• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Confused about evolution

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
where was christ during his "lost years"...there is written scripture that he was in tibet at the time....he was known as the buddha of love...this person left tibet at the same time jesus arrived....

if you have ever studied buddhism and christianity...you will know that there is very little difference..
 
Upvote 0
Your argument that Christianity has no place in the science class rooms prooves to me that you have never studied some of todays scientist that can argue about God's creation of an univerisal geneitic code and other facts that lead to the theory of creation.
Many theories that are impossible to test are taught and discussed in science classes today. Why should creation be treated differently?
I can give you names of fifty different scientist that will argue creationism on a scientific basis.
You are a liberal and yet your view of creationism is very, very narrow minded.
Not very liberal of you, don't you think?
Click to expand...
The scientists that you refer to are a very, very, very small minority and I am aware of their views. For each one of them there are many others that would argue against them. Those scientists can have their opinions (and the number is very small mind you), but it doesn't change the fact that creationism is based on the belief that a supreme being is involved which means it is based on faith. Faith does not belong in a science classroom; it belongs in a religion classroom or a philosophy classroom or an ethics classroom. I have heard one of these scientists speak and his argument was predicated on the existence of a supreme being. That is not science.

My view has nothing to do with politics or being narrow minded. It is what it is. Look in the dictionary for the definition of science. There is a place in the curriculum for creationism, just not in a science class. BTW, creationism is a belief not a theory.

Consider these quotes from Albert Einstein and the 50 scientists you refer to should as well. Einstien was a very spiritual individual.:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
 
Upvote 0
First, let me say that I continue to be amazed by the ability of folks on this board to discuss emotional topics like religion and abortion at an inteligent level while (for the most part at least) maintaining respect for one another. It is a tribute to the people who post here.

Second, I am amazed to see that we are now trying to fit a discussion of both evolution and religion in general into a single thread, but since we are here ....

I too have studied both Christianity and Buddhism and find the fundamental similarities striking. I subscribe to the theory that Christianity has been hijacked by men - Popes in particular - for the sake of power and control. Underlying Christianity is the same underlying message of tolerance and love that you will find not only in Buddhism, but most other religiions. That is the message that I believe Christ taught.

But Christianity has added something that I find based in pure selfishness. The idea that the individual can obtain something for themselves - everlasting life - by professing belief in a particular definition of Christ. I believe that message was added later.

I was raised a Mehodist and took my Christian upbringing very seriously until my mid twenties. At that time I became unable to reconcile what I read and observed and thought with what the Church was telling me. It made no sense that Buddhists would be 'put out with the trash' or that anyone whose heart was pure and who understood and followed the fundamentl teaching of Jesus (and others) would burn for eternity because they could not profess a belief that was not in their heart. Such wanton cruelty is not characteristic of any God I would care to worship.

Contrary to what an earlier poster said about folks looking for reasons to deny the Christian message, I found leaving the Church to be an incredibly painful process that had no immediate upside for me. But it was where my heart took me. I would not describe it as a choice. It was a new truth that I believed as strongly as any Christian - only without the incentive of those endless years in heaven. The concept that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God who would care at all whether I profess a particular person to be my personal savior defies all logic in my mind. The idea that I should burn in hell for following my sincere beliefs is one for which I am still seeking an explanation. That a man wrote in a book many years after Christ's death that this is the way it will be adds nothing to my understanding of that particular question - particularly when the motivation of the church to write such a statement is so clear.

That there is such a strong correlation between the religion of a person's upbringing and that of his adult belief is ample evidence for why folks believe as they do. It is about what they are taught - not what is or is not true.

I hold no animosity towards Christians (my son became a deacon in his Church at the age of 21 and I am proud of him for that). I have no desire to convert anyone and hope that no Christian poster on this board interprets anyting I say as disrepectful towards their choice to believe differently. But I can assure any and all that I take my life philosophy as seriously as any Catholic, Methodist or born again fundamentalist.

To tie this back to the original topic of evolution, I find comfort that the fundamental message of almost all religions - with or without a central diety - is so similar. I believe that message is somehow 'hard wired' into us. I happen to believe that hard wiring probably evolved, but if it were proven to be the result of intelligent design from some undetermined source it would not change my world view.
 
Upvote 0
buddhism bases its self in the individual striving every day to better themself...from one lifetime to the next and the next....

the one thing that i found really interesting in my studies of all religions is this.....it comes from buddhism...and it is "out there' for most.....

gotama buddha and jesus both had their bodies disappear after their death....there is a belief that if the individual finally reaches perfection and is ready for an eternity as a spiritual being....without human form...that the human form disappears from the earth after death....the body simply shrinks away....

buddhism has several cases where the physical body of an elite "enlightened" one, like christ, simply goes away....and buddhism was around long before christ came to be....

buddhist scripture also...as alluded to in another post...speaks of the buddha of love....who appeared exactly during christs lost years....this person didnt look like them...but he was enlightened.....this buddha of love also dissapeared from them at the same time he arrived in the middle east....
 
Upvote 0
oh8ch.....that was beautiful......so few ever bother to learn what you have.....that post may have been the greatest i have ever read....i was typing mine as you spoke...and mine pales next to yours....well said....
 
Upvote 0
oh8ch - A truly amazing post!! Much of what you said fits what I experienced perfectly. For me, it is about spirituality not religion. People can be spiritual without being religious. There are many who believe that organized religion takes us away from spirituality.

In my studies, I found it remarkable the similarities between Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. All have the same basic message (which would make the core of a great ethics class in schools). I still remember when I learned that in Islam, Jesus was a prophet and that Mary is the only woman mentioned in their holy book.
 
Upvote 0
dont worry...buddhism has no place in the current american society...buddhism is based on the idea that the individual is responsible for his/her own destiny or further enrichment spiritually....

buddhism does not need a pope or pastor or elder to instruct them how to act.....hail mary's do not absolve sins....the onus is on the individual....

individual responsibility will never take off in our society.....at least for the masses....
 
Upvote 0
I had to get off line last night so forgive me for bringing up a subject that seemed to end yesterday.
Many of you profess to have a general understanding of Christianity and your views have mostly been based on your own personal experiences and human logic.
I think very little of what most of you are talking about is really scriptually based. It's mostly about how you "feel", and and what seems logical to you.
You are mostly basing your opinions on the church as an organization and are hiding behind the faults of men.I really enjoy Christian theology and have found the study of scripture absolutely fascinating.
If any of you ever have some basic questions you'd like answered there is a fantastic website that covers a lot of territory.
www.answersingenesis.org
 
Upvote 0
ashlandbuck said:
That is Ok. But to deny Christ was telling the truth means he was a liar or madman or both.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. To extend it a little bit:
I saw Oh8ch say that Christians added the stuff about Jesus being the way to salvation later. Ok, fine. But from where are you getting the teachings of Jesus that you like? If it is from the Gospels, then if they are not reliable when they quote Jesus on salvation, how are they reliable when they quote Jesus on other topics?

If you accept the Gospel accounts as truth, then Jesus would either be either the son of God, a liar, or a madman as Ashland stated. If you reject certain portions of the Gospel, then that is your perogative, but I'd love to know how you can to determine that they are truthful when Jesus says "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's"(as an example), but not when Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life--no one comes to the Father except through me".
 
Upvote 0
the big sticking point and source of antagonism between muslims and chrisitians boils down to this....

-the tablets of mohammed were not discovered until after the bible was written
-muslims believe christ and mohammed were prophets...not the son of god
-muslims recognize jesus in their religion
-christians...at risk of undermining the authority of the bible...chose to disregard the tablets of mohammed....even though those tablets were every bit as genuine as christian scripture...

all of the major religions are eerily similar to each other in the basis....it is what has been done by man in terms of interpretation through the years that has created the animosity...

lets face it...the bible is the single greatest source of political control ever invented.....
 
Upvote 0
Getting back to this whole creaton vs. evolution thing, I have a question...

What was the starting point? Regardless of whether we were put here by God or some other higher power, or whether we evolved from apes, WHAT STARTED IT ALL? To me, it takes a HELL of a lot more faith to believe we, or anything, simply popped out of nothing and began evolving. But I ask a legitimate question. For Tibs, or Buckeyesoldier, or DiHard, or anyone else who was debating with Killer, please explain this to me. What was the origin? Where did it all begin? Even if you subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory, where did those gases come from? What was the very first beginning?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top