can’t prove a negative! YOU are the one making a positive assertion, the burden of proof rests on YOU – not on me.
What conspiracy theories of altered documents??? You ARE aware that the Bible is filled to the brim with faulty translations, right? Such as the one that turned a Babylonian king into Lucifer.

Shaber> You’ll be hardpressed to find religions, that don’t preach good morals and good behaviour towards your fellow man. Be it Buddhism, Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. When people take the “idea” and follow that, fine by me if they have to.
But some people take these ancient and mis-translated books as the literal and undeniable truth, despite proof they can’t possibly be.

evolution...pffft....it amazes me what science throws at us....we was apes yeah....knocks religeon out the window then doesnt it.....id rather have faith in my religeon

The only real difference amongst the religions I can think of off-hand (and it's a small one) is the matter of retribution. Some religions condone execution etc. whereas others say that it is a moral compromise (though practise it anyway)

This has become an argument about the validity of Christianity. Can we please keep it on the topic of evolution?

Dean>Evolution does not mean we came from apes, this is because apes stil exist, ones an animal evolves the origional animal becomes extinct, Apes and Humans did branch off from the same ancestor though.
This explanes the reason why 92% of our DNA is EXACTLY the same as some Ape's DNA.

Actually it is almost 99% get it right 😠

Originally posted by dean7879
evolution...pffft....it amazes me what science throws at us....we was apes yeah....knocks religeon out the window then doesnt it.....id rather have faith in my religeon

✅ 😄

Well, in that case it probably should.
If your religion so outdated that it doesn't accept evolution then something is wrong.
Tell me, what makes your religion more correct than the religion of hte ancient Aztecs, or the Norse, or the Greek/Roman religion. What makes yours so special?

>Omega which babylonian king was trasnlated to lucipher? The only Babylonian kings i know are:
Nebopolassar 626-605 B.C
Nebuchanezzar 605-562 B.C
Evil Merodach 562-560 B.C
Nerriglisar 560-558 B.C
Nabonidus 556-539 B.C
Belshazzar 556-539 B.C
I checked my bible and some of thekings are mentioned of the ones I posted but none of their names are changed or altered to Lucipher So you'll have to give some context or reference to check if iam to take that comment serious.
>Dean7879 and Hobbit-Dude iam glad you have faith in your religion but i would be even more grateful if you could at strength to my argument or atleast help me out. Just a thought.

Predator> The Book of Esajah chapther 14:12 is the only place in the Christian Bible that mentions Lucifer.
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!""
Now, obviously Lucifer is Latin, so how did that word find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was such a thing as the Roman language?
If you can get a hold of the original Esajah 14:12 it doesn’t deal with any fallen angel, but a fallen Babylonian king, who’d prosecuted the Israelis. There is no mention of Satan, not with name or reference.

So what is the logical conclusion? An early Christian scholars wrote IN Latin and decided the story should deal with a fallen angel, of which there is no mention in the original Hebrew texts, or nowhere else in the Bible and which was named ”Lucifer”.
Why the name ”Luficer”? In Roman astronomy the morning-star (which we today know under another Roman name, Venus) was named Luficer. It can be seen on the sky right before sunrise and heralds the rising sun.

Luficer is derived from the Latin ”Lucern Ferre” which means ”Bringer, or bearer of light”.
In the Hebrew texts the Babylonian King was named ”Helal, son of Shahar”, which can best be translated into ”Daystar, son of dawn”.

The scolars who wrote the King James version of the Bible, didn’t use the original Hebrew texts, but a translated version of the Catholic Vulgata Bible from the 4th Century.
There you go – from Roman Morningstar to disobient angel, the Lord of Darkness.
What irony.

ah come on, ... I see TO still has to defend herself and STILL don't see any prove of creatism outside the bible

You're taking this OFF topic again you lot. So does anyone have any theories about what occured to bridge the gap between virii and bacteria?

This is a little off topic... But everybody in this thread should read "Angels and Demons" and "The Da Vinci Code". They will enlighten you. I'm not saying everything in them is true, but the Da Vinci Code does a good job of outlining one very important principal: the books of the New Testament are simply interpretations of Christ's life written by human (yes HUMAN) historians that were around at the time. None of them, even the ones that are not included in the bible, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, can be taken literally.

It's important to realize that most people who were around in Christ's time and the centuries following didn't see him as the messiah or the son of god. He was more like a Buddha, in that he was just seen as an exceptionally wise philosopher. The whole idea of him having been a divine being is essentially a fabricated one that arose long after his death. Even if it is true, you have to realize that the Bible is just one interpretation of a collection of events. Many of the "miracles" (turning water into wine, walking on water, etc) described in the Bible could easily just be metaphors for more earthly occurances.

About viruses/virii/vires (I'm not sure which is the correct plural form, I've seen all three in dictionaries) and bacteria... Not sure. Viruses have always been interesting to me... Are they living or nonliving? lol 😄

Read 'em!
Very good stuff in the books,

Viruses, I think, are living, because they have DNA and show all the signs of being alive. Theres 5 i think, I don't remember them all but its something like, Respond to stimuli, Obtain nutriens, reproduce. and a couple more

To be living, an organism must...

Respond to stimuli
Be capable of reproducing on their own or with another from their species (viruses don't)
Be made of cells/a cell (viruses aren't)

I know everybody learns different, but that's what I've always been taught. Some people use seven kingdoms instead of the five I learned, viruses being one of them. My science teacher told me that although viruses aren't technically living, it's kind of hard to ignore them, because they affect literally every life form on the planet in some way.

Yea they are kinda crazy

Indeed they are.

Darth> Another thing you have to take into account is the fact, that there is NO archaeological evidence to suggest Jesus ever existed – nor anything in Roman or Greek writings of the time. One should think, that a person who performed miracles would’ve made it into some historical accounts of those to cultures – but no.

Shaber> No idea. I’m not a biologist. However, I trust science and biologists more than I trust Creationists 😄¨

Some months ago I interviewed the Norwegian microbiologist Dr. Nils-Kåre Birkeland, and asked him what life IS.

”As opposed to non-living systems, living cells are capable of reproducing themselves and have an active metabolism. The other trademarks of life is the ability to evolve through the process of evolution.”!

All life we know is made up of cells. It can be single-celled organisms (like amoebae or malaria parasites), or multi-cell creatures (birds, fish, mammals).
Every single cell contains a membrane which contains the biological manual, so the cell works. And all cells use the same ”operative system”: DNA.

Omega> Well, I'm not going so far as to say Jesus never existed--because I still think it's quite possible he did--I just don't believe he was anything more than an enlightened thinker.

I thought some mentioned jezus's name as him being a rebel? (forgot the precise name)