ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Differences Of Modern Religions

What are the essential similarities/differences between Hindu Pantheism/Reincarnation, Pagan ancestor worship, and modern Darwinism.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Worldview Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 5/29/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



atheist,

the theory has to and does teach one creature evolving to another over time. If not the foundation and beginning of the theory is false because one cell, or whatever it is claimed to be, becomes every species we see. The theory itself started from an observation of different species that Darwin used to build it, including natives(the decent of man). This is true of God as well. We base our belief on observation also, noticing the complexities of creation so we see a need for a creator. We as well believe those that established our belief will be proven to be true. Both take faith and cannot be proven by science. Only when the evidence is seen will we know.
---willa5568 on 6/5/11


Atheist you assume my scientist friends and associates are what you call fundamentalist. I am confident you do not even know what the word means.

You say the the evolutionary story does not say one kind has evolved from a different kind. Then please answer a question. From what did the dog kind evolve?

Second question I am sure you aware the imagined evolutionary ancestor of all life on earth did not have the genetic information contained (for example) in any mammal. How then did this new, unique, specific genetic information arise?
---Warwick on 6/5/11


Atheist, are you claiming Archaeopteryx was not long considered a evolutionary transitional form between reptiles and birds?

I know you avoid answering questions but maybe you could take a stab at an answer to this one.

The evolutionist scientist George Miklos has a comment for you "We can go on examining natural variation at all levels...as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, brachiopods and bears but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into roundworms or rhynchocoels."
---Warwick on 6/5/11


Warwick:

Even though we may not have ever personally witnessed one species becoming another, some of the mechanisms involved have been observed. For example, one argument against primate evolution is that apes have 24 chromosomes while humans have only 23. One conjectured mechanism explaining this discrepancy is that two DNS strands could have fused together to make one. Such fusion mutations have occasionally been seen in living cells.

Each DNA sequence is a bit like a computer tape, having prologue and epilogue sequences. Indeed, one human chromosome is prologue-data-epilogue-prologue-data-epilogue, indicating such a fusion did, indeed, once take place.
---StrongAxe on 6/6/11


Atheist, I cannot agree with 'no evidence'. However, I would say that the evidence is limited enough that I do not agree that evolution theory is in any way 'proven'.
---Peter on 6/6/11




A theist: Seventh request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.


The fact that you don't seem to be able to name a single thing is quite telling.
---jerry6593 on 6/6/11


"There is absolutely no proof mutations can create the vast amounts of new, specific, unique genetic information needed to transform one kind of creature into a totally different kind."---Warwick

Again, evolution theory does not involve transforming one kind into another kind. And, the first part of that sentence is nonsense. If it made sense and were true, the scientific community would have dumped evolution long ago. I don't care how many fundamentalist "scientists" you have as friends.

Jerry, you are clearly confusing science fiction movies such as "Godzilla" and "Mothra" with evolution theory. Your sources are faulty.
---atheist on 6/5/11


Samuel,

I do not know how or when it all started, if it started, by natural causes.

You do not know where god came from.

We both don't know, and that is okay to admit.
---atheist on 6/5/11


Atheist Natural selection is not about changes in genes. It actually involves deletion of genes.

There is absolutely no proof mutations can create the vast amounts of new, specific, unique genetic information needed to transform one kind of creature into a totally different kind. You are incorrect in saying evolutionists do not believe reptiles were transformed into birds over milliins of years. Never heard of Archaeopteryx? It was long considered a transitional form between reptiles and birds as it had some features which were considered reptillian. But then fossils of true birds were found in older sedimentary rock-layers so Archy was dropped.

The name of Archys replacement eludes me at the moment. I will look it up.

---Warwick on 6/5/11


Atheist, a very few mutations have given survival advantage. None have added the vast amounts of new, unique, specific information to affect kind to kind change.

Some beetles on a windy island lost their wings through a mutation. They are much less likely tio be blown to their death in the sea. However genetic information, was lost the opposite of that required for onwards upwards evolution.

You forget I am surrounded by scientists, expert in different fields of science. I don't have to read stories but can phone or visit them.

Sickle cell anaemia is another mutational change which confers resistance to malaria. However there is also a loss of genetic information. Sufferers rarely live beyond 20 years!
---Warwick on 6/5/11




A theist: Sixth request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.

P.S. Genes do not mutate themselves. They require an external causative force such as radiation. Mutations are always harmful to the organism - never helpful. Advances in a species' development does not result from mutations - no superhumans emerged from Hiroshima.

What you described was not evolution, but rather classic mendellian genetics - horse or dog breeding gives the same results.
---jerry6593 on 6/5/11


Warwick,
From reptile to bird is not part of evolution theory, common ancestry is. To imply that it is, is your dishonesty. PE is a questioned side note to the theory.


Genes mutate all the time. Some make it easier or possible from individuals in a population to survive and reproduce. Those that do, will be more likely to survive along with the individuals carrying those genes. Genes, that resulted in a slightly thicker fur would help those animals with that gene (for thick fur) through a severe winter. Most of the rest of the population might die.

Now is where you, like other fundamentals, say that all a mutations are bad...and don't forget to ask if I personally witnessed mutation that resulted in a good change.
---atheist on 6/4/11


\\How GOD came I do not know.
---Samuel on 6/4/11\\

If you don't know, I will tell you.

God is neither created nor caused. He just IS.

Basic Christian doctrine (and perhaps Jewish and even mahometan) doctrine teaches that.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 6/4/11


I am stuck on the question of who or what process created a god that could figure out how to create everything from nothing.

But many apparently believe that without believing in an unexplainable god or if an explanation for "microbe to man" is found, that we will all devolve into murdering monsters. atheist

I do not believe that if evolution were proven true we would all become murders. History does not give me much proof that it cannot happen.

Scientist know the universe exists and started at a single point. String theory is the latest to give a proposal how it started.

To Christians GOD is the first cause that brings all others about. That a design shows a designer. How GOD came I do not know.
---Samuel on 6/4/11


Atheist I wrote "Evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed the punctuated equilibria idea as an attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their idea was that the jump from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) happened too quickly to have been recorded as fossils....."

This, as anyone can see, concerned punctuated Equilibria, not, as you dishonestly imply, NeoDarwinism.

NeoDarwinism says such changes take vast ages. Eldredge and Gould disagreed saying if so the fossil record should be full of transitional forms, which it isn't, they say. They proposed the changes happened too quickly to be included in the fossil record.
---Warwick on 6/4/11


Atheist you write "But evolution theory does not explain how a better version comes about, but only how changes in genes help to keep their carriers alive long enough to reproduce."

Recently you wrote about evolution by Natural Selection. However what you have written above is not about Natural Selection at all because Natural Selection means that certain creatures survive because they already have genes which allow them to adapt to changing conditions. Not that their genes change.

You are now talking about changes to genes. This is by definition,not Natural Selection,is it? So what are you saying?
---Warwick on 6/4/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Jerry,

Jumping from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) is not part of evolutionary theory, per Warwick.

Thus we have an example of fundamentalist misrepresentation, proving something I know about evolution---it is a theory misrepresented by religious fundamentalists.

Again, evolution is a theory misrepresented by religious fundamentalists.

CraigA,

No need to apologize. I understand that there is little consistency in belief in any religion. I do find irony and hypocrisy in Mark's attitude and comments. I know there are kinder and gentler Christians like yourself.
---atheist on 6/4/11


atheist:

It is easiest to use an analogy. Take an author who writes a book, for example. The book is a universe unto itself, while the author is its creator.

Whetever natural laws apply inside the book (and its characters) are totally irrelevant to the natural laws that apply outside the book (to the author). While it may even be useful for characters in the book to discuss whether or not they are self-evolved, or merely the creatures of an Author, it is meaningless for them to try to conjecture whether the Author himself lives within another universe and is himself created or not. Since the book itself contains no information on this subject, it is pointless for the characters to discuss it.
---StrongAxe on 6/4/11


StrongeAxe,

For the most part I agree with you. (But evolution theory does not explain how a better version comes about, but only how changes in genes help to keep their carriers alive long enough to reproduce.)

I agree with your logic to a point, but I am still stuck on the question of who or what process created a god that could figure out how to create everything from nothing. This is of course the same, yet unsolved problem, we are all stuck on. Different god, or no god, the problem is still there.

But many apparently believe that without believing in an unexplainable god or if an explanation for "microbe to man" is found, that we will all devolve into murdering monsters.
---atheist on 6/3/11


Atheist, I must apologize for MarkV. He believes God is a sadist. He believes God enjoys the death of the wicked and even keeps some men away from salvation for his sheer pleasure.

I assure you, sir, that is not what the God of the Bible says about HIMSELF!!

He is very clear that He would rather men repent and be saved.

Ezekiel 33:11

"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

Sound like God wants people to die?
---CraigA on 6/4/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


A theist: Fifth request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.
---jerry6593 on 6/4/11


strongaxe,

darwinism does suggest that man has evolved from apes through a period of time, which would be in total opposition to what God said when He created man, unless you believe apes brought sin into the world. You can't pick which animals evolved to fit your believe if you believe evolution is true. If you only speak of animals adapting to their surroundings, then I agree, that shows how amazing Gods creation is. Another thing. Do you know the subtitle of Origin of Species? It's Preservation of the Favored Race which social Darwinism "evolved from". Considering Darwinism teaches survival of the fittest that is a valid belief since they feel and felt they are the fittest, i.e. racism.
---willa5568 on 6/4/11


//hearsay about what someone who might have lived said or didnt say.//

isn't that true about most history?

if you were not there, isn't it all hearsay?
---aka on 6/3/11


Warwick:

Darwinism says nothing about whether God exists, just how species evolved.

Genesis says God created animals but not how he did so. It is possible every creature emerged fully formed, like the Venus de Milo. It is also possible he created natural laws whose application would invoke Darwinian processes.

It is MUCH easier to create something, than to create a mechanism to do it. Making a car by hand is hard. Making an assembly line that makes cars is harder. Writing poetry is hard. Writing a computer program to compose poetry is harder. Making life is hard. Making a universe that can make life is harder. Christians who believe in evolution believe in a God who is much more awesome than those who don't.
---StrongAxe on 6/3/11


Shop For Insurance


/Atheist,The Bible is true because those that belief it's true, believe it's true. It's true because of faith//

If you as a Darwinist or evolution adherent,and believe in macro-evolution, then faith is very much necessary to believe it as truth. There is no theory that can prove it to be so unless, as with the belief in God, you see the proof of what you have said is so. Considering you can not explain creation by a theory because it cannot be proven, it also must be taken by faith that creation did not come from a creator. Those who believe in the God of the bible look for Jesus' return which will prove what they say is true. Evolutionist look to find the links from one species to another. We shall all see who is right.
---willa5568 on 6/3/11


StrongAxe, Darwinism, (more correctly NeoDarwinism) seeks to replace God. It 'says' there is no God nor any need of God. This naturalistic belief begins, on earth, with dead chemicals arranging themselves into live, self replicating creatures.

NeoDarwinism is about the whole deal from nothing to everything we see around us. It is therefore much much more than "only about how species improve and evolve....."

"Remember God's word says His Creation is such strong evidence for Him that "men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20 part)for not believing.

NeoDarwinis stands in direct opposition to our God.
---Warwick on 6/3/11


Samuel,

I simply do not believe, that given the history of how the Bible was put together, that anyone can rely it as historical fact, much less than anything more than hearsay about what someone who might have lived said or didnt say.
Medical knowledge beyond its time? See Genesis 30:37-39.
---atheist on 6/3/11


No Cluny that's not all, at all! You wrote "I think you've given a inaccurate example."

I have simply asked you to give an accurate example. Why won't you do this?

Did you write without thinking, and have thought better of it?
---Warwick on 6/3/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


\\Cluny, regarding my comments about Punctuated Equilibria, you wrote "I think you've given a inaccurate example.

I have asked you to give us a better description, or example, but you fail to reply.\\

I was offering PE and Lamarckianism as alternatives to classical Darwinism (gradualism). That's all.
---Cluny on 6/3/11


Blogger9211:

You said: So far as effective servants of God you all flunked.

Not so. Nowhere in the Bible are "effective servants of God" required to properly answer questions about nuances of other religious beliefs. Also, we were "asked", not "directed" to answer the question.

Hinduism teaches reincarnation - we keep coming back and living one life after another, until we "get it right" and achieve Nirvana.

Ancestor worship implies we only get one shot at life, but afterwards, we can influence the lives our descendents.

Darwinism speaks only about how species improve and evolve. It says nothing whatsoever about religious matters such as god(s), afterlife, etc.
---StrongAxe on 6/3/11


Warwick and Jerry,Jumping from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) is not part of evolutionary theory. Thus we have an example of fundamentalist misrepresentation, proving something I know about evolution---it is a theory misrepresented by religious fundamentalists.BTW was the "kind" "duckers and weavers" on Jonahs ark, perhaps along with the "kind" misrepresenters and name callers?By too quickly is meant by "geologist's standards". A coarse or incomplete fossil record for a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem quick. But modern reptiles to modern birds,--- never, a common ancestor to both, yes. Fossils of feathered reptile-like creatures, and arguments about their meaning, yes.
---atheist on 6/3/11


I seems that most of you dont know how to read and follow simple instructions, you were directed to determine: What are the essential similarities/differences between Hindu Pantheism/Reincarnation, Pagan ancestor worship, and modern Darwinism.

Neither Christianity or Judaism was mentioned in the question but everyone is including it in their responses and that is not what you were instructed to accomplish. I you simply can't accomplish a simple task like this correctly and follow instructions. How can God trust any of you to accomplish any important task that he might have for you. So far as effective servants of God you all flunked.
---Blogger9211 on 6/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Atheist you quoted me but I have no idea what you think you are saying.

The quote was about Punctuated Equilibria(PE), not NeoDarwinism. Eldredge and Gould considered another option to NeoDarwinism believing there was little if any evidence for the supposed transitional forms which should be in abundance in the fossil record. If indeed one kind had evolved into another kind, as NeoDarwinism claims.

Because of the lack of intermediate forms they proposed the kind to kind transformation must have happened far more quickly than believed. They proposed PE, the idea that these changes happened quite quickly, too quickly for the supposed transitional forms to have been fossilized.

If this is not so please tell us what PE means!
---Warwick on 6/2/11


Dear Atheist

I asked you a question about the Bible. Could you please answer it.

I agree that many fundamentalist do misrepresent evolution. But when I read evolutionary writers they often gloss over problems. While I believe current evolutionary theory has many to me insurmountable problems. That does not prove the existence of GOD.

It does however make it unlikly that all the incredible complexity of life could have happened by accident.

Also I do not believe the Bible could have been written with medical knowledge so beyound it's time.
---Samuel on 6/2/11


Atheist, typical of your kind (duckers and weavers) you make sweeping statements which you cannot back up. You have been often challenged to give your best evidence for NeoDarwinism, but will not do so.

You claim 'fundamentalists' misrepresent NeoDarwinism but will not give specific examples.

You claim that adherance to Christianity gives people an excuse to do evil but cannot show us where Christianity gives such excuse. To say that commands to always and only do good are an excuse to do evil is unbalanced thinking,to say the least!

You are full of words but lacking in substance. If you disagree simply answer the questions, with fact, not rhetoric!
---Warwick on 6/2/11


Cluny, regarding my comments about Punctuated Equilibria, you wrote "I think you've given a inaccurate example.

I have asked you to give us a better description, or example, but you fail to reply.

Please give us a better description or example. If you don't then your comments must be dismissed. Your choice.
---Warwick on 6/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


A theist: Fourth request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.
---jerry6593 on 6/3/11


Warwick:

You said: Atheist microbe to man evolution is a belief which cannot be proved or falsified by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that we put claims to the test, and repeat that test and observe both tests. Even if a reptile evolved into a bird x million years ago how do we scientifically test this? We cannot.

Strictly speaking, this applies to ALL truth (except abstracts, like 2+2=4). Even if you see someone standing over a body with a smoking gun, you cannot PROVE he committed murder - all you can do is show that it is plausible, and more likely than other theories. You can't re-murder the victim to test your theory, but nobody expects you to.
---StrongAxe on 6/3/11


Jerry,

Evolution is a theory that is constantly misrepresented by fundamentalists, as in:

"Their idea was that the jump from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) happened too quickly to have been recorded as fossils. It just seems to be an argument from lack of evidence to me."
---atheist on 6/2/11


\\Cluny: Don't you think that punctuated equilibrium is a first cousin to abiogenesis? Both are based on nothing but wishful thinking and blind faith.\\

I have no opinions about punctuated equilibrium at all, and I've said nothing about abiogenesis.

God invented life--by what process it would look like to us, I know not--and beyond that I have nothing more to say.
---Cluny on 6/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


A theist: Third request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.


Cluny: Don't you think that punctuated equilibrium is a first cousin to abiogenesis? Both are based on nothing but wishful thinking and blind faith.
---jerry6593 on 6/2/11


The similarity is that they are all NonChristian.
---Eloy on 6/1/11


Cluny I of course simplified punctuated equilibria, however I did so as not everyone here is interested in or knowledgeable about the details of science.

How would you better describe it in such few words?
---Warwick on 6/1/11


Hundreds of Universtities throughout the world have been trying to get spontaneous generation to work for decades. All have failed.

"The Bible is true because those that belief it's true, believe it's true. It's true because of faith." atheist

Parts of the Bible we accept on Faith. Other parts have Historical proof. For instance in the 19th century critics stated the Bible was false because no Hittie civilization ever existed. Now we have books about it being a great civilization.

The New Testament records three direct eyewitness reports on JESUS and one compiled report. There is no evidence that these came too late to not have been eyewitness reports. Do you think the writers were truthful or liars?
---Samuel on 6/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


The truth of God does not depend on English grammar. You were foolish to try to make it so.
---Donna66 on 6/1/11

Whether English, German, or Spanish grammar, I believe it does. Grammar is not just using ain't instead of isn't. It could be using past tense when present tense should be used, completely changing the meaning of a sentence. I is and I was mean two entirely different things. One is present tense, one is Past tense.

another example, Hebrews: BY FAITH we Believe God created the World. However WOF twists this verse by leaving out a very important COMPONENT(we believe) saying, BY FAITH God created, suggesting God needed faith to create.

All False doctrines TWIST God's word to say what they want it to say.
---kathr4453 on 6/1/11


\\ Their idea was that the jump from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) happened too quickly to have been recorded as fossils. It just seems to be an argument from lack of evidence to me. \\

I think you've given a inaccurate example.

However, my point is that not all theories of evolution are Darwinian.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/31/11


Atheist microbe to man evolution is a belief which cannot be proved or falsified by the scientific method. The scientific method requires that we put claims to the test, and repeat that test and observe both tests. Even if a reptile evolved into a bird x million years ago how do we scientifically test this? We cannot.

For this reason abiogenesis and microbe to man evolution are not part of operational science, but ideas held by faith. You are a man of faith just as we are.

However when we look at the world around us those who understand microbe to man evolution and are conversant with Scripture and are of an open mind will see the available evidence better suits Biblical creation.
---Warwick on 6/1/11


Evolution is the blind faith RELIGION of the atheist. Consider evolutionist and winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, George Wald, who stated:

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

To adhere to a disproven belief system in the face of contrary evidence is BLIND FAITH!
---jerry6593 on 6/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


The amount of people studing macro evolution in master or PHD level research has dropped significantly. Recent discoveries about the complexity of life is way, way, beyond the possiblities of evolutionary growth.
---Scott on 6/1/11


Alan, I should have addresses my comments to you but made a mistake and addressed them to Cluny. Sorry!
---Warwick on 5/31/11


The joke is on me. I got it wrong. It was Cluny who made the original comments. I think!
---Warwick on 5/31/11


But science is limited and has to correct itself constantly. The bible is true just sometimes we do not understand it correctly.
---Samuel on 5/31/11

Science does not have beliefs. It has a methods used to attempt to discover knowledge. Within the method is the assumption that its conclusions could be incorrect, or its explanations, theories, could be found to be faulty, because a future test may provide an observation that does not fit the theory.

The Bible is true because those that belief it's true, believe it's true. It's true because of faith.
---atheist on 5/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Cluny I have certainly heard of Lamarkianism but I don't know of anyone who accepts this idea, today.

Evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould developed the punctuated equilibria idea as an attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their idea was that the jump from one kind (e.g. reptile) to a different kind (bird) happened too quickly to have been recorded as fossils. It just seems to be an argument from lack of evidence to me.

I don't know if many people accept this idea.
---Warwick on 5/31/11


Better be Careful Cluny someone might accuse you of being too nice to me. :)

Christ is risen indded.

Jerry While I disagree with Intelligent Design I love to read their writings and points. Their disagreement does not make me classify them as nonChristians.

Alan do you mean the other two theories are the same as the fairy tales you mentioned.

Atheist say we Our belief in GOD is like believing in Santa Claus. I do not like to use that type of Sarcasm. It does not fit how I believe JESUS would respond.
---Samuel on 5/31/11


1st Cliff,
//I believe I can tell which is true and which is untrue from exhaustive study!//

Logic and critical thinking are extremely helpful (and you are good at these).
But If you really believe that "exhaustive study" is always enough to determine truth, I'd say you have a lot to learn.
---Donna66 on 5/31/11


\\Which I believe in the Bible and I believe in Science. But science is limited and has to correct itself constantly. The bible is true just sometimes we do not understand it correctly.
\\

Another thing on which we agree 100%, Samuel!

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


"Darwinism is just one of many theories of evolution. Ever hear of Lamarckianism or punctuated equilibrium?"

Ever hear of Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
---Alan on 5/31/11


Yes Warwick you are right if we define relgion as a belief. Atheist do not define relgion that way so they would reject your point. To most I have talked to they define it as a type of superstition. Which they use to put down relgion.

They say that they are just intelligently holding on to their philosphy or Science. Which they make into a type of relgion.

I have been told many times that I cannot believe in Science and relgion.

Which I believe in the Bible and I believe in Science. But science is limited and has to correct itself constantly. The bible is true just sometimes we do not understand it correctly.
---Samuel on 5/31/11


\\Many others consider Darwinism to be fact as they have uncritically accepted what they have been taught.\\

Darwinism is just one of many theories of evolution. Ever hear of Lamarckianism or punctuated equilibrium?

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/31/11


Samuel, one definition of religion: a set of beliefs held with vigour and ardour. It usually does, but doesn't always have a supenatural God or god. I once witnessed an argument between an atheist (part way through a science degree), and a Ph.D. research scientist. No matter what the scientist said the zealot rejected it simply because the scientist did not accept Darwinism as fact.

Many atheists hold to Darwinism with a passion and deride any who believe otherwise. To them Darwinism is definitely a religion.

Many others consider Darwinism to be fact as they have uncritically accepted what they have been taught. It isn't so much a religion to such people but just what they believe to be true.
---Warwick on 5/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Some Christians actually believe in a God-assisted form of Evolution. One in which the power of God is an inherent force within nature itself that slowly "guides" the development of new creations. This I find very close to Hindu pantheism.

Reincarnation from animals as taught by Hindus, and the ancestor worship of pagans (together with the false concept that the dead are really alive) both seem a bit evolutionary. Besides, if my ancestors were merely animals, then don't I have the right to act like one?
---jerry6593 on 5/31/11


1Co 13:4-7 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind, charity envieth not, charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
---micha9344 on 5/30/11


Darwinism is not a relgion or superstition it is the opinon of Atheists and other on how life developed on this planet. Most evolutionist are neodarwinist today having modifed Darwins theory of Evolution.

Pagan ancestor worship comes in many forms but basically people think their ancestors are looking down from some place helping them and watching over them.

Hinduism has over 100,000 gods and goddess. Some thing of their having one real god and all the others are just factes of the Three. They do not have a trinity. Each of their three main gods Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna are different beings and gods. You are punished by the laws of Karma. Judged in your next life by your past reincarnation. Which always seems unfair to me.
---Samuel on 5/30/11


\\ believe I can tell which is true and which is untrue from exhaustive study!
I also don't claim to "know-it-all"\\

Aside from the inherent contradiction between these two sentences--If you can tell what is true from your study, you ARE claiming to know it all--you actually believe many things that are false.

Christ is risen.
---Cluny on 5/30/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Andy, It's **accepting all things** that gets one into trouble!
You can't believe in two or three conflicting doctrines!
I believe I can tell which is true and which is untrue from exhaustive study!
I also don't claim to "know-it-all"
---1st_cliff on 5/30/11


\\Hinduism have a "trinity" just like the pseudo-Christians here.\\

1st cliff, you complained about me saying who/what is Christian and what isn't--yet you do EXACTLY the same thing!

**sorry lad we just found you have a similarity with JW's, LDS, RC, some goodmeaning pentecostals, and islam**

andy1996, 1st cliff's belief has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholics believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is God Incarnate--doctrines that 1st cliff rejects.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/30/11


I often wonder if people will ever learn has absolutely nothing to do with being religous.

Being a Christian is haveing an intimate and personal relationship with GOD through CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE!
---Rob on 5/30/11


The big diference between the Christian Religion and all the others is we have a living God and the Gods they worship are all dead.
---Darlene_1 on 5/30/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


1st cliff, another one who believes his doctrines will save him,

sorry lad we just found you have a similarity with JW's, LDS, RC, some goodmeaning pentecostals, and islam..
in caling another pseudo is condemming your brother
however i dont call you like that because you don't have sufficient faith to accept all things.
---andy3996 on 5/30/11


The prefix pseudo- is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not. taken from a dictionary
---andy3996 on 5/30/11


snnnnchzzzz......snnnnchzzzz.....snnnnchzzzz......snnnnchzzzz.....
---aka on 5/30/11


Many similarities,Jerry:
Hinduism have a "trinity" just like the pseudo-Christians here.
Brahma Vishnu and Siva.
They similarly believe in re incarnation IE the soul returns to put on a body!
Their "hell" is similar in that it tortures humans!
It's in the Vedas.
These similarities are in Christendom not Darwinism!
---1st_cliff on 5/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


there is only one, and that is all deny God to be GOD UNIQUE
---andy3996 on 5/29/11


As we are not trying to contrast each of these belief systems to Christianity. And none of them can be adequately described in a 125 word limit. We cannot insert hot links to meaningful articles to explore them. About all that can be accomplished is to do extensive online research from definitive sources on each of the belief systems mentioned but without a core frame work to start with any discussion is futile. The topic cannot be addressed within the restrictions of ChristiaNet Blogging. To adequately cover this topic would require a 4 credit hour graduate group seminar university course in comparative religions.
---Blogger9211 on 5/29/11


These religions are just like -- the Tower of Babel: Genesis 11:1-9, and the Golden Calf: Exodus 32.

The major similarities being: They are ALL idolatrous CULTS that Grieve The Holy Spirit. They DO NOT acknowledge GOD as the Almighty Father. Neither do they acknowlege Jesus Christ as GOD's son and OUR savior.

The differences being: Each religion has it's own idolatrous methods, ideas, shrines, customs, etc.

Followers of worldly religions that DENY the Trinity have a one-way ticket to HELL. Romans 6:23. These religions might be POPULAR, but DEADLY too.
---Sag on 5/29/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.