Christian Discussion/Debate

106

Thanks

A general question. For example the 7 days of creation. Do we have to take 7 days literally? Couldn’t it be that (with the hundreds of translations) it changed from seven “steps” to seven days? Like in the first step he created…?
Or who says that it is 7 earth days? Maybe it is how God feels 7 days? Something like a universal day?

@Alpaco why are you resisting evolution? I think it could very well be that God could have created evolution. Lets take the question how he created animals. The bible doesn’t talk about the how. It is written he wanted animals so he made them. Wouldn’t it be a genius idea or the master plan to make a mechanism which takes the plant as a basis (because plants were a good creation) and make slight adaptations so that they are the predecessor for animals? Couldn’t the continuous and very slight DNA changes be how he created human kind?

(to understand evolution, you can just look at Covid. Basically every week we find a “new strain” of Covid. This is because the DNA constantly changes (also the human one). Some changes make them weaker (we don’t talk about these because they might not be able to infect us) or some make them stronger (like the England strain or Africa strain). But they remain Corona viruses. They have similar shape, similar ways of infection and so on. The difference could be that one of the thousands of proteins it encodes might have a tiny alteration which makes it more infectious)

2 Likes
107

Because then Adam and Eve wouldn’t exist, I just don’t believe it and I don’t think there is enough evidence either.

I didn’t know religious topics weren’t allowed, sorry, and I wasn’t trying to make a war (Not like all wars are bad, it depends of the reason for it, but now it wasn’t needed)

I don’t regret believing in what I do but without realizing I might have said something who offended someone.

Sorry.

1 Like
108

How would the gap between days 3 and 4 play out if it was a long gap? In reference to your step theory.

109

Quite possibly. It fact, that sounds like an accurate theory. The order of creation in the Bible alligns with how the world was created after the big bang except for the creation of sun,moon and stars.

What if the big bang was day one, when he created light, heaven and earth. After the big bang, space expanded and matter collected into planets.

But here there is a mixup. Logically, sun, moon and stars should follow. But it’s day 4 in the Bible. Here days cannot be interpreted as our days, as our days are measured using the sun. But according to the Bible sun was created on day 4. Till then no sun, so how can it be a day… That’s why, I say the story of creation has to be taken with a pinch of salt, actually handful of salt​:joy::joy:.

But rest of them alligns. After sun and moon, water, oceans and land, vegetation, animals and birds, humans. It’s exactly how the evolution happened as well.

Adam and Eve might have been the first known humans in human record of history. It can actually be anything here. They might be the first pair of fully evolved homo sapiens. There are so many theories.

In the assassin’s creed games, Adam and Eve are the first humans with a triple helix DNA :joy::joy:, and they were the result of alien experimentation on already existing humans.

So yeah, Bible as a whole was subject to human interpretation of things and what is written is the how they comprehended it. So yeah, the more we learn about science, the more we understand God. It’s like how Einstein said, you don’t study science to disprove god ,but to actually get closer to him

2 Likes
110

I think there is a back and forth that needs to happen, study science to get closer to God, but when the science leaves it open to multiple theories we can study God to start eliminating theories. Example: we know God would not do (insert theory here) because of who He is, what He does, and how He interacts with His creation.

Not going against science, but making theology a science again and using it to better understand the world around us. Like studying an author to get a better understanding of their writings.

Idk if that made any sense, was a long day at work, lol.

Also, my third wedding anniversary today, and for some reason very tempted to revert to old sexual habits. Doing ok so far, about to play some Assassin’s Creed (interesting that you mentioned it) and try to unwind. Not that anybody asked for an update, lol.

4 Likes
111

Oh I’m a huuuuuggggeeee Assassin’s creed fan. I have played all the games till origins atleast twice if not more​:joy::joy::joy::joy:. Which one are you playing btw,

1 Like
112

Not an explanation, just a theory.
As I recall from reading “The brief history of time”
In 1939 (I might be wrong regarding this year) Edwin Hubble was mapping stars. Now there’s this thing called “Doppler effect” which happens in sound waves (as well as light waves), the wave signal coming from an object can help us determine whether the object is coming closer to you or going away from you. Now stars emit light. And you must be aware of the light spectrum (colors of the rainbow). A/c to doppler effect when an object is emitting light we call it “red-shifted” when it is going away from us and “blue-shifted” when it is coming closer to us. He observed the stars and came to the conclusion that almost all the stars are red shifted, meaning they are going away from us. This implies that universe is expanding, and then it was further theorized that a long time ago stars must have been very close, and universe must have been a “dot” (scientific term- singularity, which is also found in black holes) which exploded and thus it all started.

This is my personal opinion-
Now the problem here is that these “scientists” thought way too much based on limited observations. And thus created this theory of big bang. As more observations have come up throughout the years there are some things which oppose big bang and some which support.
From your comment it seems to me that you’re probably an “atheist” and that’s fine. But try to think it like this. We “science-oriented” people actually put so much trust on these “professors” at Harvard and “experts”. It occurs to me that the shows we watch (eg - cosmos on Nat Geo) are nothing but a load of bullshit in many cases (emphasis on many, not all)
We simply just don’t know how the universe started (this is the point you’ve put as well)
We should not blindly trust these scientists, the encyclopedias just because they are appealing.
“Science” today has become quite like a religious cult itself

2 Likes
113

Yeah personally I take the bible literally, and keep it to myself with regard for the fact that most people who trust science would think I’m crazy for it. I mean, going against any status quo is going to make people think you’re off the rocker. Which you are, if the rocker is them. It oftentimes is.

3 Likes
114

:smile: I think i went through all stages. From clear atheist to believing in god, focused on Buddhism, Taoism to some sort of Pantheism. In the end, I currently have my own set of believes, mixing everything together :grinning:

This is a very important part of science. There is the state of the knowledge which we think is the most appropriate description of the universe. But there are always things that we don’t know. (The goal of my PhD time is to learn everything we know about the tiny part of my field and than figure out something new which we didn’t know before. So there is always stuff we don’t know).
For example, we were sure that there are 4 forces (Gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong force). But right now, there seems to be evidence for a 5th force. But that doesn’t mean that we learned something wrong about the other 4 forces.

But yea as you say. If we learn that there are four forces, than this is just our current understanding and could completely change over time with more knowledge

115

It is always difficult to think that the own world view is wrong. I think that is why so many people struggle with alternative ideas (both sides, atheists who react aggressive if someone talks about religious ideas and religious people if one criticizes their believes). But I think it is a very important trait to have. To be able to look at other points of view.

No one has to change his world view but it is always enriching to think about alternatives. Even if it is something like looking at the other persons point of view, consider it and revert back to the own believe with the affirmation that you still believe that it is the right system to believe in

1 Like
116

What you have to understand about the Big Bang Theory is that they admit that there’s no way for it to begin mathematically, or at least they themselves haven’t figured it out. We know from experiments that as gravity approaches a critical mass time slows down while everything away from the critical mass continues at its regular speed (making it appear to be going much faster from the perspective of the critical mass) So, with everything bunched up into one tiny spot, there wouldn’t be any time for anything to expand… Or something like that I guess? I’m not a scientist so anyone please feel free to correct me on anything I go wrong

2 Likes
117

You are absolutely correct sir!

118

I was a hardcore atheist before, until something happened with me. And no one is going to believe that. I finally came to conclusion that there are things which “science” as we know today can’t describe. Btw, Buddhism is also quite an “atheist” philosophy. Buddhists don’t believe in “creator God” as far as I know.

119

The doppler effect of light takes relativistic physics into account already. I don’t know how exactly that is. I will need to read more. I gave up this “pure science”, I’m happy with my engineering/applied science. Honestly I’m not even fond of these people (like Stephen Hawking) anymore. It was one big journey where I invested myself in these things and now I just dislike these people way too much.

1 Like
120

Same here. At the beginning as an atheist, I said that I had a near-death-experience. Later as a theist I said I met god. Currently, I say that I was in a deepest state of meditation.
That also fascinated me. It is one experience and depending on your point of view you can just call it different things.
I thus often think that we are talking about the same thing (for example evolution / creation) simply with different words.

Actually, there is a large variety in Buddhism from polytheism to atheism. I think, since one of the main goal of Buddhism is to live in the present moment, they don’t really care how the world popped into existence. It doesn’t really matter for them. Independent of the origin, they are now on this world. That’s why they can but don’t have to believe in a god.

121

Finished Syndicate last week, just started my first playthrough of Origins. So far Origins is one of my favorites.

1 Like
122

Don’t want to go off topic but am I the onyl one who prefers the old ones?

1 Like
123

I like the set up of the original, which they actually bring a lot back into it with Origins. Didn’t get to finish 3 and 4, but everything between 4 and Origins is meh. The original and Ezio trilogy are legit though.

2 Likes
124

@MB16 @Alpaco

images
images739×415 27.7 KB

My favourite is brotherhood. I don’t know I just looooooove that game. Ezio trilogy was the best in my opinion, but they ruined the present day story with AC 3. Black flag was a brilliant game. Rogue was mediocre at best, but unity was shit and so was syndicate. Origins was amazing though. Odyssey was the worst AC game ever.

2 Likes
125

I didn’t know there where different types of bows in Origins. Should have seen my face when I went to charge my light bow and accidentally put three arrows in this dude’s skull. That was last night, was playing Origins to clear my head.

1 Like