LG

After Googling "Jack Chick," I understand why.

Don't really know much about the jerk, since I left so long ago. I do know that I thought he was a jerk back in the early eighties. What really prompted me to post was the "LCM Ministries" question. It appears to me that most former TWI "revs" (lower case and quotes very much intentional) who started "ministries" plucked a few stray or injured sheep to fleece from the TWI flock. My opinion is that not a single person who was ordained by or in any position of leadership in TWI had any business putting themselves forth as being at all competent to minister to anyone, at least not for a long time after leaving TWI.

sharon, I think you're reading something into satori's words that isn't there. I say that as someone who does not agree with him regarding the topic of this thread. Since I've decided to post to the thread, I may as well say what I think about the topic. I think that it demonstrated poor judgment and thoughlessness for Cardinal Law to be in the spotlight during such a public series of events. I have to allow, though, that the thoughtlessness is not necessarily indicative of heartlessness. Regarding John Paul II, since incidence of sexual abuse by priests (or at least allegations of such) declined dramatically during his papacy, I can't lay blame for such abuse at his feet.

Doctrines you don't accept do not a cult make, Paradiseden. Or, if they do, then I can just as well place you in a cult. The Christian Church (all persuasions) has spawned much evil and more good over the past twenty centuries.

I understand that it’s easy and probably tempting to write off what I’ve said as being anti-Christian and anti-Biblical, because I am not a Christian and I don’t accept the Bible as being authoritative. But many Christians are saying pretty much the same things I have said. I’ll post a few links. All of these are creationist, in the sense that they believe in God as Creator. All are “old earth,” meaning they accept the ages of the universe and earth to be billions of years. I don’t agree with everything any of these folks say, but I respect their intellectual honesty and their faith (though I don’t share it). Answers in Creation is an interesting site, which seems to be pretty honest with both science and the Bible. It has a lot of good information, of interest even to an unbeliever like me. Their Articles are well worth perusing. Their Rebuttal Articles include pretty much all the criticism of young earth creationism I have raised, plus much more. For a Christian attempting to sort out various ideas promoted by other Christians, I would think they’d be useful. Perspectives on Theistic Evolution takes the position that the scientific theory of evolution is consistent with Christianity. It explores this from a scientific perspective and from a theological perspective. Reasons to Believe has a lot of good information, from the perspective of a Christian geologist. It promotes ID theory, which I don’t agree is a valid scientific theory, but I’m all for people exploring it and writing about it. I’ve looked at several other good sites, but these three pretty much cover everything on them, or link to them. For all the spirited debate about matters not directly related to the actual thread topic, I think that any person, Christian or not, can get plenty of information on that topic by following some of the links posted to the thread, including the above three, and yes, also the AiG link HCW posted. I've enjoyed the discussion.

I managed to become engrossed in reading various Christian writings. A lot of it is fascinating. I really need to get to bed, but I wanted to post this quote first. I’d not known of it before tonight.

HCW, Had a little delay. I’ll address your points by the same numbers that you used. (1) Nothing in my words you quoted discredits God in any way. The “if” statement assumes that the Bible is inspired by God. Surely you know that many Bible-believing Christians do not believe that the days of Genesis are literal days. If you don’t know that, then you know less about your Christian brethren than I do. Some Bible literalists believe that the verse is literal but that “day” literally means “unspecified period of time,” which is one definition for it. The other two are “daytime” and “24-hour period.” Some Bible-believing Christians take most of the Bible literally, but think that the enumeration of days in Genesis 1 is a literary device. Some Christians take the Bible less literally than the previous groups but believe that it is inspired by God and look to it more for the heart of what it says than the letter. There are three different groups of Christians, all of whom honor God, who disagree with you. I’m sure there are others who don’t quite fit into the groups I listed. Re: “’Long Gone’ is a term that YOU use to represent the literal YOU. Its not a figure of speech, emphasizing something ABOUT you.” You've got that backwards. “Long Gone” is a screen name that refers to my GreaseSpot persona, which only represents a tiny part of who I am, and doesn’t even do that well. The name is also a play on one small thing about me, that I am “long gone” from TWI. In another sense, it's just the name applied to a GreaseSpot account. Anyone with access to my computer can post with the "Long Gone" screen name and change the profile. (Actually, anyone with access to any of three computers or any of my backup CDs, so they can copy a cookies file, can access my GS account. I never sign off.) (2) I haven’t posted a single link to a site that discredits people who believe in God or people who love God. Regarding the quote, that’s as silly as saying that calling me an idiot discredits redheads. (It might discredit idiots, though.) (3) Not believing a proposition is not the same as arguing against belief of the proposition, or as claiming that the proposition is false. They’re actually three different things. (4) “Some factual claims or arguments of some people” means just what it says. That a Christian makes a claim does not make it a claim of Christianity. Later, I’ll post some links to sites where Bible-believing Christians make the same sorts of arguments against the same sorts of claims and arguments I have. If I have been arguing against Christianity, then those Christians are too. Also, saying that a statement is false is not the same as saying that the person making the statement is lying. (4a) and (4b) Addressed in (2). (5) Re: “Divine Creation in 7 ordinary days is NOT a claim of Christianity?” I said “basic Christian doctrine,” not “a claim of Christianity,” but “Divine Creation in 7 ordinary days” is neither. It may be the claim of some Christians, but most of the young earth creationists I’ve read say the creation happened in 6 ordinary days, then God rested. Plenty of other Christians disagree. (6) Re: “Just WHAT are you referring to?” I’m referring to basic Christian doctrine. God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and Earth. Jesus Christ, only begotten son, crucified, died, buried, rose, ascended, will come again. Man created special, fall of man, consequences, need for redemption, redemption by grace, eternal life. That sort of thing. I don’t want to refute basic Christian doctrine and I couldn’t if I wanted to. I like Christianity. I just have not, for all I’ve tried in the past, been able to believe it. At this point, if there is a God who wants me, He’ll have to knock louder or something. If I’m just being hardheaded, like some Christians think, maybe He’ll have to knock me over the head. Otherwise, I’ll just go on living the best I can, which is pretty much according to Christian morals anyway. Re: “Evidently you're limiting your scorn to the concept of the young earth and creation in 7 days? and only wish to rebuke those who believe that and refute their claims.” Actually, that’s a little strong. It doesn’t bother me one bit for people to believe those concepts. It bothers me that they trash honest science. Even that wouldn’t bother me much if they kept it among themselves, but they don’t. They keep trying to mess with science education.

Well, HCW, maybe you'll like this one better. The Creation Science Heresy I'm not laying a charge of heresy on anyone. These are Christians accusing young earth creation "science" advocates of heresy. I'm sure there are counter charges flying around, too. I didn't go looking for heresy charges. I've just been looking for other Christian perspectives, as I've had time. I found several interesting sites. I'll gather some links and post them later. Looks like I may want to address your last post first.

It’s no secret that I don’t think much of the “Answers in Genesis” folks and other young earthers, but I’ve never said anything as nasty about them as some of their fellow Christians and creationists. No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Heresy The article actually addresses the thread topic, so it may be of interest to Bible believers seeking information about that, whether or not they agree with the heresy charge. Maybe I'd better add a disclaimer. I don't endorse anything in the article or the "God and Science" website.

Why thank you, Cynic! How careless of me. Gotta admit also that the little jab at the Answers in Genesis folks was improper.

Now there's an apology I can sign on to!

Given the “every fowl” of 2:19, can both verses be literally, factually correct? What answer for science is in these two verses of Genesis?

Did this “certain rich man” and this “certain beggar” both actually exist? Was that actual, literal person, the beggar, actually named Lazarus? Was that actual person named Lazarus actually carried by the angels into Abraham’s literal bosom? Did that particular rich man actually lift up his eyes from hell and see Abraham afar off and literally see Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom? Did he actually converse with Abraham? Did he literally ask for water? I presume that most Christians accept that Jesus was not speaking literally, and think that that particular rich man, that particular beggar, and Abraham did not actually do and say what Jesus said they did. If they have no problem thinking that everything mentioned in the quoted verses did not happen exactly as stated, then why do some have such a problem with the notion that everything mentioned in Genesis did not happen exactly as stated? If the former is not a threat to faith or an attack on God’s integrity, why is the latter?

Very good points JB. Here's a scientific question.... Has there ever been a study that would determine how much water there would be on the earth if EVERY cloud in the entire sky emptied its entire water content onto the earth? Yes, many. The water in the atmosphere is about 1.2% of all the water on earth.According to this creationist site, all the water on earth and in the atmosphere is about 22% of the amount that would be required to cover all land on earth.

I didn’t assert that God is a deceiver, nor did I assert that he did anything. I said that IF he did one thing and made it look like he did another, then he’s a deceiver. I didn’t claim that I know a thing about what God was doing or make any other claim about God. I posed some questions. Hardly. I posed one question, with a few logical extensions based on it. If the Genesis account of the first day is literal and factual, rather than figurative, there are a lot more questions, each of which introduces other possibilities and problems that “creation science” would need to consider to even begin to develop a creation theory that had any semblance to science. Now I don’t much care whether they do or not, as long as they don’t try to claim that creation is a scientific theory. But if they do, and if they’re going to push for it to be taught in schools, then they need to address such questions and offer some valid scientific explanations. I didn’t assume that the Bible is wrong. I posed some questions. Note that I said, “if the firmament is the same heaven that contains the stars …” I’ll allow that I should have more clearly qualified the whole paragraph with the same “if,” but that neither affects the validity of the questions, nor the conditional (qualified by another “if”) conclusion of the third sentence. Let me quote the KJV. Gen. 1:8 says, “God called the firmament Heaven.” The very next use of the word is in v.14, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven…” So which is it? Are they different firmaments? Different heavens? Are they the same? Who decides? How? Either way, how do you get a reliable, factual literal reading of the section?I’m not attacking the Bible. I’m asking a few questions that need to be answered before even beginning to think that it should be accepted as factual, rather than figurative. Figurative is not a bad thing. If a particular section is figurative, then it is no basis for scientific investigation, but it certainly could be a basis for spiritual understanding. I truly don’t understand why some folks feel so threatened by the possibility that the first few chapters of Genesis are figurative, especially if they acknowledge that the Bible uses figures of speech liberally in other places, and recognize that Jesus’ manner of teaching (parables) was apparently mostly figurative.

Not at all. Science, meaning the scientific method, along with scholarly practices common to most fields, is one method of learning and I think the most reliable method we have of learning about the natural world. It is not the only means to acquire knowledge, nor the best means to acquire all kinds of knowledge. I might add that I don’t consider the pursuit of knowledge to be the only worthwhile or most important aspect of learning and certainly not the most important human endeavor. I sometimes also use “science” to refer to generally accepted scientific knowledge and theory or to the broad scientific community. I don’t dismiss “HIS” explanation. I do dismiss what some people (not the majority of Christians, by the way) claim is God’s explanation. I don’t dismiss the beliefs of most Christians or most theists. I have never in my life claimed that the God of the Bible or any other supernatural being or beings did not create the universe and everything in it. I am perfectly willing to accept that possibility. But proving (demonstrating, affirming, whatever) that God created the universe or did anything else is completely outside the province of science. My only quarrel with proponents of “creation science” or “Intelligent Design theory” is that they attempt to distort science (and science education) into something it is not and should not, indeed cannot, be. Science can neither confirm nor deny theology. If people would just accept that, there’d be no “creationist-evolutionist” quarrel. I have never said either of those. It’s certainly proper in both fields to give due consideration to such accounts, but also to subject them to critical examination. I would love to hear the eye witness account of someone who observed the creation of the universe, the origin of life, or the long-term (on the order of thousands, millions, or billions of years) changes in either. I can’t speak for “people” but I have never tried to discredit God or people who believe in God. I have never argued that God doesn’t exist or that God didn’t create the universe and everything in it. I’ve never argued against Christianity or belief that the Bible is inspired by God, even though I don’t believe that it is (which is not even close to claiming that it is not). The most I have done is to argue that some factual claims or arguments of some people are false, ill supported, or illogical, and that a few are just plain ludicrous. I have no argument with basic Christian doctrine and I neither want to nor can refute it.

Heck, Jerry, several people have demonstrated how "irreducibly complex" systems could evolve. Some have actually demonstrated it experimentally. Lindy cited an example. ID is an old argument with new trappings but the same holes. It's really just an argument from personal incredulity. Someone can't imagine that something can happen unless a god does it. But over and over again, things that only gods (or super-duper, unnamed intelligent agents) can do have been shown to be quite natural. The "only gods can do..." folks keep raising the bar and our knowledge of natural processes keeps growing, going right over each new bar. ID is not science. If it were, then it would put forth testable theories. Instead, all it does is claim that science can't explain things that science turns around and explains.

He also could have created the entire universe 5 minutes ago and given us pseudo-memories, pseudo-evidence, etc. If he did, then he's a deceiver. If he created the universe several thousand years ago and made it look like he did it billions of years ago, then he's a deceiver. What's the difference? Either way, he's a deceiver.Or maybe not. Maybe it pleased him to create the universe billions of years ago, as all the evidence indicates. Maybe it pleased him to give a simple account that unlearned people could accept, that never was intended to be taken as a scientific explanation. That would be perfectly honest. Heck, if people didn’t yet understand basic geometry, algebra, gravity, inertia, or other such concepts; if they didn’t know a thing about microorganisms or the basics of sexual reproduction (other than the actions) then how in the world could God or anyone else explain the universe or life to them, except simply and figuratively? You go on about scientific arrogance. What about the arrogance of people who presume to dictate to an almighty creator and limit him to their rigid beliefs, based on their limited and often contrived understanding of a bunch of ancient writings that they accept, completely by faith, as the word of God, when those ancient writings don't even claim to be the word of God all the way from Genesis through Revelation. (They do claim to contain words of God.) Science is not anti-Christian or anti-Biblical, except to people who arrogantly deprive a supposedly almighty God of the tools human authors use all the time. If Genesis is not purely myth, but rather is inspired by God, then much of it has to be figurative. Either that or almost nothing we think we know is reliable. Heck, the first “day” in Genesis is enough to tell it’s not literal. How do you literally have an evening and a morning being the first 24-hour day (or the second or third) without a sun or stars? If it weren’t figurative, what would you have? The earth spinning around in space, with one half of the universe lit up (but not by stars) and the other half dark? If so, then God would have to miraculously redo the whole universe on the fourth day, eliminating the light source of the first three days and replacing it with the sun, moon, and stars. Now that would be something! All or most of the energy of the universe concentrated on one side of a large, perhaps infinite, sphere bisected by a plane that was aligned fairly closely with Earth's axis for three days, then suddenly shifted, so that it is fairly uniform throughout the universe. Do young-earth “creation scientists” even consider such things? If not, then they haven’t even begun to develop a creation theory, and certainly not a scientific one. What about the waters above and below the firmament? Is there a sphere of water some 30 billion or more light years in diameter enclosing the visible universe? If not, then Genesis is not literal. Also, if the firmament is the same heaven that contains the stars, what about the water in the firmament, like comets, water on other planets, etc.? Did God just not mention that? Did that seep in later from the water above the firmament. If so, it sure moved quickly, traveling billions of light years fast enough to be in place when the ancients first observed comets. What about the question of creating plants before the sun, which provides energy for photosynthesis? Did they just get by without that for a day, or did God provide energy from some other source, like light that wasn’t from stars? Genesis calls the sun and moon “great lights” but there are plenty of stars greater than the sun, in size, mass, brightness, or any other measure, and the moon isn’t even a light, but a reflector. The description in Genesis is not at all accurate from a scientific point of view. I could go on, but I'll stop. The point is that it is ludicrous to look to some fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Genesis for scientific truth. At best, Genesis gives the sort of explanation of a complicated matter that one might give a young child, sufficient to give an appreciation for it, but not wholly accurate and certainly not complete.

Well, at least we agree about something. :)-->(Just don't ask me to believe that it was some demon playing around in that corn field.)

It figures all that uncited quoting would come from AiG. Everywhere, from its perspective, is the center of the universe. Click here for a simple explanation and illustration.

Jerry, the quote seems not to support your conclusion. Einstein made a mistake, because he was trying to fit his equations to the generally accepted notion of a static universe. Hubble later produced observational data that indicated that the universe was expanding. So what happened? The scientific community accepted that data and developed new models based on it, even though some found the implications philosophically repugnant. And Einstein acknowledged his mistake. The vast anti-theistic conspiracy of scientists some people seem to believe exists didn’t manufacture evidence to adamantly hold to a theory that discounted the possibility of creation. Rather, new theories were developed that incorporated new data. And it all happened in a relatively short period of time, with nobody being persecuted for “scientific heresy.” (Vigorous debate is not persecution.) It seems to me to be a wonderful large-scale example of the very essence of science, not a refutation of it. Regarding your Venus example, could you name the one astronomer you say proved that Venus’ craters “were the result of cyclic volcanic activity” and maybe cite a source for your information?

I’ve decided not to go into as much detail on this as I had previously intended. I’ve forgotten a lot of what I once worked up and to reconstruct it and express it coherently would take a long time and a lot of effort. So I’ll just toss out some food for thought for anyone interested. Everything that follows will presume that the Bible is revelation from God, some of which is figurative. It will also presume generally accepted scientific knowledge and theory. The point is not that either is necessarily true, but that they are (at least conceivably) compatible. If we assume that all sorts of species lived and died prior to Adam, then whatever death entered the world as a consequence of Adam’s sin must not have been physical plant and animal death. Instead, it must be a sort of death that is particular to humans. Biblically, that would include spiritual death but, if there is something different about human life than animal life, it could also include some sort of uniquely human cognitive or soul death. The Bible doesn’t include enough information to affirm that, but neither does it give enough to exclude that possibility. Humans are not much different than many other extant animals, particularly other primates. If, however, humans can have a spiritual life, then there must be something different about them that scientific investigation has not identified, and possibly that it cannot identify. The fossil record includes evidence of many human-like species that have existed in the past. It includes, apparently going back many tens of thousands of years, specimens that are physically indistinguishable from modern humans, which are generally taken to be modern humans. Something we cannot know about them, though, is whether or not they possessed whatever attribute (perhaps even a yet-unknown physical or chemical attribute of the brain) modern humans have that allows for a spiritual life. Suppose that creatures existed some thousands of years ago that were physically indistinguishable from humanity of today, but did not possess this attribute. By most any standard we could measure, they would be humans, but by a standard based on actual or potential spiritual life, they would not be the same. Now suppose that God created creatures (Adam and Eve) that looked just like those other creatures, perhaps could even interbreed with them, but that had spiritual life and the conjectured attribute that allowed for spiritual life. It could be complete creation or more along the lines of adding an enhancement to existing beings. The conjectured “attribute” would not necessarily be singular, but could be a combination of traits, all of which might need to be expressed in order for there even to be the potential for spiritual life. If all were genetically encoded and recessive, then only a person who inherited all the right genes (I’ll call them “Adamic genes”) from both their father and mother would even have the potential to have spiritual life. Now let’s explore possible implications for the Christ line. Suppose there were two lines of “humans.” Members of the Adamic line, if pure, would have all the traits necessary to harbor spiritual life. Members of the non-Adamic line would have none. Offspring of interbreeding between the two lines would have some Adamic genes, but the traits would not be expressed. If the traits were recessive and interbreeding were extensive, there would be a danger that some of the Adamic genes might eventually “die out” (not be carried on to future generations). It could easily get to the point that only one family (let’s call them the Noahs) maintained all the Adamic genes necessary to harbor spiritual life (remained pure Adamic line). What about the nephilim? Well, suppose that particular combinations of Adamic and non-Adamic genes resulted in greater than normal strength, size, agility, intelligence, or other advantageous traits. People with those traits might very well be “giants,” “mighty men,” “men of renown.” They would likely accumulate wealth and power, have great influence, and have more offspring than the average person. They also might directly kill off, enslave, or impoverish other people, particularly those who were trying to maintain a pure Adamic line, thereby reducing their likelihood of producing offspring. They might also take, by force, wives of pure Adamic line, thereby depriving them from men of pure Adamic line (dang, that sounds sexist, but that’s the way the world was once). The net result would be to reduce in the population, over time, the percentage of Adamic genes, and particularly of individuals with homozygous Adamic genes. Some might recognize that as natural selection. How about after Noah? Well, the Bible would indicate that Noah, his wife, and his sons were pure Adamic line. If one or more of his daughters-in-law weren’t, that could allow for some of the “eruptions” later in the Bible, in Canaan, for example. I’ve kept this fairly simple, by emphasizing a conjectured combination of homozygous recessive genes being necessary for spiritual life, but the genetic code is extremely complex and we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of it, and are many years, at best, from comprehensive understanding. It could be that there are both genetic traits that are required in order to have potential spiritual life and other genetic traits that block the potential. If so, there could actually be a genetic component to some doctrines of predestination and election that wouldn’t make God seem so capricious. Edit: I never actually believed the above. I was merely considering “outside the box” possibilities, of which the above was one. This was about 20 years ago, when I was trying to be a good fundamentalist Christian. A simpler explanation is that the creation story is mostly allegorical, which still allows it to be inspired by God. What I think, and have for many years, is that the Bible is mostly a collection of myths. I don’t put much stock in any of it, except as good ancient literature.

I didn't say I was leaving the discussion. Horse, you've posed some very good questions (as have others). After a great deal of thought and study, I came up with what I think is a better explanation years ago, back when I believed that the Bible was the Revealed Word of God. I now think that much of the Bible is myth. However, if I accept the "universe" of the Bible in much the same way I accept the universe of a fantasy or science fiction story, I still think the explanation fits the Biblical universe. In other words, I think that it is worth considering for those who believe the Bible is revealed truth. It's been years since I've given it much thought and I no longer have my notes on the subject, but I've been working (slowly, because of other considerations) on putting together a series of posts. I'll eventually get around to posting my thoughts, either on this thread or on one or more dedicated to the topics I'll be discussing.

Last derail on this thread for me: Galen, we agree about the importance of symbolism, just not what the symbolism was. The 9/11 attacks were aimed at three important symbols of American power; financial, military, and governmental (the presumed target of the plane that went down in PA). They were not aimed, either physically or symbolically, at the World Trade Organization.

HCW, I was being nice previously in saying “not really.” A more blunt response would have been, “no they are not.” If you do not agree, then I suggest you consult a thesaurus. More accurately, rather than pointing out that you are dead wrong, I chose to give you a softer answer, hoping to turn away wrath. That seems not to have worked, so unless you wish to calmly discuss some of the points I brought up in my immediately previous post, I’ll bid you adieu.