You really should read this link or at least skim it Before you allow George's new hero to debunk ANYTHING.
If you're Chistian, this guy is out to debunk YOU, as in literally...as in get rid of you.
Yeah Howard, Randi and all them damnable atheists are corn-spiring to get rid of all the Christians of the world! It's a *Illuminati Conspiracy* I tell ya!
--> (Ahh no, Randi isn't out to 'get' just Christians. He's out to 'get' anybody who propagates things supernatural or things psychic. He's an Equal Opportunity 'Getter'. :D-->)
Don't know very many atheists, do ya? No, I said know them. As in get beyond the Orthodox Approved dogma that portrays with a broad stroke atheists in such demeaning and derisive terms (Communists, Nazis, secular statists, immoral people who have no sense of decency, yadayada, ... you know the drill), and it's expected of their followers to accept such terms, period. ... And for _no better reason_ than that these infidels don't accept God. ... Period.
Don't believe me? Tell you what, chief. Next time you're up for a 2 week vacation, go to a town where nobody knows you, and I mean nobody. Better yet, make it a small town. Live there for about 2 weeks, get to meet the people, be nice and civilized and all (nicer than me, doncha know ;)-->), and when the topic of religion/what church you go to comes up, tell them that you're an atheist or that you don't believe in God, and that you see no reason why you should. Then 'sit back' as it were, and watch the results.
As that German soldier in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In would say, "It'll be v-e-r-r-y-y interestink!". Ie., You'll get the learning experience of your life that I'll be willing to bet will surpass even your L.E.A.D. experience, ... in spades!
I've heard once from a Dan Barker speech (you know Dan Barker? He's the preacher-turned-atheist, that infidel;)-->) that his dad once said "People talk about how hard it is to live as a Christian. Let them see how hard it is not being one." (ie., as an atheist) And pal, especially during Dubya's administration, I can easily see why this just might be the case.
Oh and as to your poor attempt at dismissing/misusage of the word 'theory' (which the evolutionary theory *is*), it is quite evident that neither you nor your Creationist pals have no idea what the scientific meaning and usage of that word really is; not when all you can think of it is is as a 'guess'. And as to all the skulls that some think are the same as human skulls, perhaps they didn't look closely enough at the structure of a good many of them, nor took into account the technology used in determining the age thereof. And no I'm not referring to the Carbon dating process, since that has been obsolete for many years now, having been replaced by newer and more accurate equipment. Jack Chick's anti-evolution track might have made headway back in the early 70's when he addressed that point (I remember reading it too), but it would be blown away now.
"The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Bull paddies! Religious beliefs involves things spiritual or of God, Christian or otherwise. Evolution doesn't deal with whether or not there is a god or whether he created the universe. Those points are irrelevent to evolution and to science in general. Oh, and as to how Bovine--err as to how Hovind addresses as to what is a religion? When once told that the reason why evolution isn't noticeable in its change to visual observation is that it takes a LONG period of time that evolution occurs over, Hovind came back with a brilliant reply of "So time is your God then."
????? What the **** does the answer about time have to do with time being a god or not? What kind of answer is that anyway? And this is the kind of guy you'd trust as having a more intelligent answer than evolutionists? (Remember now, this is the same guy who believes that there were dragons. :rolleyes) Please tell me you can do better than that, .... *please*!
Face it. The main reason why religious fundamentalists make such a row over evolution is that it runs a very serious risk of putting the whole Bible into question, and the faithful just cannot have that now, can they, ... *any* evidence be damned.
P.S,. and no, every verse of the Bible has NOT been 'proven' or 'validated'. Every verse of the Bible is 'believed' by those who believe such things. ... There is a difference, y'know.
...I found that link to Rutgers University on AiG in less than 30 seconds by going to AiG's questions & answer section and randomly choosing a topic I thought was interesting. If I'm to believe your guy, I must believe that Rutgers University is either not a university, nor are they reputable, nor are they devoted to scientific learning.
I don't think you even read the website you listed the URL to. He's obviously LYING about AiG, wheter you believe in God or not, or believe a single word AiG says; I don't think one should LIE about them.
Your guy's website also speaks of an "arch idiot Kent Hovind. If Hovind is such an idiot, why doesn't your guy take him down and collect the $250 THOUSand DOOLlars he offers "to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution."
If he doesn't wanna do it, tell your guy to give me a call & email his evidence to me. I'll go get the bucks.
You carried on for several paragraphs about that link being to a scientific site. I posted two sentences in rebuttal. You made a big deal about Hovind’s “offer.” I told you why it is bogus. And that amazes you? You seem to be easily amazed.
quote:
I was hoping people might also be intrigued by how much info AiG actually covers and read some of it.
Instead, rather than point out something positive, rather than discuss the topical stuff, you say, "That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not... Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer is bogus."
I responded to what you said. That, to me, seems topical. I have briefly looked at the AiG site, some time ago, only because someone mentioned it in a previous GS discussion. I also looked at Hovind’s site, and several others, about that time. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at “No Answers in Genesis.” I’m not interested in any of them. My only interest in the so-called “controversy” is that scientific education and investigation not be hampered by religion and that religion not be taught as science in public schools. There’s not much danger of the latter any more, but the former continues to be a problem.
Every evolution-phobic (“creationist”) work I’ve read misrepresents science and specifically misrepresents the theory of evolution. There’s really not much point in arguing about it here, but I will, on occasion, point out bogus claims. I might also, as I did earlier in this thread, note that not a single aspect of the theory of evolution is contrary to a belief in the Bible, though some see it (actually a gross distortion of it) as a threat to their particular beliefs about the Bible.
You carried on for several paragraphs about that link being to a scientific site. I posted two sentences in rebuttal.
Therefore, to the extent and in the proportion that your two sentences are shorter than my several paragraphs, you are that much smarter than me, right Long Gone?
The greatness of believeing there is no absolute truth is that you can absolutely say anything YOU think and then think that THAT, absolutely, is true.
Lord, HCW! Nobody said anything about anybody being smarter than anybody else. Among others, you made two points to which I chose to respond. Somehow or another, that amazed you.
Look, I don't care what you believe. I don't care what AiG and "No AiG" say. I clicked on a link you said was to a scientific site. It wasn't. I said so. I clicked on the link you provided to Hovind's offer. I briefly pointed out why the offer is bogus. I also happen to think, from a little investigation prompted by a previous GS discussion, that Hovind is a fraud. I said so. That's really all there was to it.
I'm not a believer, but I don't have a sour attitude about religion. I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm not anti-Bible. In fact, I'm rather fond of both of them. I don't believe them, in the sense that you do, but that's neither because of a lack of knowledge of the Bible, nor my knowledge of science. I could go through the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, and show that the notion of evolution does not contradict the Biblical doctrine of man's fall and the redemption of Christ, which is one of the major problems many fundamentalists have with it. Nor does it contradict any other Biblical doctrine. I studied that in great detail years ago, while I was still involved (though loosely) with TWI. I discussed it briefly on a thread on the old GS foruums.
I really don't feel like going through all that at this time. The only input I really want to offer here is that the AiG-like literature I've read gives a wrong understanding of science and and scientific theories, particularly the theory of evolution, and that the theory of evolution is completely compatible with Bible-based Christianity.
My point was that the guy who is behind the site that George posted as an alternative to the AiG is a lying jerk who really would like to get rid of Christianiry and anyone who believes the same.
Do ya REALLY think his POV is BALANCED and scientific?
Rutgers University IS:
1. a university
2. they have museums
3. devoted to scientific learning.
MY THEORY is that the link I posted above was a link to a 23 page ARTICLE that was posted on the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion. The article was certainly reputable. I think it was pretty scientific, so I think I'm right & YOU'RE wrong.
You came in and presented information you felt was EVIDENCE contrary to my theory. I feel my evidence proves me right and YOU wrong. Its MY theory and I'm sticking to it.
This is the point at which absolute truth would make a determination in this "discussion" of opposing viewpoints.
It is clear to me that some of you aren't really approaching this issue as a scientist would.
Whereas I may amaze easily, I don't insult easily. I simply threw some bait out while attempting to make a point.
I never once said I believed the "arch idiot Kent Hovind." I never said his $250K thing wasn't bogus. I simply pointed out that it exists in such a way the suggested that if the guy who felt he was "whatever" enough to take on AiG he could certainly take Hovind up on his offer and (forgive my TWI'ness) PREVAIL!!!
I even offered to go with him and split the bucks.
This is also the point at which I'll revert to my former identity as K.I.S.S.
If the shoe fits wear it, If you want. If it doesn't fit, don't cram it on... It DON'T fit!
You fell for the bait.
If I knew of an IDIOT who was offering $250 THOUSand DOOLLars in a BOGUS claim challenge thing. I'd CHALLENGE him....
He's a freakin' IDIOT, dammit! If HE's an IDIOT and YOU're smart enough to realize that, WHY aren't you smart enough to go get his f,freakin' MONEY!
If you can PROVE its bogus, as you SAY it is... AND he doesn't give you the bucks you can SUE him! Then he'll settle out of court for about 25% of the $250K!
IF he's an idiot, then "a FOOL and his money are soon parted." Go part him from some of it!
But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you.
So Garth I guess all that means you're NOT Christian?
From the fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint, ... no.
Valid things being found IN the Bible, well then yes.
So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?
"But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you. We wouldn't want to do THAT, now would we....???"
I believe that quite a number of us already went down that road, and for those of us who no longer do, I think we might have a valid reason why.
From the fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint, ...
That is what I call a package statement Garth. On the one hand, I'd say that POV is not Christian. Although it IS "Christian," or should I say CAN be Christian to belive that God exists.
I still don't know if you feel you are Christian...
There are valid things in the Dictionary, the daily newspaper, lots of book have valid things. Acknowledging "valid things" being found in the bible has little to nothing to do with determining wheter of not you're Christian.
I can't determine from your quote above if your no means:
No, I'm not a fundamentalist.
No, I don't believe in "It is Written"
No, I don't believe God exists.
I'm guessing you don't believe in "take it by faith brother."
Not sure what you meant by "bvecause of the aforementioned scriptures."
Or if the No was to "all of the above."
It sounds to me like you're saying "Yes and/or no, depending on what you meant by the above quote.
Sorry but that tells me nothing.
I find this question:
quote:
So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?
...a little on the insulting side.
Why? To me that statement carries as much of an assumption as a question. I feel it makes room the the assumption that I may be a "fundamentalist, "it is written," God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" believin' kinda guy and therefore for would summarily reject your viewpoint, just because its not mine.... and my fundamentalist "Christian" values require me to do so.
From my seat, there is insult woven in there because of the inherent lack of basic intelligence involved with summarily rejecting ANY viewpoint.
In other words, it looks to me like you MAY be calling me stupid, or at least illogical because, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
Cellular "death" and the whole person or animal dying MUST be two different things, else when one cell died the whole person would die.
If your're gonna be logical...??
Cellular death thas nothing to do with sin. Also, whatever LIFE actually is inhabits the entire being, not just the cells. Nobody would argue that when a body dies the cells remain, otherwise we'd disappear when we die.
Well, I suppose if Doc can have his different forms of life (growth life, soul life, spiritual life), then you can have your forms of different death (cellular death, soul death, spiritual death. All you gotta do now is explain what kind of death you think came with sin. I think Doc would opt for spiritual life,no?
1) The reason I didn't give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your oversimplified question was because what I believe in this area isn't something that can be packaged into an oversimplified answer. (This is one of those things where the Keep It Simple Stupid ((cough)) 'principle' just does not apply. Sorry) I gave a more detailed and clarified answer as relating to your question as to what characteristics of 'being a Christian' I do or do not identify with. And as to how many of those characteristics fit you (in relation to your point as me 'assuming' that you are these things) you are going to have to determine that for yourself. I mean, why don't you try out your own advice of 'if the shoe fits, wear it', hmmm?
2) My question of "So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?" is based on previous experiences, both by yours truly and by other atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, etc, experiences where once it is known that someone is an atheist, skeptic, freethinker, etc., Bible believing and related religious people often tune them out as having nothing valid to say in that matter of religious discussion, for the very reason that they are atheist, etc., etc. And then again, maybe the question needn't be asked.
However, having read your posts, you do seem to embrace a POV at least closely relating to the "fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" standpoint. I mean, that was what was largely taught in PFAL, right? And from what I've seen of your view, rejection of PFAL isn't part of the package. Assumption? No, merely an observation based on your previous posts.
Be careful about what assumptions _you_ might draw, hmmm?
quote:
In other words, it looks to me like you MAY be calling me stupid, or at least illogical because, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
So are you saying that blind faith is a basis for your conclusions? Just curious. <--- note the question, rather than an assumption. ... And no, I didn't call you stupid. Again, remember about the size of the aforementioned shoe. ;)-->
Overall, nice try, but no ringer for you. Try aiming better next time.
Theory: ...a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, pg. 1200 usage #5a.
5b. is an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE.
I know what a theory is Long Gone. I know what a claim is. I know what MY intent is by what I type and I also know that YOU don't know WHAT I'M doing. I know enough about law to know that Hovind's attorneys approved his challenge as air tight before he posted it.
I also know enough about law to know how he PROBABLY "financed" it, in a similar way as do state lotteries, as an insurance claim against the alternative proof that he has worded as carefully as Bill Clinton's,
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Its all in how one defines it.
I define what I said as MY theory. YOU define it as a "claim."
You define Hovind's challenge as bogus, then TELL me I said it was fraud. I didn't define it all I pointed it out. When did I say it was fraud? Oh, when YOU said I said it when YOU were saying I was wrong about saying it.
I define what I wrote as I threw out some "bait" & you fell for it. YOU define what I did as didn't throw it out. THEREFORE if nothing was thrown (that YOU didn't throw) then YOU couldn't have fallen for it. (Sure to include "nobody" so as to subliminally NOT include ANYBODY else. Or maybe you DID subliminally include EVERYBODY else in YOUR nobody...???)
You define what I KNOW in MY brain about science as LITTLE, then you include my knowledge of law as LITTLE. Because YOU say that my TOTAL knowledge of at least these two things, law and science, is APPARENT to you.
Gee. All that started because I posted a couple of links about stuff YOU don't agree with.
YOU seem to think you're dialoging with me. Ok, if YOUR definition of dialog begins and ends with YOU telling the other party what THEY think and know.
You see Long Gone, I'm pointing out what YOU did here, in this "dialog."
"Apparently" YOUR definition of theory is limited to Webster's #4. "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
I guess since I haven't applied to the "science god's" to have my above mentioned theory (that I declared to be as it is, same as YOU declared MY knowledge to be as YOU say it is) accepted by "the scientific community;" I CAN'T say its a theory.... Because YOU say I don't know what a theory IS.
Hey, that's not FAIR! How come YOU get to declare anything YOU want, but I CAN'T.
Its MY theory and I'M stickin' to it!
Apparently YOU fall into the category of GS poster who resorts to insults when somebody says something you don't like; and when insults fail, you "take you ball & go home."
You insinuate whatever you wish and get upset because you missed my point. :P-->
Oh, Ok, You're not upset. I almost forgot.
My FURTHER point is that YOU don't maintain ownership over anything beyond YOURSELF. YOU cannot tell me what I know or what MY intent was. YOU cannot DECLARE something bogus, just because you don't like the position of the author, then speak out about how you know how legally precise it is, when challenged to make move according to YOUR declaration. Disagree, sure. Call me a liar even but don't be such a FOOL (Biblical definition, not necessarily Webster's) that you pretend to know what I know.
I'll just ask you something like, "Hey can you add a foot to your height by whatyou think too?"
BTW. Your position:
quote:
I could go through the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, and show that the notion of evolution does not contradict the Biblical doctrine of man's fall and the redemption of Christ , which is one of the major problems many fundamentalists have with it. Nor does it contradict any other Biblical doctrine.
YES it DOES. First of all; man's fall is NOT a Biblical doctrine (maybe YOU don't know the difference...) it is a simple historical FACT.
Second; if man evolved from "lower" forms into his current evolutionary position, there would be NO ADAM of Genesis. The BIBLE clearly states that there was ONE man, whom God took his rib to make the first woman and THEY were the mother and father of human life as we know it. There was also at least one other form of man, "giants" who resulted from the "sons of God"
mating with women, "daughters of men."
No FIRST Adam, no fall of mankind, no fall, no seed of the woman. No seed of the woman, no CHRIST, therefore NO Christianity, because, historically speaking, "They were first called Christ-in's at Antioc."
That may be a little disturbing to people who believe Christ to be, the messiah, the savior of a race of humans, who were born dead because of his direct predecessor's "sin."
Also. Where is GOD if man evolved from "apes?" What is the creation story? Prose? What of the recently accepted, as scientific fact, that all mankind is genetically connected to ONE woman said to have lived, "coincidentally," about 6000 years ago?
There is a natural end in any belief system. Things ultimately ARE what they are and we cannot change what they are simply by what WE say or think. The natural end of what I know of man's supposed evolutionary cycle from one celled organism to the complex homosapiens of today rules the God of the Bible completely out of the picture.
The never ending argument is that the NATURE of the two positions CAN'T mesh. The people on both sides won't agree. Evolution completely wipes out the siritual aspect of life. Man becomes the highest life form on the planet and each man becomes his own god and "master" of his "universe." Then people start thinking they, in themselves, retain the knowledge of good and evil and they can know what other people think and know.
I AM a believer. I DO have a "sour attitude" about religion, I really don't like all of the crap people dream up & say this is God's Word. I am not ANTI anything though; I believe man cannot function well, mentally, when he is in an "anti" position. I believe the Bible is the revealed Word of God. From what I've read in the Bible, it IS science. It IS history, it IS infallable and perfect in its perfection.
"Take it by faith" is a man-made religious concept. The only thing God says mankind can't see about Him is His face, personally. He only asks us to believe what others of mankind HAVE seen when we read what HE told them to write about it. He, God, sees mankind as ONE, man-kind, therefore if YOU saw something, I SHOULD be able to believe YOU when you say what you saw. Problem comes in when we LIE about what we saw or know.
Science tells us that man is not evolving, he is deteriorating.
Lastly. I know, since I've experienced it myself, that TWI had a LOT of viewpoints on the Bible that were entirely false. I do NOT subscribe to ANY of them. Most notably in this case that "mankind" lived before Adam. I also no longer believe their version of "The Gap Theory."
When I was involved w/ TWI I could never find ONE bit of scriptural evidence that supported that the earth, which had already been created and inhabited with animals and lower forms of man became "tahoo va bahoo" - - without form and void.
If you want to actually BE Long Gone, that's your privilege, of course.
Well, I suppose if Doc can have his different forms of life (growth life, soul life, spiritual life), then you can have your forms of different death (cellular death, soul death, spiritual death. All you gotta do now is explain what kind of death you think came with sin. I think Doc would opt for spiritual life,no?
I'm not coming up with anything. My pov is that we can read the Bible. Vp was right about some things wrong about others. Even when I was with TWI, I only believed what VP said if I found what he said in the Bible. Of Course I wasn't as good at that as I thought at the time.
Mostly, I think because he did a better job at indoctrinating us in what HE believed than we did at resisting. Nowadays I challenge EVERYTHING he taught and feel that "Any similarity between my current Bible beliefs and TWI's positions is purely coincidental.
I DO believe that when Adam ate, as God instructed him not to, he died.
Actually, more intriguing to me these days that the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is the tree of life. What was that?
The greatness of believeing there is no absolute truth is that you can absolutely say anything YOU think and then think that THAT, absolutely, is true.
Absolutely... (throw in Sly Stallone accent).
Sorry HCW, that makes absolutely no sense at all, Stallone accent or not.
The thing about absolute truth is there is absolutely no way of prooving it. Actually there are very few things that can be. Which is why the most logical way to go, IMO, is agnosticism. We just don't know enough to know much of anything to absolute certainty.
One thing many people get wrong about science is that it doesn't prove truth. It doesn't prove anything. It is a cycle of Observation- Hypotheses- Predictions- Experiments- Observation...
The hypothesis should be tested repeatedly to see the outcomes are consistent. If they are not the hypothesis gets modified and so on. If it is consistent over time then it becomes a theory- not truth, but theory. If the theory is consistent long enough to be widely accepted, it becomes a law, not truth, but a law. Does not make it truth, but consistent and widely accepted.
The problem with even calling creation a theory in the scientific sense or comparing it to scientific theories is that you can't even get to the testing, experimenting stage. We just jump straight to theory. Yes we have wide acceptance but we have no experimenting and no consistentcy. What we have is a hypothesis of creation. You don't ever hear that do you. Just calling it theory is giving it more credence than it deserves. Who's lieing now?
Overall, nice try, but no ringer for you. Try aiming better next time.
That's what I'm talkin' about Garth. I just wasn't sure what YOU meant by what you said.
I can get with your feeling that its not a simple answer thing. I can get with your experiences, as they ARE YOURS. I have similar ones & can understand yours to an extent; as they relate to mine. Where the experiences are divergent; my understanding of YOUR experiences diminshes.
I do believe it is unintelligent to summarily dismiss any point of view without hearing it. I believe God is big enough, and loves us enough to accept us as we are. I believe TWI's gestapo like position on "rightly dividing the word of truth" went WAY overboard an anyone who subscribes to that type of position "doesn't get it" as far as "true" Christianity is concerned.
quote:
I gave a more detailed and clarified answer as relating to your question as to what characteristics of 'being a Christian' I do or do not identify with.
I can get with that.
quote:
And as to how many of those characteristics fit you (in relation to your point as me 'assuming' that you are these things) you are going to have to determine that for yourself. I mean, why don't you try out your own advice of 'if the shoe fits, wear it', hmmm?
I simply didn't couldn't tell WHY, or THAT you were relating characteristics you do or don't identify with. MY life experiences include, when people do that they MAY be referring to whom they are speaking to ALSO, as in "these are things YOU believe that I may or may not identify with.
Asked and answered Garth I had a qualifier in my remarks that I though would indicate that "I'm simply looking at the shoe." I'm barefoot.
quote:
Bible believing and related religious people often tune them out as having nothing valid to say in that matter of religious discussion, for the very reason that they are atheist, etc., etc.
I've come to believe that "Bible believing people" who act like that really AREN'T Bible believing people. My experiences, pre- - during - - and post TWI, are that the list of people you mentioned usually are MORE knowledgable of the Bible and certainly have more common sense and usually are more intelligent than MOST Christians. Frankly I'd rather discuss Bible matters with a free-thinking atheist than a "christian" any day of the week.
A LOT of christians make me sick to my stomach.
My POV is that I believe that God has always existed and the Bible is true. I don't believe you have to take the Bible on faith. I do believe that If one is to receive anything from God he must first believe that He is and that He is a rewarder to them who diligently seek Him.
I haven't overtly rejected PFAL in my posts because I treat EVERYTHING with a "prove all things hold fast to the good attitude." PFAL is part of ALL things.
I believe that most of the rejection of PFAL is people speaking out of their pain. Nothing is unclean of itself. VP is one of many, many teachers who've taught me stuff. I don't revere him any more than any other person who gave of their time and life to try and teach me something. However, I've come to resent him a lot more than anyone who falls in that category.
Its a short list of teachers that I resent. I can't think of any who are not part of TWI. MY M.O. is that I don't give any of my time to people or things I don't like. In my book, If I'm arguing with you its because I have some respect for you.
NO. Blind faith has nothing to do with any conclusion I make. In recent years I've taken on "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20 as a sort of mantra.
I read the Bible with a totally different POV than I used to. In TWI we read so many things INTO the Bible when we read it we were not actually READing it.
I no longer believe in the entire concept of "blind faith." I believe the whole "doubting Thomas" thing is religious rhetoric designed to put people into bondage and suck money out of people's wallets.
I believe it indoctrinates people into being comfortable with things happening that they can't see, so much so that they STOP LOOKING for things they SHOULD see. I believe than in the record known as "Doubting Thomas" Jesus problem with Thomas was not with him wanting to see for himself, but that he couldn't believe people who were not lying to him.
Later on in the NT God says that believers SHOULDN'T just take what they were taught on "blind faith," but that they SHOULD SEARCH the scriptures EVERY DAY at to whether the things they were taught fit with what the scriptures said.
JC said to Thomas, You believe because you see me, The time is coming when people will be blessed who can't see me then. He wasn't saying "You screwed up cause you can't take in by blind faith brother."
I never said I think you ARE calling me stupid, I said I think it could, or might be woven into what you're saying.... so I asked,
Overall I wasn't aiming at you. I don't have a problem with you Garth. I thought you knew that.
One other thing I wanted to point out is that science is not one scientist or a group of scientists. Just because someone or a number of scientists get hung up on something and fall prey to the human nature of assumption doesn't mean science is totally flawed or even the theory they were hung up on is flawed. In the instance that JB brought up about the study of the human gene gnome, the fact that one woman decided to look into these previously ignored layers is to the credit of science.
Gee. All that started because I posted a couple of links about stuff YOU don't agree with.
Nope. I merely pointed out that the first link was not what you claimed it to be and that the second was to a bogus offer. Other than to briefly and calmly clarify a couple of terms that you seem not to understand, note that the theory of evolution is compatible with Bible-based Christian belief, and clarify my interest in the topic, I have said little. You, on the other hand, have carried on rather excitedly about all sorts of things, many of which are hardly related, if at all, to anything I said.
quote:
Second; if man evolved from "lower" forms into his current evolutionary position, there would be NO ADAM of Genesis.
There easily could be. If this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain.
quote:
The BIBLE clearly states that there was ONE man, whom God took his rib to make the first woman and THEY were the mother and father of human life as we know it. There was also at least one other form of man, "giants" who resulted from the "sons of God" mating with women, "daughters of men."
This is not incompatible with the theory of evolution. Again, if this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain.
quote:
No FIRST Adam, no fall of mankind, no fall, no seed of the woman. No seed of the woman, no CHRIST
Not one of those is excluded by the theory of evolution.
quote:
That may be a little disturbing to people who believe Christ to be, the messiah, the savior of a race of humans, who were born dead because of his direct predecessor's "sin."
It might be, yet there are plenty of people who believe in Christ, who also accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation of observed evidence and most reliable predictor of outcomes addressed by the theory. And again, the fall of man and redemption of Christ are just as possible within the framework of evolution as without.
quote:
What is the creation story? Prose?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with its truth, but rather its literary form.
quote:
What of the recently accepted, as scientific fact, that all mankind is genetically connected to ONE woman said to have lived, "coincidentally," about 6000 years ago?
Accepted by whom, on the basis of what evidence? If accepted as “fact,” that suggests to me that the person(s) accepting are not very scientific. The last I read, the evidence suggested somewhere between about 50,000 years and 150,000 years. Even if it is less, that doesn’t invalidate the theory of evolution.
quote:
The natural end of what I know of man's supposed evolutionary cycle from one celled organism to the complex homosapiens of today rules the God of the Bible completely out of the picture.
If what you know of science is what you’ve read or heard from Christian Fundamentalist sources, then your knowledge is lacking. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that rules out the God of the Bible.
quote:
The never ending argument is that the NATURE of the two positions CAN'T mesh.
The ones putting forth that argument are a minority of Christians. Most Christians, most scientists, most people who understand science, and even most atheists would disagree.
quote:
Evolution completely wipes out the s[p]iritual aspect of life.
Hardly.
quote:
I believe the Bible is the revealed Word of God.
That’s fine. Assuming that, do you really think the Bible says in just a few paragraphs exactly how God brought everything into being? Or is it possible that God chose to merely give the “gist” of it to people who wouldn’t have understood a more detailed version anyway?
quote:
Science tells us that man is not evolving, he is deteriorating.
Really? Got any references for that?
quote:
When I was involved w/ TWI I could never find ONE bit of scriptural evidence that supported that the earth, which had already been created and inhabited with animals and lower forms of man became "tahoo va bahoo" - - without form and void.
I don’t either, but that is not necessary, in order for the Bible to be true and the theory of evolution to be valid.
quote:
If you want to actually BE Long Gone, that's your privilege, of course.
”Long Gone” means long gone from TWI. I’m getting tired of the handle, but what I call myself is completely irrelevant.
quote:
Bogus and fraud are synonyms.
Not really, and especially not as I used them. I said Hovind’s offer was bogus, for the reasons I stated. In your response, you said, “We can sue him for fraud.” That’s why I pointed out that his offer was not fraud. He, on the other hand, is a fraud, a person who is not what he pretends to be. However, his being a fraud is not grounds to sue him for fraud.
My eight year old son brought home a book that showed different animal life and how they defend themselves.
- Some have colors that blend in with leaves
- some can look dead
- some blow up so big that they can't be swallowed
- etc
the variety is astounding!
My question as I was looking at this was, "If there was not death before the fall why do these animals' markings, habits and instincts belie a relationship of predator and prey?"
I DO believe that when Adam ate, as God instructed him not to, he died.
But the fact that he didn't drop dead on the spot, seems to imply that the kind of death refered to isn't what we commonly think of as physical death. That would solve a lot of the confusion as to how carnivores could have survived before the fall and how other forms of death could have been present before Adam sinned.
But the fact that he didn't drop dead on the spot, seems to imply that the kind of death refered to isn't what we commonly think of as physical death. That would solve a lot of the confusion as to how carnivores could have survived before the fall and how other forms of death could have been present before Adam sinned.
There were at least two aspects to the fall of man. Death and "the curse."
The common belief is that, with God being Spirit, the death He was referring to in Genesis was spirit, eternal life spirit. The new birth that we can receive due to Christ, the second Adam's redemption of mankind is life, spiritual life, eternal life spirit.
It make perfect sense that mankind would have lived eternally in his first earthly body, seeing as after all is said and done we will all live eternally in new uncorrupted bodies in what is referred as the new earth.
Its all there in the Bible, when one looks at the entire subject as it weaves through it.
Animals and animal life are in a different category.
Genesis orininally speaks of man having animals to eat AFTER the fall. It doesn't speak to animals eating each other.
God was speaking specifically to man about man when he spoke of sin entering into the world and death by sin. Animals were effected as part of the curse. I'm pretty darn sure that there was nothing about Adam's sin that made an animal hungry, like on the 8th day.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
39
27
33
Popular Days
Apr 11
31
Apr 8
24
Apr 9
19
Apr 13
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 22 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
LG 27 posts
HCW 33 posts
Popular Days
Apr 11 2005
31 posts
Apr 8 2005
24 posts
Apr 9 2005
19 posts
Apr 13 2005
18 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I AGREE MAKE THE POPE A SAINT~~~ after all he's dead and millions think he is still alive
~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yeah Howard, Randi and all them damnable atheists are corn-spiring to get rid of all the Christians of the world! It's a *Illuminati Conspiracy* I tell ya!
Don't know very many atheists, do ya? No, I said know them. As in get beyond the Orthodox Approved dogma that portrays with a broad stroke atheists in such demeaning and derisive terms (Communists, Nazis, secular statists, immoral people who have no sense of decency, yadayada, ... you know the drill), and it's expected of their followers to accept such terms, period. ... And for _no better reason_ than that these infidels don't accept God. ... Period.
Don't believe me? Tell you what, chief. Next time you're up for a 2 week vacation, go to a town where nobody knows you, and I mean nobody. Better yet, make it a small town. Live there for about 2 weeks, get to meet the people, be nice and civilized and all (nicer than me, doncha know
;)-->), and when the topic of religion/what church you go to comes up, tell them that you're an atheist or that you don't believe in God, and that you see no reason why you should. Then 'sit back' as it were, and watch the results.
As that German soldier in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In would say, "It'll be v-e-r-r-y-y interestink!". Ie., You'll get the learning experience of your life that I'll be willing to bet will surpass even your L.E.A.D. experience, ... in spades!
I've heard once from a Dan Barker speech (you know Dan Barker? He's the preacher-turned-atheist, that infidel
;)-->) that his dad once said "People talk about how hard it is to live as a Christian. Let them see how hard it is not being one." (ie., as an atheist) And pal, especially during Dubya's administration, I can easily see why this just might be the case.
Oh and as to your poor attempt at dismissing/misusage of the word 'theory' (which the evolutionary theory *is*), it is quite evident that neither you nor your Creationist pals have no idea what the scientific meaning and usage of that word really is; not when all you can think of it is is as a 'guess'. And as to all the skulls that some think are the same as human skulls, perhaps they didn't look closely enough at the structure of a good many of them, nor took into account the technology used in determining the age thereof. And no I'm not referring to the Carbon dating process, since that has been obsolete for many years now, having been replaced by newer and more accurate equipment. Jack Chick's anti-evolution track might have made headway back in the early 70's when he addressed that point (I remember reading it too), but it would be blown away now.
"The hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Bull paddies! Religious beliefs involves things spiritual or of God, Christian or otherwise. Evolution doesn't deal with whether or not there is a god or whether he created the universe. Those points are irrelevent to evolution and to science in general. Oh, and as to how Bovine--err as to how Hovind addresses as to what is a religion? When once told that the reason why evolution isn't noticeable in its change to visual observation is that it takes a LONG period of time that evolution occurs over, Hovind came back with a brilliant reply of "So time is your God then."
????? What the **** does the answer about time have to do with time being a god or not? What kind of answer is that anyway? And this is the kind of guy you'd trust as having a more intelligent answer than evolutionists? (Remember now, this is the same guy who believes that there were dragons. :rolleyes) Please tell me you can do better than that, .... *please*!
Face it. The main reason why religious fundamentalists make such a row over evolution is that it runs a very serious risk of putting the whole Bible into question, and the faithful just cannot have that now, can they, ... *any* evidence be damned.
P.S,. and no, every verse of the Bible has NOT been 'proven' or 'validated'. Every verse of the Bible is 'believed' by those who believe such things. ... There is a difference, y'know.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Well said HCW.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
HCW,
You carried on for several paragraphs about that link being to a scientific site. I posted two sentences in rebuttal. You made a big deal about Hovind’s “offer.” I told you why it is bogus. And that amazes you? You seem to be easily amazed.
I responded to what you said. That, to me, seems topical. I have briefly looked at the AiG site, some time ago, only because someone mentioned it in a previous GS discussion. I also looked at Hovind’s site, and several others, about that time. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at “No Answers in Genesis.” I’m not interested in any of them. My only interest in the so-called “controversy” is that scientific education and investigation not be hampered by religion and that religion not be taught as science in public schools. There’s not much danger of the latter any more, but the former continues to be a problem.Every evolution-phobic (“creationist”) work I’ve read misrepresents science and specifically misrepresents the theory of evolution. There’s really not much point in arguing about it here, but I will, on occasion, point out bogus claims. I might also, as I did earlier in this thread, note that not a single aspect of the theory of evolution is contrary to a belief in the Bible, though some see it (actually a gross distortion of it) as a threat to their particular beliefs about the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
So Garth I guess all that means you're NOT Christian?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Thanks Jerry.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Therefore, to the extent and in the proportion that your two sentences are shorter than my several paragraphs, you are that much smarter than me, right Long Gone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Or maybe you missed my point completely?
The greatness of believeing there is no absolute truth is that you can absolutely say anything YOU think and then think that THAT, absolutely, is true.
Absolutely... (throw in Sly Stallone accent).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Lord, HCW! Nobody said anything about anybody being smarter than anybody else. Among others, you made two points to which I chose to respond. Somehow or another, that amazed you.
Look, I don't care what you believe. I don't care what AiG and "No AiG" say. I clicked on a link you said was to a scientific site. It wasn't. I said so. I clicked on the link you provided to Hovind's offer. I briefly pointed out why the offer is bogus. I also happen to think, from a little investigation prompted by a previous GS discussion, that Hovind is a fraud. I said so. That's really all there was to it.
I'm not a believer, but I don't have a sour attitude about religion. I'm not anti-Christianity. I'm not anti-Bible. In fact, I'm rather fond of both of them. I don't believe them, in the sense that you do, but that's neither because of a lack of knowledge of the Bible, nor my knowledge of science. I could go through the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, and show that the notion of evolution does not contradict the Biblical doctrine of man's fall and the redemption of Christ, which is one of the major problems many fundamentalists have with it. Nor does it contradict any other Biblical doctrine. I studied that in great detail years ago, while I was still involved (though loosely) with TWI. I discussed it briefly on a thread on the old GS foruums.
I really don't feel like going through all that at this time. The only input I really want to offer here is that the AiG-like literature I've read gives a wrong understanding of science and and scientific theories, particularly the theory of evolution, and that the theory of evolution is completely compatible with Bible-based Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Gee wiz Long Gone!
My point was that the guy who is behind the site that George posted as an alternative to the AiG is a lying jerk who really would like to get rid of Christianiry and anyone who believes the same.
Do ya REALLY think his POV is BALANCED and scientific?
Rutgers University IS:
1. a university
2. they have museums
3. devoted to scientific learning.
MY THEORY is that the link I posted above was a link to a 23 page ARTICLE that was posted on the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion. The article was certainly reputable. I think it was pretty scientific, so I think I'm right & YOU'RE wrong.
You came in and presented information you felt was EVIDENCE contrary to my theory. I feel my evidence proves me right and YOU wrong. Its MY theory and I'm sticking to it.
This is the point at which absolute truth would make a determination in this "discussion" of opposing viewpoints.
It is clear to me that some of you aren't really approaching this issue as a scientist would.
Whereas I may amaze easily, I don't insult easily. I simply threw some bait out while attempting to make a point.
I never once said I believed the "arch idiot Kent Hovind." I never said his $250K thing wasn't bogus. I simply pointed out that it exists in such a way the suggested that if the guy who felt he was "whatever" enough to take on AiG he could certainly take Hovind up on his offer and (forgive my TWI'ness) PREVAIL!!!
I even offered to go with him and split the bucks.
This is also the point at which I'll revert to my former identity as K.I.S.S.
If the shoe fits wear it, If you want. If it doesn't fit, don't cram it on... It DON'T fit!
You fell for the bait.
If I knew of an IDIOT who was offering $250 THOUSand DOOLLars in a BOGUS claim challenge thing. I'd CHALLENGE him....
He's a freakin' IDIOT, dammit! If HE's an IDIOT and YOU're smart enough to realize that, WHY aren't you smart enough to go get his f,freakin' MONEY!
If you can PROVE its bogus, as you SAY it is... AND he doesn't give you the bucks you can SUE him! Then he'll settle out of court for about 25% of the $250K!
IF he's an idiot, then "a FOOL and his money are soon parted." Go part him from some of it!
But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you.
We wouldn't want to do THAT, now would we....???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
From the fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint, ... no.
Valid things being found IN the Bible, well then yes.
So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?
"But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you. We wouldn't want to do THAT, now would we....???"
I believe that quite a number of us already went down that road, and for those of us who no longer do, I think we might have a valid reason why.
Shoes come in different sizes. As do feet.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
HCW,
You didn't post a theory. You posted a claim. They're not the same thing.
Nobody "fell for the bait" that you didn't throw out.
You apparently know as little about law as you do about science. Hovind's offer is not fraud. It's bogus in exactly the sense I said it was.
My interest is as stated in my previous post. There is no point in continuing a dialogue with you on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
That is what I call a package statement Garth. On the one hand, I'd say that POV is not Christian. Although it IS "Christian," or should I say CAN be Christian to belive that God exists.
I still don't know if you feel you are Christian...
There are valid things in the Dictionary, the daily newspaper, lots of book have valid things. Acknowledging "valid things" being found in the bible has little to nothing to do with determining wheter of not you're Christian.
I can't determine from your quote above if your no means:
No, I'm not a fundamentalist.
No, I don't believe in "It is Written"
No, I don't believe God exists.
I'm guessing you don't believe in "take it by faith brother."
Not sure what you meant by "bvecause of the aforementioned scriptures."
Or if the No was to "all of the above."
It sounds to me like you're saying "Yes and/or no, depending on what you meant by the above quote.
Sorry but that tells me nothing.
I find this question:
...a little on the insulting side.Why? To me that statement carries as much of an assumption as a question. I feel it makes room the the assumption that I may be a "fundamentalist, "it is written," God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" believin' kinda guy and therefore for would summarily reject your viewpoint, just because its not mine.... and my fundamentalist "Christian" values require me to do so.
From my seat, there is insult woven in there because of the inherent lack of basic intelligence involved with summarily rejecting ANY viewpoint.
In other words, it looks to me like you MAY be calling me stupid, or at least illogical because, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Well, I suppose if Doc can have his different forms of life (growth life, soul life, spiritual life), then you can have your forms of different death (cellular death, soul death, spiritual death. All you gotta do now is explain what kind of death you think came with sin. I think Doc would opt for spiritual life,no?
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Howard,
1) The reason I didn't give a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to your oversimplified question was because what I believe in this area isn't something that can be packaged into an oversimplified answer. (This is one of those things where the Keep It Simple Stupid ((cough)) 'principle' just does not apply. Sorry) I gave a more detailed and clarified answer as relating to your question as to what characteristics of 'being a Christian' I do or do not identify with. And as to how many of those characteristics fit you (in relation to your point as me 'assuming' that you are these things) you are going to have to determine that for yourself. I mean, why don't you try out your own advice of 'if the shoe fits, wear it', hmmm?
2) My question of "So now does that mean anything I say about the topic is now null and void?" is based on previous experiences, both by yours truly and by other atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, etc, experiences where once it is known that someone is an atheist, skeptic, freethinker, etc., Bible believing and related religious people often tune them out as having nothing valid to say in that matter of religious discussion, for the very reason that they are atheist, etc., etc. And then again, maybe the question needn't be asked.
However, having read your posts, you do seem to embrace a POV at least closely relating to the "fundamentalist, "It is written", God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" standpoint. I mean, that was what was largely taught in PFAL, right? And from what I've seen of your view, rejection of PFAL isn't part of the package. Assumption? No, merely an observation based on your previous posts.
Be careful about what assumptions _you_ might draw, hmmm?
So are you saying that blind faith is a basis for your conclusions? Just curious. <--- note the question, rather than an assumption. ... And no, I didn't call you stupid. Again, remember about the size of the aforementioned shoe.
;)-->
Overall, nice try, but no ringer for you. Try aiming better next time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Theory: ...a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, pg. 1200 usage #5a.
5b. is an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE.
I know what a theory is Long Gone. I know what a claim is. I know what MY intent is by what I type and I also know that YOU don't know WHAT I'M doing. I know enough about law to know that Hovind's attorneys approved his challenge as air tight before he posted it.
I also know enough about law to know how he PROBABLY "financed" it, in a similar way as do state lotteries, as an insurance claim against the alternative proof that he has worded as carefully as Bill Clinton's,
"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Its all in how one defines it.
I define what I said as MY theory. YOU define it as a "claim."
You define Hovind's challenge as bogus, then TELL me I said it was fraud. I didn't define it all I pointed it out. When did I say it was fraud? Oh, when YOU said I said it when YOU were saying I was wrong about saying it.
I define what I wrote as I threw out some "bait" & you fell for it. YOU define what I did as didn't throw it out. THEREFORE if nothing was thrown (that YOU didn't throw) then YOU couldn't have fallen for it. (Sure to include "nobody" so as to subliminally NOT include ANYBODY else. Or maybe you DID subliminally include EVERYBODY else in YOUR nobody...???)
You define what I KNOW in MY brain about science as LITTLE, then you include my knowledge of law as LITTLE. Because YOU say that my TOTAL knowledge of at least these two things, law and science, is APPARENT to you.
Gee. All that started because I posted a couple of links about stuff YOU don't agree with.
YOU seem to think you're dialoging with me. Ok, if YOUR definition of dialog begins and ends with YOU telling the other party what THEY think and know.
You see Long Gone, I'm pointing out what YOU did here, in this "dialog."
"Apparently" YOUR definition of theory is limited to Webster's #4. "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
I guess since I haven't applied to the "science god's" to have my above mentioned theory (that I declared to be as it is, same as YOU declared MY knowledge to be as YOU say it is) accepted by "the scientific community;" I CAN'T say its a theory.... Because YOU say I don't know what a theory IS.
Hey, that's not FAIR! How come YOU get to declare anything YOU want, but I CAN'T.
Its MY theory and I'M stickin' to it!
Apparently YOU fall into the category of GS poster who resorts to insults when somebody says something you don't like; and when insults fail, you "take you ball & go home."
You insinuate whatever you wish and get upset because you missed my point.
:P-->
Oh, Ok, You're not upset. I almost forgot.
My FURTHER point is that YOU don't maintain ownership over anything beyond YOURSELF. YOU cannot tell me what I know or what MY intent was. YOU cannot DECLARE something bogus, just because you don't like the position of the author, then speak out about how you know how legally precise it is, when challenged to make move according to YOUR declaration. Disagree, sure. Call me a liar even but don't be such a FOOL (Biblical definition, not necessarily Webster's) that you pretend to know what I know.
I'll just ask you something like, "Hey can you add a foot to your height by whatyou think too?"
BTW. Your position:
YES it DOES. First of all; man's fall is NOT a Biblical doctrine (maybe YOU don't know the difference...) it is a simple historical FACT.
Second; if man evolved from "lower" forms into his current evolutionary position, there would be NO ADAM of Genesis. The BIBLE clearly states that there was ONE man, whom God took his rib to make the first woman and THEY were the mother and father of human life as we know it. There was also at least one other form of man, "giants" who resulted from the "sons of God"
mating with women, "daughters of men."
No FIRST Adam, no fall of mankind, no fall, no seed of the woman. No seed of the woman, no CHRIST, therefore NO Christianity, because, historically speaking, "They were first called Christ-in's at Antioc."
That may be a little disturbing to people who believe Christ to be, the messiah, the savior of a race of humans, who were born dead because of his direct predecessor's "sin."
Also. Where is GOD if man evolved from "apes?" What is the creation story? Prose? What of the recently accepted, as scientific fact, that all mankind is genetically connected to ONE woman said to have lived, "coincidentally," about 6000 years ago?
There is a natural end in any belief system. Things ultimately ARE what they are and we cannot change what they are simply by what WE say or think. The natural end of what I know of man's supposed evolutionary cycle from one celled organism to the complex homosapiens of today rules the God of the Bible completely out of the picture.
The never ending argument is that the NATURE of the two positions CAN'T mesh. The people on both sides won't agree. Evolution completely wipes out the siritual aspect of life. Man becomes the highest life form on the planet and each man becomes his own god and "master" of his "universe." Then people start thinking they, in themselves, retain the knowledge of good and evil and they can know what other people think and know.
I AM a believer. I DO have a "sour attitude" about religion, I really don't like all of the crap people dream up & say this is God's Word. I am not ANTI anything though; I believe man cannot function well, mentally, when he is in an "anti" position. I believe the Bible is the revealed Word of God. From what I've read in the Bible, it IS science. It IS history, it IS infallable and perfect in its perfection.
"Take it by faith" is a man-made religious concept. The only thing God says mankind can't see about Him is His face, personally. He only asks us to believe what others of mankind HAVE seen when we read what HE told them to write about it. He, God, sees mankind as ONE, man-kind, therefore if YOU saw something, I SHOULD be able to believe YOU when you say what you saw. Problem comes in when we LIE about what we saw or know.
Science tells us that man is not evolving, he is deteriorating.
Lastly. I know, since I've experienced it myself, that TWI had a LOT of viewpoints on the Bible that were entirely false. I do NOT subscribe to ANY of them. Most notably in this case that "mankind" lived before Adam. I also no longer believe their version of "The Gap Theory."
When I was involved w/ TWI I could never find ONE bit of scriptural evidence that supported that the earth, which had already been created and inhabited with animals and lower forms of man became "tahoo va bahoo" - - without form and void.
If you want to actually BE Long Gone, that's your privilege, of course.
Bogus and fraud are synonyms.
Edited by hcwalker58Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I'm not coming up with anything. My pov is that we can read the Bible. Vp was right about some things wrong about others. Even when I was with TWI, I only believed what VP said if I found what he said in the Bible. Of Course I wasn't as good at that as I thought at the time.
Mostly, I think because he did a better job at indoctrinating us in what HE believed than we did at resisting. Nowadays I challenge EVERYTHING he taught and feel that "Any similarity between my current Bible beliefs and TWI's positions is purely coincidental.
I DO believe that when Adam ate, as God instructed him not to, he died.
Actually, more intriguing to me these days that the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is the tree of life. What was that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Sorry HCW, that makes absolutely no sense at all, Stallone accent or not.
The thing about absolute truth is there is absolutely no way of prooving it. Actually there are very few things that can be. Which is why the most logical way to go, IMO, is agnosticism. We just don't know enough to know much of anything to absolute certainty.
One thing many people get wrong about science is that it doesn't prove truth. It doesn't prove anything. It is a cycle of Observation- Hypotheses- Predictions- Experiments- Observation...
The hypothesis should be tested repeatedly to see the outcomes are consistent. If they are not the hypothesis gets modified and so on. If it is consistent over time then it becomes a theory- not truth, but theory. If the theory is consistent long enough to be widely accepted, it becomes a law, not truth, but a law. Does not make it truth, but consistent and widely accepted.
The problem with even calling creation a theory in the scientific sense or comparing it to scientific theories is that you can't even get to the testing, experimenting stage. We just jump straight to theory. Yes we have wide acceptance but we have no experimenting and no consistentcy. What we have is a hypothesis of creation. You don't ever hear that do you. Just calling it theory is giving it more credence than it deserves. Who's lieing now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
That's what I'm talkin' about Garth. I just wasn't sure what YOU meant by what you said.
I can get with your feeling that its not a simple answer thing. I can get with your experiences, as they ARE YOURS. I have similar ones & can understand yours to an extent; as they relate to mine. Where the experiences are divergent; my understanding of YOUR experiences diminshes.
I do believe it is unintelligent to summarily dismiss any point of view without hearing it. I believe God is big enough, and loves us enough to accept us as we are. I believe TWI's gestapo like position on "rightly dividing the word of truth" went WAY overboard an anyone who subscribes to that type of position "doesn't get it" as far as "true" Christianity is concerned.
I can get with that.I simply didn't couldn't tell WHY, or THAT you were relating characteristics you do or don't identify with. MY life experiences include, when people do that they MAY be referring to whom they are speaking to ALSO, as in "these are things YOU believe that I may or may not identify with.
Asked and answered Garth I had a qualifier in my remarks that I though would indicate that "I'm simply looking at the shoe." I'm barefoot.
I've come to believe that "Bible believing people" who act like that really AREN'T Bible believing people. My experiences, pre- - during - - and post TWI, are that the list of people you mentioned usually are MORE knowledgable of the Bible and certainly have more common sense and usually are more intelligent than MOST Christians. Frankly I'd rather discuss Bible matters with a free-thinking atheist than a "christian" any day of the week.
A LOT of christians make me sick to my stomach.
My POV is that I believe that God has always existed and the Bible is true. I don't believe you have to take the Bible on faith. I do believe that If one is to receive anything from God he must first believe that He is and that He is a rewarder to them who diligently seek Him.
I haven't overtly rejected PFAL in my posts because I treat EVERYTHING with a "prove all things hold fast to the good attitude." PFAL is part of ALL things.
I believe that most of the rejection of PFAL is people speaking out of their pain. Nothing is unclean of itself. VP is one of many, many teachers who've taught me stuff. I don't revere him any more than any other person who gave of their time and life to try and teach me something. However, I've come to resent him a lot more than anyone who falls in that category.
Its a short list of teachers that I resent. I can't think of any who are not part of TWI. MY M.O. is that I don't give any of my time to people or things I don't like. In my book, If I'm arguing with you its because I have some respect for you.
NO. Blind faith has nothing to do with any conclusion I make. In recent years I've taken on "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20 as a sort of mantra.
I read the Bible with a totally different POV than I used to. In TWI we read so many things INTO the Bible when we read it we were not actually READing it.
I no longer believe in the entire concept of "blind faith." I believe the whole "doubting Thomas" thing is religious rhetoric designed to put people into bondage and suck money out of people's wallets.
I believe it indoctrinates people into being comfortable with things happening that they can't see, so much so that they STOP LOOKING for things they SHOULD see. I believe than in the record known as "Doubting Thomas" Jesus problem with Thomas was not with him wanting to see for himself, but that he couldn't believe people who were not lying to him.
Later on in the NT God says that believers SHOULDN'T just take what they were taught on "blind faith," but that they SHOULD SEARCH the scriptures EVERY DAY at to whether the things they were taught fit with what the scriptures said.
JC said to Thomas, You believe because you see me, The time is coming when people will be blessed who can't see me then. He wasn't saying "You screwed up cause you can't take in by blind faith brother."
I never said I think you ARE calling me stupid, I said I think it could, or might be woven into what you're saying.... so I asked,
Overall I wasn't aiming at you. I don't have a problem with you Garth. I thought you knew that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
One other thing I wanted to point out is that science is not one scientist or a group of scientists. Just because someone or a number of scientists get hung up on something and fall prey to the human nature of assumption doesn't mean science is totally flawed or even the theory they were hung up on is flawed. In the instance that JB brought up about the study of the human gene gnome, the fact that one woman decided to look into these previously ignored layers is to the credit of science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Pointless though it may be, I’ll respond.
Nope. I merely pointed out that the first link was not what you claimed it to be and that the second was to a bogus offer. Other than to briefly and calmly clarify a couple of terms that you seem not to understand, note that the theory of evolution is compatible with Bible-based Christian belief, and clarify my interest in the topic, I have said little. You, on the other hand, have carried on rather excitedly about all sorts of things, many of which are hardly related, if at all, to anything I said. There easily could be. If this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain. This is not incompatible with the theory of evolution. Again, if this were a calm, rational discussion, I might explain. Not one of those is excluded by the theory of evolution. It might be, yet there are plenty of people who believe in Christ, who also accept the theory of evolution as the current best explanation of observed evidence and most reliable predictor of outcomes addressed by the theory. And again, the fall of man and redemption of Christ are just as possible within the framework of evolution as without. Yes, but that has nothing to do with its truth, but rather its literary form. Accepted by whom, on the basis of what evidence? If accepted as “fact,” that suggests to me that the person(s) accepting are not very scientific. The last I read, the evidence suggested somewhere between about 50,000 years and 150,000 years. Even if it is less, that doesn’t invalidate the theory of evolution. If what you know of science is what you’ve read or heard from Christian Fundamentalist sources, then your knowledge is lacking. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that rules out the God of the Bible. The ones putting forth that argument are a minority of Christians. Most Christians, most scientists, most people who understand science, and even most atheists would disagree. Hardly. That’s fine. Assuming that, do you really think the Bible says in just a few paragraphs exactly how God brought everything into being? Or is it possible that God chose to merely give the “gist” of it to people who wouldn’t have understood a more detailed version anyway? Really? Got any references for that? I don’t either, but that is not necessary, in order for the Bible to be true and the theory of evolution to be valid. ”Long Gone” means long gone from TWI. I’m getting tired of the handle, but what I call myself is completely irrelevant. Not really, and especially not as I used them. I said Hovind’s offer was bogus, for the reasons I stated. In your response, you said, “We can sue him for fraud.” That’s why I pointed out that his offer was not fraud. He, on the other hand, is a fraud, a person who is not what he pretends to be. However, his being a fraud is not grounds to sue him for fraud.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
My eight year old son brought home a book that showed different animal life and how they defend themselves.
- Some have colors that blend in with leaves
- some can look dead
- some blow up so big that they can't be swallowed
- etc
the variety is astounding!
My question as I was looking at this was, "If there was not death before the fall why do these animals' markings, habits and instincts belie a relationship of predator and prey?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
But the fact that he didn't drop dead on the spot, seems to imply that the kind of death refered to isn't what we commonly think of as physical death. That would solve a lot of the confusion as to how carnivores could have survived before the fall and how other forms of death could have been present before Adam sinned.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
There were at least two aspects to the fall of man. Death and "the curse."
The common belief is that, with God being Spirit, the death He was referring to in Genesis was spirit, eternal life spirit. The new birth that we can receive due to Christ, the second Adam's redemption of mankind is life, spiritual life, eternal life spirit.
It make perfect sense that mankind would have lived eternally in his first earthly body, seeing as after all is said and done we will all live eternally in new uncorrupted bodies in what is referred as the new earth.
Its all there in the Bible, when one looks at the entire subject as it weaves through it.
Animals and animal life are in a different category.
Genesis orininally speaks of man having animals to eat AFTER the fall. It doesn't speak to animals eating each other.
God was speaking specifically to man about man when he spoke of sin entering into the world and death by sin. Animals were effected as part of the curse. I'm pretty darn sure that there was nothing about Adam's sin that made an animal hungry, like on the 8th day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.