Might be better placed in the non-pisstake religion thread!
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Six thousand years ago & Marjorie Taylor Greene respectively.
Last edited:
Ask your question here if you still inclined @Buster15. Good luck.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/religion-discussion-read-the-op-before-posting.424322/
I know a few Christians and not one of them thinks Genesis/Adam and Eve is literally true or indeed anything in the Old Testament. To do so you need to abdicate all reason, which seemingly only applies to a very particular form of evangelical extremists.
Last edited:
I once saw a response to someone asking how come humans survived with dinosaurs around. The answer was social distancing. 65 million years of social distancing.
I just mean if Adam and Eve or simply mankind were the first creation, then how do you explain either of those? Are either mentioned in the bible or other religious texts at all?
I'm pretty sure they had no knowledge about them when the books were written. The guys who wrote them anyways.
Have the church (etc) ever tried to throw an explanation at it to make it fit with what they believe? Seems a pretty big issue for the creation side of it, from the admittedly little I know of those beliefs.
I just mean if Adam and Eve or simply mankind were the first creation, then how do you explain either of those? Are either mentioned in the bible or other religious texts at all?
I'm Muslim not Christian and have a little understanding on the Islamic texts.
Put simply "Adam and Eve", to use the Biblical names, are the first humans on Earth but Earth preceded them. As in came way before. And there were other "creatures" etc before.
That's the short hand version.
There are extremists in all religions who stick to a certain viewpoint and simply can't let go. It always makes me smile because the religions in and of themselves encourage questioning.
For me a lot of it is to do with the translations into different languages of religious texts. And the changes made of said translations to push a certain view.
Simple things like "thou shalt not kill" are misinterpretations from original texts in the original language. Which, for example, lead us to the extremes of no abortion if raped views of fundamentalists.
That's the Muslim explanation? Fair enough. Out of interest, what is the Muslim beliefs on creation? Do they align with Christian beliefs?
I've just been looking online at the explanations given by different religions. The Christian stance seems to be that dinosaurs were created 'on the sixth day' and lived peacefully with humans until human sin. This brought in sickness and predatory behaviour, which culminated in the downfall of dinosaurs, which were eventually wiped out in Noah's flood. Sedimentary fossils are apparently proof of this. Others dispute this as god requested Noah to take 2 of each animal on his ark, which would be an issue for this theory.
Interesting. I'm an atheist but always wondered how this was explained.
Yes. That was a very basic explanation. I'm at work so couldn't do a longer one.
With regards to Muslim Christian views aligning. Most religious people (from Abrahamic faiths anyway) would say yes. I'm not always sure why (unless it's to be nice or defensive etc).
I don't think they do and some of the scholars would say no too. There are too many disputes on key points.
With regards to the issue of the 6 days. It's not and never has been 6 days in the original texts. It seems to be an issue with interpretation or presentation.
From what I have gathered this was more like 6 zones, eras, points in time not days. No two being the same length.
One era (if I can use that to highlight the point) is not the same as the next. So one can be 10k years another a 30. I suppose maybe even stages could be used?
Also the word rested on the 7th doesn't mean kicked back or went on holiday
.Its more likely to mean nothing happened during that "era" of significance.
Answers in Genesis proposes that the giant creature called a Behemoth in the Bible is a dinosaur. So there you go, scripture beating science once more!
Thank you for this. I wasn't aware of this thread.
Thank you for this and I do appreciate your comments.
But the thing about this is, those Christians and those who I have spoken to obviously believe in God, but don't then believe in the most fundamental part of that. That God is the creator
It doesn't work for me, but as an atheist it wouldn't. But if you believe in a God I can see how you can make a new testament God work.
Last edited:
I know this wasn't addressed to me or a response to me, hope you don't mind me replying.
What you have said here is the downfall of religion and why I (as a religious person) find certain discussions so hard.
Whether Christian or Muslim ( I am Muslim) it's the deluded that cause problems. They find an issue that they can't get their head around or quite accept so ignore it or try and explain it away without wanting to be questioned on their belief.
Usually the average person is either afraid because they got grilled when asking "someone in authority" as in "your faith is weak" rather than an explanation or it becomes an ego thing. As in can't say I don't know or I will look like a mug. So continuing and looking like a mug anyway.
I came to religion later in life. And it was this nonsense that kept me away. Difference was I was lucky enough to fall in with people who addressed these issues rather than just take them at face value. I've met with theologians who don't accept the biblical verses as written. But know through research that what we read in English wasn't what was said in Aramaic, for example. Unfortunately though you don't see many of these around.
Most regular Christians look at the Bible and Jesus as a source of inspiration and strength. They don't really sit and argue on the validity of everything written in the Bible. Except some conservative Americans, and those media and politicians who mix religion and politics to make themselves rich and powerful. They have a need to come up with weird arguments to support every word in the Bible.
Besides religion is a matter of faith. Logic doesn't play much of a role in the whole thing.
Bible obviously doesn't talk about dinosaurs or neandearthals. They would have been created on the 6th day though
As for explanation, that is quite simple. Any animal or human forms that we don't see today, couldn't get a ticket to the Noah's Ark.
And it's in any way reasonable to assume that one half of a text is made up, but the other is the biggest truths of all?
This isn't true of all religions (personally don't think it's any).
In Islam the notion of Islam (the "religion") and Emaan (faith) are big topics that have been discussed over the ages.
In Islam you can submit but not have faith therefore you have not believed. Logic has to be a key role. However then we need to go into what is logic and determined by who.
Deep discussions. Unfortunately lack of time
I am not talking about the nitty gritty. Of course there are various deep discussions in every religion. I am just saying that if we take out individual events in the books or in the lives of the Jesus, Mohammed etc., we cannot expect every event to be logically explained. Some are merely a matter of faith.
I'm more versed in events in Muhammad (saw) life. But could you give me an example?
To me? No. But the best bits of the New testament are far easier to believe.
Not sure how to do so but I captured a lengthy FB discussion from many years ago that was a debate between a hardcore bible 100% accurate believing evangelical and an atheist/skeptic, with a couple other persons occasionally chiming in. It's six separate images but unsure how to upload from my cloud to a thread.
The evangelical posted such research like a Kent Hovind video explanation, Ezekial and Job passages apparently proving the existence of fire-breathing dragons and that dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible, and so on.
The evangelical posted such research like a Kent Hovind video explanation, Ezekial and Job passages apparently proving the existence of fire-breathing dragons and that dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible, and so on.
I am no expert in life of Muhammad and do not intend to get into a "which holy book has more logical explanations" discussion, but aren't there miracles like splitting of moon, miraculous quenching of thirst of soldiers in war, filling well with water magically etc.
T. rex in the Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve would be running all the time, scared shitless, but the Bible says it was paradise.
Fair enough I wasn't trying to catch you out
I just wanted to be clear I understood.
The splitting of the moon is one thing I struggled with too. So I looked into it and quite frankly I found more "evidence" for it than some of the things we accept.
There is a letter in a library in London (I have the address and reference number but not on me at work). Which gives testimony to this happening. There is others in a library in India. The genuine article is in London. The India ones are copies of the London ones.
It speaks of witnesses in India seeing something happen with the moon. Hearing it was work of a guy in Mecca, sending envoys including the king from India himself. Gaining testimonies from others. Coming back to India and establishing a mosque.
Having seen some of the narrations, they have chains from multiple sources, with names and ages and family/background of individuals, and backgrounds of their families too.
Make of that what you wish
Mosque is in Kerala incidentally. And Kerala is derived from Khair Allah.
I had no idea Jurassic Park was based on the bible.
T.Rex was a mild natured chill dude. Until it got corrupted, became violent and missed his ticket to the Ark.
As I understood it. Adam was in the garden of Eden (paradise) but was sent to earth after the whole fruit from tree incident
Wait what?? Is this your deduction?
As per the manuscript available at British Library, 96 Euston Rd, London. I believe NW1 2DB.
Ref: ioislamic20807. Portfolio 81-84
Asia-Africa services
And the NDLI (National Digital Library of India).
You can email the library and get confirmation
Yes. That was a very basic explanation. I'm at work so couldn't do a longer one.
With regards to Muslim Christian views aligning. Most religious people (from Abrahamic faiths anyway) would say yes. I'm not always sure why (unless it's to be nice or defensive etc).
I don't think they do and some of the scholars would say no too. There are too many disputes on key points.
With regards to the issue of the 6 days. It's not and never has been 6 days in the original texts. It seems to be an issue with interpretation or presentation.
From what I have gathered this was more like 6 zones, eras, points in time not days. No two being the same length.
One era (if I can use that to highlight the point) is not the same as the next. So one can be 10k years another a 30. I suppose maybe even stages could be used?
Also the word rested on the 7th doesn't mean kicked back or went on holiday
Its more likely to mean nothing happened during that "era" of significance.
That makes more sense I suppose. I'd need somebody with a better knowledge of history and archaeology though to see how this ties in with what has been proven. Because, to my knowledge, we have no evidence of humans living that far back? I googled it and and found a government website in the US (United States Geological Survey) that says there was 65 millions years between last known dinosaur existence and first human life. So how would that fit in with the bible? Would it not have been mentioned that during the creation period there was also a period of extinction?
I did find this quote though, which contradicts what you are saying, on a Genesis website...
'God made everything in six days, and rested on the seventh. (By the way, this is the basis for our seven day week—Exodus 20:8–11). Leading Hebrew scholars indicate that, based on the grammatical structure of Genesis 1, these “days” were of normal length, and did not represent long periods of time'
I looked on the a website for Christians, including off-shoots like Jehovahs Witnesses, and they reckon these dinosaurs were eating grass. Until the original sin, which turned them into carnivorous predators.
According to some Christian religions such as JWs, Behemoth was a hippo. And Leviathan a crocodile.
Bible obviously doesn't talk about dinosaurs or neandearthals. They would have been created on the 6th day though
As for explanation, that is quite simple. Any animal or human forms that we don't see today, couldn't get a ticket to the Noah's Ark.
So we're to assume that Noah defied gods orders? There are Christians that claim that dinosaurs would have made the Ark. That obviously poses different questions though, but I think this ties in to their belief that Earth is only a few thousand years old and therefore dating of dinosaur fossils is astronomically incorrect.
As mentioned above, the explanation I found was that they ate grass, then Adam & Eve committed the first sin and brought sickness, evil, and most importantly, carnivorous predatory instincts into existence. That must have been a fun day
Not technically. God said bring one pair of every kind. He did not say bring T.rex and raptors. Noah could have brought a harmless child flying dino and put dinosaurs as checked in his list. It is a different thing that we call them birds now
Not technically. God said bring one pair of every kind. He did not say bring T.rex and raptors. Noah could have brought a harmless child flying dino and put dinosaurs as checked in his list. It is a different thing that we call them birds now
Surely T-Rex and Raptors fall into a certain 'kind' though, that would have been brought. I suppose you will argue that he simply brought Crocodiles and Alligators?
Well, biologically, there was an Adam and Eve, though Eve was thousands of years before before Adam (I think there may have been multiple Adams actually)
But, basically, one female australopithecine was born with a mutation, and that was the first human.
As for the Bible, the old testament is the Jewish Bible, and I believe that it was agreed thousands of years ago that the stories were allegorical
But, basically, one female australopithecine was born with a mutation, and that was the first human.
As for the Bible, the old testament is the Jewish Bible, and I believe that it was agreed thousands of years ago that the stories were allegorical
Interesting as the name Kerala clearly seems to predate Muhammad.
The 3rd century BC pali scripts of Ashoka call the people of the region as Kedalaputo or translated to Sanskrit as Kerala Putra (meaning sons of Kerala)
The rulers of the land were called Cheras. The Sangam texts from 2nd-3rd century BC clearly talk about this.
As per the legends (not necessarily facts), the Chera kings developed the ports and regularly did trade across the Arabian Sea thus being in constant contact with Arab traders. The king (called always as Cheraman Perumal) apparently witnessed the splitting of moon and was bewildered. Shortly after the traders from Arab lands talked about Muhammad performing the supernatural feat. The King was fascinated and made his son the temporary king and travelled to Mecca. Then he fell at the feet of Muhammad and converted to Islam. He came back and ordered the Cheraman Juma Masjid to be built in Kerala, thus becoming the oldest mosque in the subcontinent. The mosque stood until the Portuguese attacked Kerala in the early 16th century and destroyed it.
However, point to note is the Cheraman Perumal being talked about is one of the last Chera kings of the region. He had no influence or power to rename the region based on Khair Allah or any Islamic name. It is also argued that the story is all smoke and the only Chera king who converted to Islam was the last Chera king and that was much later in the 12th century.
Last edited:
I am not arguing anything. I am just saying technically he could bring one of a kind and be done with it. Just to clarify I don't believe all these.