Kindly consider this: Without evolution wouldn't life on Earth be chaotic and bizarre? Would it exist at all? Within the constraints of evolution life sustains. Would a benevolent God place the ultimate protection on his creation to sustain? Isn't life on Earth sustained without evidence of chaos that destroys the idea of miracles only? Biology is consistent in it's laws. Physics is consistent in it's laws. That establishes scientific laws that is the basis of the life on Earth.
Aren't people capable of rejecting or embracing the sustainability of Earth's gift? In that is the ability to contest the laws of any science, yet they hold to the truth.
There is eons of room for religion to embrace science as the truth of life on Earth. The incorporation of the Big Bang by the Roman Catholic Church is the recognition any religion has to embrace the truth upon questioning.
Isn't religion that treats God as a patron of all life standing in contempt of the very creation they embrace? Embracing a lie can never be the basis of a doctrine. In embracing a doctrine that is dreamed by holy men unwilling to examine all truths is simply a fairy tale.
Religion is manmade. Faith in god is not manmade. That is why there are multitudes of religions. Not saying one is best over another. There is common ground in the majority of religions that a higher being exists. If a religion dismisses the truth in it's doctrine, it no longer is doctrine but dogma. To embrace god is not about being a selective member of the faith, it is about including all of nature as the reality of a faith.
If one wants to evaluate religions it is safe to say the Roman Catholic Faith is well established, bends to the truth and seeks only the pure knowledge of God's gifts.
Believing the Roman Catholic Church as it bears the greatest understanding of Gob because it includes the truth in it's doctrine does not exclude anyone from being an atheist. There is no reason for anyone to believe they are threatened in their personal voyage. Treating the Pope as some kind of iconic politician only concludes one has exclusive understanding of the truth beyond what is accumulated in human's current knowledge. I think that is arrogant and incomplete in it's judgement of self.
Aren't people capable of rejecting or embracing the sustainability of Earth's gift? In that is the ability to contest the laws of any science, yet they hold to the truth.
There is eons of room for religion to embrace science as the truth of life on Earth. The incorporation of the Big Bang by the Roman Catholic Church is the recognition any religion has to embrace the truth upon questioning.
Isn't religion that treats God as a patron of all life standing in contempt of the very creation they embrace? Embracing a lie can never be the basis of a doctrine. In embracing a doctrine that is dreamed by holy men unwilling to examine all truths is simply a fairy tale.
Religion is manmade. Faith in god is not manmade. That is why there are multitudes of religions. Not saying one is best over another. There is common ground in the majority of religions that a higher being exists. If a religion dismisses the truth in it's doctrine, it no longer is doctrine but dogma. To embrace god is not about being a selective member of the faith, it is about including all of nature as the reality of a faith.
If one wants to evaluate religions it is safe to say the Roman Catholic Faith is well established, bends to the truth and seeks only the pure knowledge of God's gifts.
Believing the Roman Catholic Church as it bears the greatest understanding of Gob because it includes the truth in it's doctrine does not exclude anyone from being an atheist. There is no reason for anyone to believe they are threatened in their personal voyage. Treating the Pope as some kind of iconic politician only concludes one has exclusive understanding of the truth beyond what is accumulated in human's current knowledge. I think that is arrogant and incomplete in it's judgement of self.
