Young Earth Creationism (the Six day theory), meets the big bang and Evolution...

[PatMcGroyne]

Bzzzzt! I'm outa here. All of us are in the same boat, but YOUR end is sinking, right? Good discussion. All sympathetic nonsense, if one does not believe. CUL8r. Pat.

 

[kingnereli]

dburkhead,

Notice the fundamental difference in all the requirements that you list. Christianity stands alone in the we aren't required to "do" anything to get to heaven. In fact, salvation is realizing that there is nothing we can do, no way to earn or be good enough. Therefore, we have to trust in what Christ did for us for deliverance. Lumping all religions together is a basic mistake that the skeptic makes that blinds them to the real issues. Judge each on it's own merit.

What is more is that where Christianity is concerned the objective evidence is there (not the placid, stagnate evidence will teach you much about Christianity.) I agree that experiential evidence only goes so far. I am saying that science, history, anthropology, archeology and more support the claims of the Bible. I would say that you, maybe most of all, would benefit from perusing the book I suggested in my last post.

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead,

Notice the fundamental difference in all the requirements that you list. Christianity stands alone in the we aren't required to "do" anything to get to heaven.

Actually, yes. You are. At the very least you have the command implicit in John 3:16.

BTW, in Greek myth there was also no "what you do" that gets one into the Elysian Fields or condemned to Tartarus. It was more "who you know." Not too dissimilar to most Christian beliefs where it's playing up to the Big Boss and telling Him how great He is that gets one into "heaven."

In fact, salvation is realizing that there is nothing we can do, no way to earn or be good enough. Therefore, we have to trust in what Christ did for us for deliverance. Lumping all religions together is a basic mistake that the skeptic makes that blinds them to the real issues. Judge each on it's own merit.

Considering your religion "special" compared to others is the basic mistake the believer makes that blinds them to real issues. Judge each on its own merit?

The Crusades.
The Inquisition.
"Manifest destiny" interpreted as "slaughter everything that stands in the way of spanning the continent."

While some religions are clearly more "bloody" than Christianity (Fundamentalist Islam is a good example) I wouldn't sit too tall on that Percheron about Christianity's "merit." "By their fruits shall ye know them" and Christianity's fruits are as mixed a bag as many another religion.

In any case, it's the fallacy of "argument from consequences" which is a special case of the "appeal to emotion" fallacy. In it's basic form it's "if X is true/false then 'Bad thing Y' would be the result, therefore X must be false/true." Sorry, but whether the results are bad or good has no bearing on the truth of a position. Bad things can be true just as much as good things--more, perhaps, since there are simply more ways things can be "bad" from a human perspective than they can be good.

What is more is that where Christianity is concerned the objective evidence is there

So cite some of it.

(not the placid, stagnate evidence will teach you much about Christianity.) I agree that experiential evidence only goes so far. I am saying that science, history, anthropology, archeology and more support the claims of the Bible.

And refute more than they support. The "support" is no better than for any other collection of writings of similar antiquity.

I would say that you, maybe most of all, would benefit from perusing the book I suggested in my last post.

Your previous post in this thread (skipping "double post") in its entirety:

This topic is a perfect example of how science oversteps it's bounds. The modernistic philosophy that science can answer every question is flawed at best and immoral at worst.

Meach,

Upon close study you'll find that creationism and the theory of (macro)evolution are at fundamental odds that can not be reconciled.

So, what books was recommended there? And presuming we get the book recommendation straightened out, I get books recommended to me all the time. It's not possible to read every one, not if I devote every waking hour to it for the rest of my life. I know that you think it's important, but everyone who recommends a book says the same thing. So why should I give your book precedence over theirs.

For that matter, I've read a number of books already, starting with the Bible, Old and New Testaments, a number of books from the Apocrypha etc., the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price of LDS belief, the Poetic and Prose Eddas and Nibelungiad of Norse/Asatru belief, books on modern Paganism, The Iliad, the Odyssey, and various Greek plays (which were as much religious observances as entertainment), and while the Yanomamo have no written tradition of their own, I've read the writings of those who have studied their belief systems. Throw in excerpts from the Popul Vuh, various Native American (talking from within what is now the US here), various African tribal beliefs, Shinto, Buddhism, Sumerian Akkadian and Babylonian religion, and other beliefs.

There's a wide world out there filled with a wide variety of beliefs. All have their value. In none have I seen anything definitive that says "this is the absolute truth, forever and ever, amen." Mind you most of them claim that, but the claims of one in that respect are really no better supported than the claims of any other.