Christian Bronies 946 members · 125 stories

Welcome to the "Christian Bronies" Group!


This is a place for Christian Bronies to have multiple discussions on what it means to be a Christ follower in a group of people who, more often than not, do not believe in and/or Christ, and also a place to just worship freely. Tell us about how Christ is working in your life, bring us prayer requests, talk about your struggles, whatever you want to bring forward in a Christian setting.

If you do not follow Christ, you are more than welcome to come and chat with us. Question us, challenge us, or just hang out and talk pony without the vulgarity that can come from this fandom. We're not exclusive here. :twilightsmile:

-Group Founder, primalcorn1


The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.Mark 12:31


Official Threads


Supported Groups

Anti-Depression Ponies - Founded by Smiles, this group is dedicated towards helping other bronies out who may be having a tough time. It's all about bringing a smile.

Comments ( 693 )
  • Viewing 674 - 693 of 693

416307
Someone is calling the kettle black... or silver. I've never seen a black kettle.

In the name of Jesus; get behind us Satan!

416307
Why do you say that? Is freedom of speech something you don't support?

416157
You need to shut your bitch ass mouth, boy.

416292
Turns out it's not a camping trip but I'm still discouraged from using my phone.

Of course I care about if my faith is real or not. If it's true then I need to keep on the straight and narrow to paradise. If my faith is real then... well... you've read Dante's Inferno. I believe torture doesn't stagnate but evolves with time. I assume Hell is much, much worse than discribed.

Life is short and the afterlife is forever. Eternal. I kinda want to believe there's a gray area: purgatory. My faith has no gray area so either my soul leaves my fat butt and I walk in paradise or I burn among other things.

If my faith is a lie then nothing happens... or I get reincarnated into a tree or a cow or another jerk with a heart of gold, etc. Knowing about McDonalds; I'd like to be a tree.

EDIT: :yay:

416276
Yeah, Tuvok is awesome!

416275
What are the odds of finding a bill? Probably pretty low, but is it impossible to do without gods help? How do you determine when it really is a coincidence and when God intervened?


No, atheism has no dogmas or tenants or beliefs. It is only a lack of accepting of theistic claims. I don't bash Christians at all, I just ask questions and point out logical fallacies. I have had conversations in RL and online with many different faiths.


On the subject of prayer, there are two ways of looking at it. On a personal level you can pray for help finding your car keys or pray for your headache to go away. Both those things can happen but have you demonstrated that god was involved. It's like if I have a lucky coin when I roll a dice, did the coin make any difference?

The second way to approach prayer is to actually test it on a large scale. Here's 3 examples where that failed.
1
2
3

This doesn't prove that prayer doesn't work, maybe you are all doing it wrong. It just means you don't have proof it does work. It's like magic, the fact that I can't do real magic with my Harry Potter toy wand doesn't mean there aren't real wizards with real magic hidden somewhere, it just means that I have no good reason to believe magic is real for the moment. Prayer and god are in the same boat.

Does Jesus love everybody? How do you know he even exists? You keep referring to bible verses, why do you think the bible is special compared to any other ancient document? Proverbs definitely has some good nuggets of advice, but so does the Odyssey and Captain Kirk.


You didn't really answer my question earlier. Do you actually care if what you believe is true? Are you open to changing your mind given the right evidence?

I do care about truth and I am open to changing my mind about basically anything.

Enjoy your trip and be safe! I look forward to continue our conversation when you return!

416266
Correction: My next response might be delayed unless I find wifi and time.

Captain Janeway? I'm more of a Captain Doctor or a Captain Chakotae. Tuvok might be my favorite Vulcan.

416266
I usually find chump change. What are the odds I find a crisp bill in the middle of nowhere?

(I'm getting ready for another week-long trip. This may be my most active summer! Anyway, my response will be delayed so see ya in two weeks!)

Your dogma is that atheist and other religions bash the Christians harder than anybody. Heck Mormons are better Christians except they're not Christians.

Prayer doesn't work? Who was praying during these studies? Idiots that think they can test God Jesus?

If you can record the cause and effect of prayer then you get a fact that prayer works. Through that people will swarm to the Jewish or Christian faith and follow every instruction. They're not truly believing; just following a program in a shiny book.

Jesus loves everybody and knows not everyone can be saved. He will keep a small amount of true believers no matter how many people are on Earth. I'm currently reading 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel but I think Proverbs might be your cup of tea.

416263

We both have our dogmas. We both have evidence that is documented in books.

I have a pretty good idea what Christian dogma looks like, but I'm not sure what my own is. I actually make a point to try and not have dogma. For clarity, could you point out what you are referring to as my dogma?

For the coincidences, it sounds like you are asking for an explanation. Either they are just that: coincidences OR there is a supernatural deity that is randomly answering select prayers. We know that coincidences can happen, we have no good reason to believe that a deity does exist. My position is that it's more likely something we know is possible happened then something we don't know is possible.

There have been studies of the power of prayer and they all showed no detectable difference between praying and not. (One showed negative correlation).

Priests are experienced public speakers and one of the most important thing for a public speaker to do is make sure their content is just vague enough that the most people will be able to think it applies to their situation. There have been many weeks I'm sure where the message at church was great but didn't directly apply to your families situation. You don't remember those weeks as much as the ones where it's uncannily on point, that's called confirmation bias and it's a logical fallacy.

It's not that I see the effects of gravity or air, we all do. It is demonstrable. Prayer is not. How do you prove that finding $5 was a result of prayer? Ive found money before after not praying, what does that mean?

The human race and all life with it can't be an accident...

How did you determine that?

and it was no accident that you stumbled upon this group.

It wasn't, an author of one of my favourite stories is a member. Are you implying that god arranged me to find this group? How do we determine that?

Lastly I'll take a look at the verses, but I'll judge how good or realistic they are based on their content. I have yet to be convinced the bible and its words deserves special consideration.

416255
We both have our dogmas. We both have evidence that is documented in books. We both have agendas good or bad.

Can you explain several coincidences? I pray for money and I find $5. I pray for a clear day for a walk and eventually the rain stops but starts back up on my home stretch. My mom and step dad have a random conversation and the next day the preacher is preaching and filling in gaps in a conversation he was never a part of. They live in the city unlike myself who lives in a small town where word spreads like the plague. How would the preacher know of a private conversation or care about what two people were talking about privately over his other thousand listeners (I forgot the term).

You see and feel the effects of air and gravity but you can't see it. I see and feel my God. Whether or not I have an argument I must admit that something is running this show. The human race and all life with it can't be an accident and it was no accident that you stumbled upon this group. Romans 16:17-18 NIV I recommend reading this yourself.

I can't tell you your meaning of life because my meaning of life is my opinion that can be up to speculation.

EDIT: Romans 14... any version. This is optional.

416253
Too bad, the next few sentences were pretty important. The bottom line is that there is no fraud, no fake embryo drawings being passed off as evidence for evolution. Evolution was discovered before those pictures were even drawn.

I completely agree that patience is important for scientific discovery. You are wrong when you say that observation is key to science though.

Science is about evidence. Sometimes it's things we can observe, sometimes it's not. You can't observe gravity but you can observe its effect. It is empirically demonstrable. So is evolution and embryology. We are still waiting for god to be empirically demonstrated.

No I wasn't around at the beginning of the universe, neither was Plato and Aristotle, and neither were your bible authors.

How did the universe begin and how did life begin are great questions that science hasn't answered definitively yet. The most honest answer is to say 'we don't know'. To instead substitute your favourite cherry picked mythology is unsound reasoning.

The bible was written by man so of course they are going to get a few things right. The question is: how do we know it's right? Because it's in the bible or because science proves its right?

Also: Atoms are not invisible. I can see them, you can see them, they reflect light when in great enough numbers. It's true I can't point out a single one, but the bible just says it's not visible not that it's indivisible so... you have nothing.

The deeper question is this. You can either value having an answer no matter if it's true or not, or you can value having the best possible answer (even if that answer is 'I don't know'). I value truth and I'm interested in whether something really is accurate. If you do too then great! If you put maintaining your faith in religious dogma over following the evidence then that is your right, but that is the source of our disagreement I think.

416250
Sorry, I only got as far as "No one argues that a scientist shouldn’t promote speculation as fact" before I had to stop.

Everyone wants their evidence seen here and now. There's a reason patients is a virtue and why observation is key to science. We're you there at the beginning? Of the universe or man? I wasn't and neither was Plato or Aristotle to give a couple of examples.

I believe in God because an answer to my childish questions and requests are answered by something. One coincidence a day and I bat an eye but several within not just my own but my whole family's life? Hebrews 11:3 NIV - By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command I assume the bigger you are; the louder you can be. I know people with booming voices. so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Can you point out a single, small atom? I can't.

EDIT: Can you see air or sound? No but something happens each time.

416248

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), was a pioneer biologist, physician, and philosopher. At home in Germany, he was a professor of comparative anatomy for half a century, but he was also a field naturalist. In the course of his travels to different continents, he had personally discovered, described, and named thousands of new species. He was a pioneer taxonomist, the first to produce a visual map of the genealogical tree of life. He published dozens of scientific works, many of which were wonderfully illustrated because he was also an artist. The man was an award-winning science communicator, the Cosmos host of his time. He even has mountains named in his honor, both in the United States and in New Zealand. But his numerous contributions to biology go largely unnoticed compared to a couple rather embarrassing errors.

Karl Ernst von Baer originally noted in 1828 that the more closely related any two species are, the more similar their development. He also observed that vertebrate animals in their embryonic stages seem to have a common design, whereas adult forms show difference.
Arm buds are virtually indistinguishable at first formation but might become a wing, an arm, a leg, or a flipper. At another level of this same pattern, the young of two closely related species will look more alike than the adults do.
Of course, this trend continues into embryology too, and the implications of that confused naturalists and anatomists of the nineteenth century.

For example, Haeckel studied dozens of embryos under a microscope and interpreted them to promote his idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” suggesting that embryonic development reflects the organism’s evolutionary ancestry.

Haeckel’s “biogenetic law” of embryological parallelism was one of many notions of biological transcendentalism first proposed by Lamarckian naturalist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire in about 1760. Haeckel believed that the developing fetus mirrored its evolution such that it might pass through phases of becoming a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile each in succession before becoming a mammal. To illustrate this, he produced about a hundred drawings of embryos at various stages.
But he later admitted that about a half-dozen of them were either false or speculative due to a lack of visual references.

In the first edition of his bestselling book Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte (Natural History of Creation), Haeckel used the same image to represent the embryos of dogs, chickens, and turtles. When a reviewer alerted him to this, he said that no one could tell the difference at that stage, which was probably true given the instrumentation of the time. While this is not necessarily a lie, the fact that any of his drawings were admittedly without reference has disgraced Haeckel’s name in the annals of science despite the fact that these were corrected in each of the later editions.

Creationists now insist that Haeckel was reportedly convicted of fraud by a German court, though that is not the case. His creationist contemporaries, including Rudolf Virchow and Louis Agassiz, did accuse Haeckel of deception, but the charge of fraud didn’t emerge until 1997 with the research of embryologist Michael Robertson, as detailed in an article in Science by Elizabeth Pennisi titled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered”.

No one argues that a scientist shouldn’t promote speculation as fact; leave that to religion. But the drawings Haeckel didn’t have references for in his first edition aren’t the reason for the recent charge of fraud. It was a computerized analysis of his artwork as compared to microphotographs of
the same species at the same stages of development. The charge was that he embellished these drawings to imply more resemblance than there was based on a critique of his artistic skill. However, it has been shown that this same analysis would also indict Haeckel’s enemy contemporaries on the same charge, as well as modern embryologists too.

A later paper titled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Not Proven,” written by Robert Richards and published in the journal Biology & Philosophy in 2009, offers a compelling rebuttal to the charges detailed in the 1997 Science article, “The historical and biological evidence, however, shows the charge against Haeckel to be logically mischievous, historically naive, and founded
on highly misleading photography.”

The images under scrutiny were taken from Haeckel’s hastily assembled first edition of Anthropogenie. However, each of the subsequent editions had the advantage of better instrumentation, and the accuracy of the drawings improved. But there was nothing wrong with those images to begin with.
The damning microphotographs published by Michael Robertson in 1997 showed these embryos with yolk and other maternal material that made them look very different. That, and the chicken was photographed at a different angle with a different lens effect than the others, while the salamander was a different size. Haeckel clearly indicated that his drawings were only of the embryos, omitting things like yolk, and that he made them all the same size and oriented the same way for ease of comparison, so there’s no foul to fault.

Robertson, the very researcher who indicted Haeckel in 1997, seems to have softened his view since then, perhaps after his own errors in the indictment itself were brought to light. In a November 2002 paper published in the Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
titled “Haeckel’s ABC of Evolution and Development,” Robertson (with G. Keuck) writes,

"Haeckel’s much criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution. While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are more tendentious."

What is especially odd about the criticism against Haeckel's "embellishments” (if such were ever intended) is that they’re unnecessary.
Creationists adamantly complain that textbooks referred to his admittedly inaccurate drawings for so long, but for some reason, they continue to accuse those authors of fraud even when the textbooks replace the drawings with microphotographs! Do they think the photographs are fraudulent too? Or do they object only because those images still indicate the same evolutionary parallels that Haeckel saw?

Darwin wrote that embryology contained compelling evidence of evolution, and correctly so. In his letter to J. D. Hooker, for example, he stated,
“Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and the close resemblance of embryos within the same class.”
Creationists dismiss this on the assumption that Darwin’s theory was inspired by Haeckel’s allegedly fraudulent drawings, and that consequently, evolution is a fraud. But of course the truth is the other way around. Darwin referred to real embryos; Haeckel’s drawings didn’t even exist until years after Darwin’s final publication. Haeckel eventually befriended Darwin and even convinced him of his biogenetic law at on point, but Darwin had already published his definitive work, and Haeckel had no influence over that.

In his landmark publication, Darwin had accurately depicted the resemblance of closely related embryos and never suggested that they progress through the adult stages of their evolutionary lineage. Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel’s specific view. Haeckel’s original assumption that embryonic development would indicate adult species in an organism’s ancestral history was proven false by 1910. Recapitulation has since been replaced by a more accurate study of the parallels between embryological and evolutionary development, colloquially known as “evo devo.” Among other discoveries, this field revealed the evolutionary origin of the feather
as implied by transitional stages in the fossil record being recapitulated in the stages of embryological development of chickens. But the fact Darwin recognized, that embryology does provide testable confirmations and predictions of phylogeny, were already evident before Haeckel ever picked up his pencil.

It is no hoax that mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from the gill slits in modern fish embryos, and that the divergence of development from there matches what is indicated in the fossil record. This is fact, not fraud, and none of these facts should be true unless evolution were true also. Why else do whale embryos have four limbs? Why do glass snake embryos have feet complete with toes? Why do chicken embryos have three-fingered hands?
Why do human and bird embryos have tails?

So Haeckel didn’t lie, so far as we know. At least we know he didn’t lie when he could have, and that’s a good indication. Even if he had lied, it wasn’t while promoting evolution over creationism. Haeckel wasn’t trying to convince creationists of evolution; he was promoting recapitulation, an alternate notion of fetal development. His posit failed against Karl Ernst von Baer, the leading authority who conceived the laws of embryology.

Source: Aaron Ra

416248
I'll respond to the embryo thing in a bit here.

I'm glad to hear you are skeptical! That's a very healthy way to approach anything! Just don't make the mistake of thinking these two ideas are equal, they are not. One has evidence, the other does not.

How do you know god created man and woman? How do you know there is a god in the first place? How do you know there's any supernatural at all? Until these are answered there's no good reason to take creation seriously. Science on the other hand relies on natural explanations, something that demonstrably exists.

416214
Did you even watch the video? Kent didn't make the fetus drawings. If he did then how are they in almost every textbook? Because that would be impressive.

Back to evolution: either God made men from dirt and women from bone then we have our start. But who was around to write that? Maybe God knew they wouldn't understand tiny called mammals swimming in chemical soup before leaving the sea. I can some-what accept that, too. There's nothing about human origin I can 100% accept.

EDIT: Ernst Haeckel made those fake drawings in the 1870's.

416209
Fake fetus drawings? I'm not sure what you are referring to here, I was talking about embryology, the study of actual human embryos.

Are you saying that Kent was responsible for producing fake fetus drawings, or that he was responsible for proving them to be fake?

Do you still maintain that 'evolution is fake', or do you now understand that it's real?

416194
I've seen several textbooks with the fake fetus pictures. Some from my school's library when I was in school and my sister's college textbooks from physical to online and she wasn't taking a biology class.

I think it was psychology?

I can't think of other examples so either they were not important or I forgot.

416191
I'm not sure what you mean when you say you've 'seen firsthand evidence of his work'. What work are you referring to?🙂

I agree that geometry and physics and other hard sciences like biology and evolution are less prone to interpretation as they rely on physically testable evidence where history can be screwed with a lot easier. I'm curious what the point you were trying to make here is 🙂.

416192

Thanks for the response!

In my experience when someone religious says 'evolution is fake' it is usually because they don't understand what evolution by natural selection is.

Evolution never made the claim that we 'change animal forms'. That would be ridiculous. Individuals don't change, populations do. Our ancestors were very different from us and had tails and before that gills. This is evidenced by the study of human embryos, among other things.

You are genetically different from your parents, this is random mutation. The adaptation that you spoke of is the natural selection where the humans (and any other life forms) better suited to an environment have a greater chance to pass on their genes. The moment you admitted that adaptation happens, you admitted evolution. All evolution is is the change in allele frequency (genes) over successive generations. Given enough time small changes add up to larger changes.

416159
Evolution is fake. We can't change animal forms but we can adapt. We never had a tail. It would be "lit" to have one to carry the groceries or open doors.

We don't need as much muscle as our ancestors because we made tools to make hunting easier and we needed even less muscle because of guns. We can fight our brother but we can't fight Chuck Norris.

  • Viewing 674 - 693 of 693