Choices always were a problem for you. What you need is someone strong to guide you. Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow, what you need is someone strong to use you... like me, like me.
[i]Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?[/i]
Christianity is a filthy perversion of morality....subjugation of women, slavery of children, murder of children, rape of children, racism, genocide, children included.. all of these things are done at the express command of God (according to that smut we call the Bible)
Christianity wrongly understood or wrongly applied is all of those things - history proves it. All things being equal, any religion with too much power will becomes co-opted (i.e. Buddhists in Shri-lanka ... killing people ... makes no sense given what Buddhism stands for).
Bonhoeffer's book, "Religionless Christianity" does an excellent job of pointing out how when religion itself becomes ingrained across generations, the core truths of it can become hidden. This is the point: if the resurrection is true, then that's the basis for Christian understanding of morality. We give ourselves up for the sake of others. period. If a Christian is the cause of oppression, I question how much they really understand about what they profess to follow. Christians may read the bible, but they should be following Jesus. That means, even when a person has some wacked out ideas about whatever, the way they are in the world should still reflect the character of Jesus - patient, loving, kind, generous etc - and not like what you would expect of the world at large - hate-filled, fearful, angry, violent etc.
Unfortunately, it seems too many Christians with loud voices are also the ones who are propagating messages of hate toward various groups. But that;s the exact opposite of Christianity - which is really about a relationship with Jesus, not religion. I've had too many first-hand experiences (no 'pink cool-aid' either) to deny the reality of Jesus now, and there's quite good evidence for the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Tim Keller's King's Cross is one secondary source that points to many primary sources).
Peace, R
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
Christianity is a filthy perversion of morality....subjugation of women, slavery of children, murder of children, rape of children, racism, genocide, children included.. all of these things are done at the express command of God (according to that smut we call the Bible)
Christianity wrongly understood or wrongly applied is all of those things - history proves it. All things being equal, any religion with too much power will becomes co-opted (i.e. Buddhists in Shri-lanka ... killing people ... makes no sense given what Buddhism stands for).
Bonhoeffer's book, "Religionless Christianity" does an excellent job of pointing out how when religion itself becomes ingrained across generations, the core truths of it can become hidden. This is the point: if the resurrection is true, then that's the basis for Christian understanding of morality. We give ourselves up for the sake of others. period. If a Christian is the cause of oppression, I question how much they really understand about what they profess to follow. Christians may read the bible, but they should be following Jesus. That means, even when a person has some wacked out ideas about whatever, the way they are in the world should still reflect the character of Jesus - patient, loving, kind, generous etc - and not like what you would expect of the world at large - hate-filled, fearful, angry, violent etc.
Unfortunately, it seems too many Christians with loud voices are also the ones who are propagating messages of hate toward various groups. But that;s the exact opposite of Christianity - which is really about a relationship with Jesus, not religion. I've had too many first-hand experiences (no 'pink cool-aid' either) to deny the reality of Jesus now, and there's quite good evidence for the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Tim Keller's King's Cross is one secondary source that points to many primary sources).
Peace, R
We're a little off topic here but what you say is interesting, RSR. Throughout recorded history, most if not all societies have had some form of mythology to explain how things came to be, offer a set of moral codes, make suggestions or advice for living and so forth. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as those who chose to strive for those qualities you mentioned- being patient, loving, kind, generous etc.- do so because they believe it is the right thing to do rather than because the dominant mythology tells them to do so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Throughout recorded history, most if not all societies have had some form of mythology to explain how things came to be, offer a set of moral codes, make suggestions or advice for living and so forth. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as those who chose to strive for those qualities you mentioned- being patient, loving, kind, generous etc.- do so because they believe it is the right thing to do rather than because the dominant mythology tells them to do so.
True - So that brings us back to the problem of creationsim and creation science. A lot of Christians (I would say mistakenly) believe that the only faithful way to interpret the book of Genesis, as well as other strange things in the bible, is to take them literally. The problem is that we can't force modern criteria for truth onto texts that are this ancient. We can use some modern historical-critical criteria for discerning fact from fiction when it comes to the gospels, because there are sources outside of the gospels themselves that re-enforce some of the most important details (like the death/ressurection of Jesus - I'm thinking of Josephus here) ... But that kind of corroboration just doesn't exist for more ancient writings, so it would be a mistake to use a fact vs fiction framework when talking about Genesis. I mean - there was a talking snake. That should be a big tip-off that something else is going on.
In other word, I think it's better to read the Bible literarily rather than literally.
Having said that, I would hope that Creation science can also provide some corrective help to modern science - if by chance creation science folks discover some things through the scientific process, I would hope it would be accepted based on it's own merits.
For me, the truth of Genesis 1 is that the God of this book is above everything else that would set itself up as God. At the time, all the gods of the day are dismantled in one page of poetry as elemental forces, or mere people. This is compelling to me now because of the way we in the west put our hope in all sorts of things. We will laugh at hinduism with their millions of gods, and then drool (or even fight each other) over the latest xbox or kid's toy. That's an extreme example.
On people striving to be something ... yeah I think that's good. But the message of Christianity is, in some ways, a commentary on striving. No matter how much we strive, we're always going to blow it. It's just the way things are. In accepting the grace of Jesus, we not only agree with this, but we place our worth onto Him first. He then is our embodiment of truth, life, joy, peace, etc. His peace becomes ours, his love, ours and so on. It's experiential, but also intellectual. In a sense, we are somehow given a new way to approach everything in life -- I'm trying to summarize both Christian theology and my own experience here. Kind of difficult.
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
Throughout recorded history, most if not all societies have had some form of mythology to explain how things came to be, offer a set of moral codes, make suggestions or advice for living and so forth. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as those who chose to strive for those qualities you mentioned- being patient, loving, kind, generous etc.- do so because they believe it is the right thing to do rather than because the dominant mythology tells them to do so.
True - So that brings us back to the problem of creationsim and creation science. A lot of Christians (I would say mistakenly) believe that the only faithful way to interpret the book of Genesis, as well as other strange things in the bible, is to take them literally. The problem is that we can't force modern criteria for truth onto texts that are this ancient. We can use some modern historical-critical criteria for discerning fact from fiction when it comes to the gospels, because there are sources outside of the gospels themselves that re-enforce some of the most important details (like the death/ressurection of Jesus - I'm thinking of Josephus here) ... But that kind of corroboration just doesn't exist for more ancient writings, so it would be a mistake to use a fact vs fiction framework when talking about Genesis. I mean - there was a talking snake. That should be a big tip-off that something else is going on.
In other word, I think it's better to read the Bible literarily rather than literally.
Having said that, I would hope that Creation science can also provide some corrective help to modern science - if by chance creation science folks discover some things through the scientific process, I would hope it would be accepted based on it's own merits.
For me, the truth of Genesis 1 is that the God of this book is above everything else that would set itself up as God. At the time, all the gods of the day are dismantled in one page of poetry as elemental forces, or mere people. This is compelling to me now because of the way we in the west put our hope in all sorts of things. We will laugh at hinduism with their millions of gods, and then drool (or even fight each other) over the latest xbox or kid's toy. That's an extreme example.
On people striving to be something ... yeah I think that's good. But the message of Christianity is, in some ways, a commentary on striving. No matter how much we strive, we're always going to blow it. It's just the way things are. In accepting the grace of Jesus, we not only agree with this, but we place our worth onto Him first. He then is our embodiment of truth, life, joy, peace, etc. His peace becomes ours, his love, ours and so on. It's experiential, but also intellectual. In a sense, we are somehow given a new way to approach everything in life -- I'm trying to summarize both Christian theology and my own experience here. Kind of difficult.
"literarily rather than literally":
That's good way to put it, RSR. A friend of mine who follows the Trappist monk philosophy puts it this way- he reads the Bible as a contextualist manner rather than a literalist. I think he made the term up the term "contextualist" but basically he believes much of the Bible is purely story and metaphor. He has a much more highly defined sense of spirituality than I do but he clearly sees that a literal interpretation of many of the stories in the Bible is not at all useful or instructive.
The older I get the more comfortable I am with simply accepting that there is a certain amount of mystery in the universe. I tried being a Christian during the 70's because some of the people closest to me then were strongly into it. Eventually I had to examine my own beliefs and recognize and admit that I could not honestly define myself as a Christian.
"No matter how much we strive, we're always going to blow it."
This seems is so true that it may be a universal truth. I like the idea of grace and the idea that Jesus symbolizes grace but I'm not sure we really know much about the man- even to the point of accepting the idea that he may be a fictional or mythological character (I don't profess to know either way). The idea of grace still seemed important to me so as I fell away from any kind of participation in organized religion I began to find other ways of seeing and finding grace in several other ways. I believe the earth bestows grace- just the fact that we are still here despite our abuse against our home planet- to me that seems hugely like grace. When I screw up and my cat rubs up against my leg anyway I believe she is bestowing grace upon me. Music certainly seems like a source of grace to me and friends and family very much so- especially when I think of the ones who have stuck with me despite some periods of time in my life of failing them (and myself) miserably. And because of their grace I fail less often- at least I hope so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The Dawkins video is interesting. I think the entire debate is a red herring (especially for anyone who calls themselves a Christian). I'm glad Dawkins won't give into it - but other Christians should not shy away from it as an 'in house debate'. I've hand some fantastic conversations about creation/evolution with friends - and we've both come away from it richer and more appreciative of each side.
But it's not the job of any Christian to berate, oppress, belittle or condemn people. For example, it's one thing to challenge a friend on their ideas or behaviour you disagree with, and to do it gently and humbly. It's quite another to make a commercial about it, stage a protest rally over it, or make sarcastic comments about it all over the internet. That's an adventure in missing the point. For a Christian to be an oppressive jerk negates part of the heart of Christianity (grace). This makes a Christian politician quite a paradox.
Switching gears, as a book it's very easy to point to any one place in the Bible and use it to support bad attitudes and medieval mindsets. But as a put-together collection, the Bible contains an overarching narrative which climaxes in Jesus dying in the place of all the people who wanted him dead - even forgiving them as they were killing him. That's the explicit, ultimate example Christians have, and we fail miserably at following it most of the time.
But I don't expect grace from the public. To (partially) quote 'the little Zen companion', Christians in the west get all the "shut the fuck ups" they deserve. Of course, that's a partial metaphor. Like any family, Christians have their fair share of 'weird uncle Boris' ". But it's not necessary to paint us all with one brush, or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does this ring true? -- It's often the loudmouths who have the least understanding.
I submit that it is the same in Christianity as it is anywhere else. If you want to know what Christianity is really about, seek out the quiet, unassuming, gentle Christians, not the loud obnoxious ones. How their beliefs are held is the difference. They might still believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but they understand that this particular belief isn't central or even important. Their beliefs are more like individual springs on a trampoline than a house of cards. A spring or two might break, and that's ok for them. You'll know house of cards theology when you see it because if you disprove one small thing, it crumbles the entire belief system. As a result, 'house of cards' Christians can be impossibly opinionated.
Post edited by RSR on
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
How their beliefs are held is the difference. They might still believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but they understand that this particular belief isn't central or even important. Their beliefs are more like individual springs on a trampoline than a house of cards. A spring or two might break, and that's ok for them.
Your entire post I was reading until I came up to the 6000yr old thing. It is simply impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who truly believes the earth is 6000yrs old.
The only debate I can logically muster is the one about how to get the nutjobs to shut the hell up and fuck off.
I can't believe that modern day society can result in these people having such an influence or a platform. It's fucking terrifying.
Wasting time and resources debating creationist feels retarded, but whatelse can we do? We can't ignore them because sadly people who believes in crazy shit is allowed to vote too.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Your entire post I was reading until I came up to the 6000yr old thing. It is simply impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who truly believes the earth is 6000yrs old.
I think if you look deep enough, you'll discover we all have at least one or two wacky beliefs about things. But the trick in discussions on politics and religion is to not go around in circles. As soon as that starts to happen ....
And some people can't have a reasonable discussion - it just turns into name-calling. I would avoid that, because they aren't really willing to discuss anything. So what I'm saying is that a reasonable person will recognize that just because they are passionate about something (i.e. creation science) doesn't give them the right to be mean or closed off to another perspective.
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
Your entire post I was reading until I came up to the 6000yr old thing. It is simply impossible to have a reasoned debate with someone who truly believes the earth is 6000yrs old.
I think if you look deep enough, you'll discover we all have at least one or two wacky beliefs about things. But the trick in discussions on politics and religion is to not go around in circles. And some people can't have a reasonable discussion - it just turns into name-calling. I would avoid that, because they aren't really willing to discuss anything. So what I'm saying is that a reasonable person will recognize that just because they are passionate about something (i.e. creation science) doesn't give them the right to be mean or closed off to another perspective.
If I may ask you friend. Do you believe the earth is 6000yrs old?
No, I'm comfortable with an evolving cosmos. I actually have a hard time seeing the problem between creation and evolution, aside from the debate itself being a problem. I think things like survival of the fittest are self-evident in nature. Foxes can kill and eat rabbits because foxes are stronger, more cunning etc. It would be futile to argue against a thing that happens.
Interestingly, foxes do kill rabbits precisely because they can. People also hunt animals because we have the ability to do so. If we physically couldn't, we would still be eating tree nuts or whatever. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but I think it brings up the controversy of where to draw the lines ... or more importantly, why to draw the lines. I think there are several layers of assumptions we need to peel back before we can really answer a 'why' question like that.
We assume that hunting people for sport is wrong. Why? Because we assume that it's wrong to kill someone who is innocent. why? Because our justice system frowns on .... why? Because ....
My opinion is that while I am comfortable and supportive of old earth science, I don't think evolution provides a good enough basis for something like morality. I think Evolution does have a bearing on how morality gets worked out in our day-to-day lives, but I don't think it's the root cause of morality or even a good reason to have a moral position.
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
searching a seat for me here...and like to add a beautiful thought.....and not to get thrown in the debate pit but be in dominence of this thread... but evolution should not ever had halted if it existed, and creation is a thinker, evolution is not..
if evolution really existed and was the answer to our existance, things would still be ''vastly evolving'' like a big bang is not a thought process but a freak of nature, in which i assume has no thought process but creation on the other hand is a thought process and spirituality just does not coincidently evolve as well as emotions that go with it, and if you experienced harmony and love, you would then start to question evolution
From the video: what chance have we got when the indoctrination- the imprinting- of a childhood leaves a mind so wrecked?
The mind is a powerful thing.
Just as an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and sees obesity while the rest of the world sees a skeleton... the devout follower believes what they been groomed to believe regardless of science based fact (or even common sense for that matter).
* To the above post... evolution has not halted. What would make you say that?
love to chat but i have to go to the doctors to get new medication, they just happened to evolve there, just for me and this horrible sickness i have ) sorry but i believe credit when credits due to our maker...
JWPearl. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It sounds like an argument against Evolution based on the idea that things don't appear to still be evolving. The reason this argument doesn't work is because evolution takes billions of years. You can't 'see' something evolving right now - although in a sense you are seeing evolution all the time. It's very, very, very, very, VERY slow. Scientists can only look back in hindsight and put the puzzle pieces together.
In one sense, the idea of evolution was an answer to the question of: Why are things the way they are presently? Properly understood, Evolution as a working scientific body of knowledge provides some reasonable, verifiable answers. Improperly understood ... and you get Ken Ham debating Bill Nye.
I've been a Pearl Jam fan since I was 13 and first heard Ament's opening to Jeremy on the radio. To this day, Pearl Jam continues to inspire and challenge me to not just be better, but to be great.
1, God does not answer all prayers, if you are not pleasing him or are doing wrong? 2.Some things happen for a reason so what you praying for may not be what God has planned for you because his thoughts are higher than ours and you dont know whats best for you in his eyes not your own? 3.Are you praying to the right God? 4. We live in the devils world, even Gods son died on a cross, what did you do? 5.Do you love God enough to be noticed? 6.Is what your asking for a sin ?
im leaving this thread that should be enough you can, go study monkeys,apes and their desire of spirituality,
love to chat but i have to go to the doctors to get new medication, they just happened to evolve there, just for me and this horrible sickness i have ) sorry but i believe credit when credits due to our maker...
Huh? Exactly what does the maker get credit for in this situation?
Why are you accessing a doctor and science? You shouldn't treat science like it's a buffet table: "I'll believe a little of this and a little of that... no... none of that science though... don't like that science."
Comments
What you need is someone strong to guide you.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow,
what you need is someone strong to use you...
like me,
like me.
Bonhoeffer's book, "Religionless Christianity" does an excellent job of pointing out how when religion itself becomes ingrained across generations, the core truths of it can become hidden. This is the point: if the resurrection is true, then that's the basis for Christian understanding of morality. We give ourselves up for the sake of others. period. If a Christian is the cause of oppression, I question how much they really understand about what they profess to follow. Christians may read the bible, but they should be following Jesus. That means, even when a person has some wacked out ideas about whatever, the way they are in the world should still reflect the character of Jesus - patient, loving, kind, generous etc - and not like what you would expect of the world at large - hate-filled, fearful, angry, violent etc.
Unfortunately, it seems too many Christians with loud voices are also the ones who are propagating messages of hate toward various groups. But that;s the exact opposite of Christianity - which is really about a relationship with Jesus, not religion. I've had too many first-hand experiences (no 'pink cool-aid' either) to deny the reality of Jesus now, and there's quite good evidence for the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Tim Keller's King's Cross is one secondary source that points to many primary sources).
Peace,
R
In other word, I think it's better to read the Bible literarily rather than literally.
Having said that, I would hope that Creation science can also provide some corrective help to modern science - if by chance creation science folks discover some things through the scientific process, I would hope it would be accepted based on it's own merits.
For me, the truth of Genesis 1 is that the God of this book is above everything else that would set itself up as God. At the time, all the gods of the day are dismantled in one page of poetry as elemental forces, or mere people. This is compelling to me now because of the way we in the west put our hope in all sorts of things. We will laugh at hinduism with their millions of gods, and then drool (or even fight each other) over the latest xbox or kid's toy. That's an extreme example.
On people striving to be something ... yeah I think that's good. But the message of Christianity is, in some ways, a commentary on striving. No matter how much we strive, we're always going to blow it. It's just the way things are. In accepting the grace of Jesus, we not only agree with this, but we place our worth onto Him first. He then is our embodiment of truth, life, joy, peace, etc. His peace becomes ours, his love, ours and so on. It's experiential, but also intellectual. In a sense, we are somehow given a new way to approach everything in life -- I'm trying to summarize both Christian theology and my own experience here. Kind of difficult.
That's good way to put it, RSR. A friend of mine who follows the Trappist monk philosophy puts it this way- he reads the Bible as a contextualist manner rather than a literalist. I think he made the term up the term "contextualist" but basically he believes much of the Bible is purely story and metaphor. He has a much more highly defined sense of spirituality than I do but he clearly sees that a literal interpretation of many of the stories in the Bible is not at all useful or instructive.
The older I get the more comfortable I am with simply accepting that there is a certain amount of mystery in the universe. I tried being a Christian during the 70's because some of the people closest to me then were strongly into it. Eventually I had to examine my own beliefs and recognize and admit that I could not honestly define myself as a Christian.
"No matter how much we strive, we're always going to blow it."
This seems is so true that it may be a universal truth. I like the idea of grace and the idea that Jesus symbolizes grace but I'm not sure we really know much about the man- even to the point of accepting the idea that he may be a fictional or mythological character (I don't profess to know either way). The idea of grace still seemed important to me so as I fell away from any kind of participation in organized religion I began to find other ways of seeing and finding grace in several other ways. I believe the earth bestows grace- just the fact that we are still here despite our abuse against our home planet- to me that seems hugely like grace. When I screw up and my cat rubs up against my leg anyway I believe she is bestowing grace upon me. Music certainly seems like a source of grace to me and friends and family very much so- especially when I think of the ones who have stuck with me despite some periods of time in my life of failing them (and myself) miserably. And because of their grace I fail less often- at least I hope so.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvmnxn_dawkins-answers-why-he-refuses-to-debate-creationists_news
www.headstonesband.com
I can't believe that modern day society can result in these people having such an influence or a platform. It's fucking terrifying.
But it's not the job of any Christian to berate, oppress, belittle or condemn people. For example, it's one thing to challenge a friend on their ideas or behaviour you disagree with, and to do it gently and humbly. It's quite another to make a commercial about it, stage a protest rally over it, or make sarcastic comments about it all over the internet. That's an adventure in missing the point. For a Christian to be an oppressive jerk negates part of the heart of Christianity (grace). This makes a Christian politician quite a paradox.
Switching gears, as a book it's very easy to point to any one place in the Bible and use it to support bad attitudes and medieval mindsets. But as a put-together collection, the Bible contains an overarching narrative which climaxes in Jesus dying in the place of all the people who wanted him dead - even forgiving them as they were killing him. That's the explicit, ultimate example Christians have, and we fail miserably at following it most of the time.
But I don't expect grace from the public. To (partially) quote 'the little Zen companion', Christians in the west get all the "shut the fuck ups" they deserve. Of course, that's a partial metaphor. Like any family, Christians have their fair share of 'weird uncle Boris' ". But it's not necessary to paint us all with one brush, or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does this ring true? -- It's often the loudmouths who have the least understanding.
I submit that it is the same in Christianity as it is anywhere else. If you want to know what Christianity is really about, seek out the quiet, unassuming, gentle Christians, not the loud obnoxious ones. How their beliefs are held is the difference. They might still believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but they understand that this particular belief isn't central or even important. Their beliefs are more like individual springs on a trampoline than a house of cards. A spring or two might break, and that's ok for them. You'll know house of cards theology when you see it because if you disprove one small thing, it crumbles the entire belief system. As a result, 'house of cards' Christians can be impossibly opinionated.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Detailed evolutionary linkage of humans to worlds creatures. Great cinematography and CGI
And some people can't have a reasonable discussion - it just turns into name-calling. I would avoid that, because they aren't really willing to discuss anything. So what I'm saying is that a reasonable person will recognize that just because they are passionate about something (i.e. creation science) doesn't give them the right to be mean or closed off to another perspective.
Thinking though that this thought process will become the norm keeping Bible relevant for longer period of time.
Interestingly, foxes do kill rabbits precisely because they can. People also hunt animals because we have the ability to do so. If we physically couldn't, we would still be eating tree nuts or whatever. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but I think it brings up the controversy of where to draw the lines ... or more importantly, why to draw the lines. I think there are several layers of assumptions we need to peel back before we can really answer a 'why' question like that.
We assume that hunting people for sport is wrong. Why?
Because we assume that it's wrong to kill someone who is innocent. why?
Because our justice system frowns on .... why?
Because ....
My opinion is that while I am comfortable and supportive of old earth science, I don't think evolution provides a good enough basis for something like morality. I think Evolution does have a bearing on how morality gets worked out in our day-to-day lives, but I don't think it's the root cause of morality or even a good reason to have a moral position.
but evolution should not ever had halted if it existed, and creation is a thinker, evolution is not..
but creation on the other hand is a thought process and spirituality just does not coincidently evolve as well as emotions that go with it, and if you experienced harmony and love, you would then start to question evolution
The mind is a powerful thing.
Just as an anorexic girl looks in the mirror and sees obesity while the rest of the world sees a skeleton... the devout follower believes what they been groomed to believe regardless of science based fact (or even common sense for that matter).
* To the above post... evolution has not halted. What would make you say that?
Speaking of nonsense... remember to say your prayers tonight. God will be listening to them- and all the other millions of people praying too.
In one sense, the idea of evolution was an answer to the question of: Why are things the way they are presently? Properly understood, Evolution as a working scientific body of knowledge provides some reasonable, verifiable answers. Improperly understood ... and you get Ken Ham debating Bill Nye.
2.Some things happen for a reason so what you praying for may not be what God has planned for you because his thoughts are higher than ours and you dont know whats best for you in his eyes not your own?
3.Are you praying to the right God?
4. We live in the devils world, even Gods son died on a cross, what did you do?
5.Do you love God enough to be noticed?
6.Is what your asking for a sin ?
im leaving this thread that should be enough
you can, go study monkeys,apes and their desire of spirituality,
Why are you accessing a doctor and science? You shouldn't treat science like it's a buffet table: "I'll believe a little of this and a little of that... no... none of that science though... don't like that science."
Sheesh.