Might be timely to suggest getting back on topic.......don't forget the thread title, folks....

I hope that you will find eventually that you were wronged by people, not by God or spirituality as a whole.

I agree with that.

One should approach this issue by looking at four fundamental questions that every religion seeks to answer:
origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

Comparing them all in equal fashion, I believe that the answers of Jesus Christ correspond to reality. There is a coherence among His answers unlike those of any other religion.

Jafo yeppers

Well if God made it he was either hung over or has one sick sense of humor

I think the main question of creation vs. evolution comes down to bumper stickers. The creation-Jesus fish vs the darwin fish. Fish with legs rock so I'll stick to evolution. Of course the world could have been created by superintelligent mice....

Seriously, I think that creationism, as it is in the bible, is a crock. There is too much evidence supporting evolution. Evolution also makes sense. God might of created the universe, but at a much earlier time like the big bang.

I also feel that religion's main purpose is morality, upon which your destiny and meaning are dependent. Origin is the topic of discussion here, and while it is a part of almost every religion, I think that it shouldn't be. Religion ought to be about relationships between people for today and tomorrow. The main teachings of Jesus focus on morality so maybe his goal was to create a morally superior world not a religiously superior(Christian in some opinions) one. Also I think that morals should stay out of law but thats off topic.

Rate PG, dunno about about other religions or Christianity really. But, to me it seems that what he said was more common sense for the process of uplighting everyone without excluding anyone. Some how it all got washed out in the process of religion and more meaning has been placed on the act of proving your ability to toe the line laid out by others to prove you *are* foudn to be faithful to the process rather than faith itself in many instance.

It is like the Virgin Mary thing and immaculiant(spelling) conception. Was She a Virgin? and had she been married before, the first marriage ended just in time (before 2 years ended) so she could be re-labeled a virgin again as some historians claim? Also in order for a marriage to be a marriage she had to consumate it, so if she was married previously she wasn't a virgin...

Travis

In traffic seeing a bumper with "God is my Co-Pilot" stuck on it with dents all over the car always gave me pause

Also in order for a marriage to be a marriage she had to consummate it,

Where does it say that?

I didn't know God could drive

IP, I've read books that say that Mary was like 12 or so when she became pregnant, and was probably a virgin. You know, it happens. The hymen can sometimes be very flexible and won't break the first time. Again, according to the same book I read Joseph was probably an old man then. Mary was an orphan and he he took her into his home. But she became pregnant, probably from one of his sons (yes, Joseph had been married before and had 3 grown boys).  To save the face, he had to marry her, and he did.

I could recommend the book, but I don't think it's been translated in English. Gerald Messadie is the author, and the title of the book would translate "The man who became God" in English.

Creation VS evolution? Odd thing is you can count on one hand the number of 'creationists' here in this discussion that have a problem with Evolution, and yet it is a never ending stream of criticism of ALL religion from the secular side. Frankly, when you see the *same* people on page 30 making the same stabbing comments about religion that they were on the first few pages... well, it is telling. They seem to have other drums to bang besides Evolution.

This isn't a debate that would be benefited by attrition; a good, six-month grilling isn't gonna make anyone discard their spiritual beliefs. As it stands most religious criticism has been repetitive, misinformed, blanket statements that fail to target Fundamentalists, or even Creationists. Immaculate conception, and the "devil in the details" arguments are irrelevant. Even as shared doctrine there aren't 2 religious people here that are gonna agree on it all. Judging Christianity by such is like judging Islam based upon 9/11 or Bali. I don't have a problem with most resident atheists, but I am getting pretty sick of seeing details of my own beliefs characterized as symptoms the world's ills.

If you have problems with God, take them to email, or God, or to therapy, but don't insult billions of people who have a spiritual stake in a Creator and no axe to grind with you. Sorry if I seem cold, but I feel no care or caution from a few people regarding my own beliefs, and I feel less and less obligated to tread lightly. Occam's Razor can cut both ways. It would be a shame, though, so lets avoid it. A bit of introspection would be preferable to slicing up one another any further.

Ya know those emblems you see on cars...Fish (creation) & Fish w/legs (evolution)? Well, on the back of my Jeep, I had them both and they were ummmmm "doing it"!

I loved droping my kids off at school in that thing...Yeah, no...I'm not PTA

Na, you don't seem cold BakerStreet, impassioned maybe, but cold, no..

And it shouldn't be taken as personal by anyone and isn't taken personal by me, what you've stated, it just is fact of how you feel.

China

Baker,

Yeah, it's often sad how discussions of this type tend toward the unnecessarily confrontational (religion and politics, that's what we're told to avoid ).

Truth is, creation vs evolution is, at heart, basically a religious discussion, even though the arguments are often a spectrum rather than a pair of polar opposites. Given that, it's not surprising that ancillary religious issues will be aired. Often some of those side issues tend to be supporting of the primary argument, if only that they are used to explain the thought processes of the person making the statement. In the sense that I may have another drum to bang, it is in this context of a supporting argument or a response to someone elses argument.

That said, I do agree that acrimony and blanket attacks are both unnecessary and counter productive. The typical sociological injuction against religion in discussion is seemingly predicated on the idea that the participants somehow cannot remain civil and mature. While that is often true, my opinion is that such a position speaks to the worst of us, and I prefer to look for the best (not that it always shows up ). Such discussions touch very close to the heart of ourselves. When things engage us so intimately, responses are often instinctive rather than thoughtful, moreso where the subject still has great sensitivity.

I have nothing but respect for those who truly believe (either way). I do not engage in these types of discussion with the intent of changing a belief or castigating the believer. I will attempt to correct any fallacies (logical or factual) that I encounter, just as I'm willing to be corrected on any fallacies I may present. The fundaments of personal faith, however, should not be assailed. My own desire for self integrity (and my respect for the self integrity of others) indicates this belief. I may not agree, but I will not demean.

If we can keep our objectivity, such a discussion as this can be very enlightening and thought provoking. I have seen information and sources from both sides of the argument that were new to me, or required me to really think through to respond. For me, such interaction is the heart of personal growth.

[Message Edited]

While I agree that certain comments have been made which are a little inappropriate, some of which were intended as non-serious icebreakers by myself, I don't agree that the bias of this thread has been heavily on the side of those who don't believe in creation bashing other's beliefs. If anything, I've found that there are more religious people willing to condescend and dish out unwanted sympathy than there are non-religious people denying God outright.

Here's how I see the differences between the two groups: In general, those who believe in a God are completely closed off to any other possibility beyond that which they have been taught through organised religion. If someone were to ask them to admit that there's even the smallest possibility that they could be wrong, they would start screaming from the rooftops about blasphemy and the devil. On the other side, you have those who don't believe in God. In general, they will admit that given enough tangible proof they would be open to the possibility of God's existence. They will even admit that long-held scientific 'facts' can be, and often are, either a little incorrect or completely untrue. They are open to the possibility of other truths beyond that which they have been taught.

I understand that religious people feel a need to protect their beliefs in the face of even the slightest opposition, but I will never understand their need to try and push those beliefs onto others who don't share them. You don't often find people walking down the street with leaflets proclaiming the word of Science, simply because scientists like to give you the information and let you make your own mind up. It would be nice if religious people could respect the beliefs of others and just once in a while admit that they could be wrong.