03 Feb 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou haven't mentioned any ideas that I personally believe. So I have not comment.
[b]=======================================
is it easier to believe plants were created before the sun and that god personally shined light on them until the sun was ready? is it easier to believe all the incestous grandchildren of adam and eve never had any health problems without god's interference? a middle age person had an average lifespan of 40 y ...[text shortened]... God. It is His working in the hearts of free-will creatures which causes Him more trouble.
what ideas are those?
clarify this for me: what is your stance on Mary-Jane and Bubbah marrying and having children if Mary-Jane is Bubbah's daughter? is it a good idea? and going from that answer which i pray it is "it is a bad idea" tell me if there is a chance the child resulting from that marriage is mentally and/or physically handicapped? or stillborn?
moving from there, and assuming you answer "there is a large chance", would you deny that for us to turn out pretty good while having them adam and eve children marrrying their siblings would require God to intervene and manipulate our dna?
so now that i explained in more simpler terms, do you have any more objections?
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzicreation was not enough for god. - baseless assertion
creation was not enough for god. he had to constantly tweak it. does it say in the bible anywhere that he made sure any child out of incest is not retarded or stillborn?
does it say how did he make adam and all the others live several hundred years?
does it say where did all the water of the flood go?
does it say how did he made plants live withou ...[text shortened]... s it written and in how small font that the bastards that served Bruno extra crispy didn't see?
he had to constantly tweak it. - baseless assertion
does it say in the bible anywhere that he made sure any child out of incest is not retarded or stillborn? - no
does it say how did he make adam and all the others live several hundred years? - yes
does it say where did all the water of the flood go? - yes
does it say how did he made plants live without sunlight? - no
does it say there used to be dinos that disappeared several million years ago?(65 give or take) - yes
does it say that 4 atoms of hydrogen through fusion create an atom of helium and that is what powers the sun? - no
does it say that the earth revolves around the sun, and if it does, where is it written and in how small font that the bastards that served Bruno extra crispy didn't see? - irrelevant!
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you implying that there is something wrong with making a theory fit the facts? -if so, what?
punctuated equilibrium was nothing more than attempt to make the theory fit the facts!
Do you believe that it would be better to make a theory fail to fit the facts?
All good theories are made to fit the facts else it wouldn’t be a scientific theory.
The theory that the Earth is round is made to fit the facts (the facts such as the observed curvature of the Earth as sometimes can be detected from the ground and the known facts of the laws of gravity etc) -does that mean it is erroneous? -or does this mean it is less likely to be true?
Does modifying a theory to fit the facts make the newly modified theory more likely to be true or less likely to be true than the older version of the theory?
If a theory doesn’t exactly fit the facts, is there anything wrong with modifying it to make it fit the fact? -if so, what?
03 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadHey tw ! Long time.
There are many Christian ..... (fill in whatever belief doesn't quite fit yours). The fact that there are so many denominations shows that there are many beliefs that some people believe are compatible with Christianity and others do not. Simply because many people find evolution and Christianity compatible does not make them so. Why not present an argument.
Robbie would probably argue that the Christians you refer to are not Christians.
You know, Robbie might. But that's where it always bogs down anyway: eventually when talking differences, one will eventually claim a belief that the other declares "a dealbreaker"--that you just CAN'T be a Christian and __________(fill in the blank). Some would put 'be an evolutionist' there; others would go with 'not believe in Virgin Birth'. Or how 'bout filling it in with simple verbs, like 'smoke pot', or 'abort babies' or 'divorce' or 'have relations with your own sex.' I find none of these will separate one from God eternally--NONE are the ...."unforgiveable sin" 😲|
I've seen this too many times and finally everyone with reason agrees that only God knows our true hearts, so there's no way I could say whether Robbie or Badw or jayw or marauder or ATY are Christians or not. I only know my own condition. Anyone who claims to know more, I believe has failed the test of being a true prophet of the Christian God.
As for the compatability issue, I think it only takes ONE (not many) to see that Christianity and evolution are compatible, and that the one CAN make it so. Mine is a liberal definition of the Scriptures, but it makes sense to me, so I'm stickin' with it. 😉
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI do not see why they are incompatible. Jesus merely said that God created man and woman (in context, this is an argument against divorce not an exegesis of the Genesis account of creation.) Pope John Paul II also believed that God created man. So what is the problem? There is no outright contradiction. Pope John Paul II was just a little more precise about that the details, believing that evolution of species occurred, shaped by the providence of God, but that there was a particular moment in history when God infused a soul to form the first man.
yes but this is of its very nature speculative and contradicts what the Christ was saying. i understand the argument, but as yet see no evidence for accepting it, indeed to do so, i would need to disbelieve what the Christ taught, would i not?
04 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kok i disagree, but let us put that to the side for a moment. what basis does his most illustrious holy eminence, have for this assertion, for do you not agree that it cannot be ascertained nor substantiated from scripture. that being the case it must be the product of someones reasoning, is that also not the case? thus to term it providence from God has no valid basis, or at least none that can be substantiated by scripture. also it is inaccurate from the point of view of its definition of soul, (see the Hebrew word Nephesh, literaly a living breathing being, translated erroneously as soul)) for man was never infused with a soul, he became a soul, i.e. a living breathing animated person after God 'blew' the breath of life into his nostrils!
I do not see why they are incompatible. Jesus merely said that God created man and woman (in context, this is an argument against divorce not an exegesis of the Genesis account of creation.) Pope John Paul II also believed that God created man. So what is the problem? There is no outright contradiction. Pope John Paul II was just a little more precise about ...[text shortened]... but that there was a particular moment in history when God infused a soul to form the first man.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
04 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat basis does his most illustrious holy eminence, have for this assertion, for do you not agree that it cannot be ascertained nor substantiated from scripture.
ok i disagree, but let us put that to the side for a moment. what basis does his most illustrious holy eminence, have for this assertion, for do you not agree that it cannot be ascertained nor substantiated from scripture. that being the case it must be the product of someones reasoning, is that also not the case? thus to term it providence from Go ...[text shortened]... i.e. a living breathing animated person after God 'blew' the breath of life into his nostrils!
I think he based his belief on the authority of biologists who collectively agree that evolution is good science.
that being the case it must be the product of someones reasoning, is that also not the case?
Yes. But I should think that any engagement with scripture, and any consequent interpretation, must also be a product of reasoning.
thus to term it providence from God has no valid basis, or at least none that can be substantiated by scripture.
I am unclear as to what you mean; I think you have misquoted me. Pope John Paul II believed life was shaped through God's providence. I think you should agree with that whether you believe that this providence occurred over six days or over a process of billions of years.
also it is inaccurate from the point of view of its definition of soul, (see the Hebrew word Nephesh, literaly a living breathing being, translated erroneously as soul)) for man was never infused with a soul, he became a soul, i.e. a living breathing animated person after God 'blew' the breath of life into his nostrils!
Again, you misunderstand. John Paul II, like all Catholics, believed that man was created when God combined the soul with the body. It is fundamentally dualistic. Man is made of spirit and matter. Now, while Pope John Paul II accepted evolution, he rejected the idea that man came into existence by an exclusively material process - he believed there was a particular moment in history when God created the soul and man. I do not see any contradiction with this and Jesus' words.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. that it is open to interpretation, false! there is nothing to interpret,
whether you take it seriously is neither here nor there, a reference was given, various attempts have been made to discredit the reference, for example,
1. that it is open to interpretation, false! there is nothing to interpret,
2. that it was taken out of context, false! for it is in complete harmony with the bible as a whole
3. that there wa f evolutionary hypothesis nor of creation, its a discussion of whether the two are compatible!
This is just strictly incorrect—for all such texts. There is simply no such thing as reading without interpretation (or relying upon someone else’s interpretation). For one thing, one needs to decide if the text in question is poetic/metaphorical speech, literal/factual speech, didactic speech (I think Z alluded to that), or….
One can, of course, apply context—but the contextual texts are subject to the same hermeneutical questions.
People of both good faith and good intellect make different hermeneutical decisions without ulterior motivations (not that you implied that at all, to anyone). We may all have certain biases, but—if we are honest brokers—we try to acknowledge those biases.
It seems to me that both theistic and nontheistic “modernists” tend to succumb to the (false) notion that anything that cannot be read literally/factually/historically has no “real” meaning. You and Zahlanzi and PinkFloyd all agree (I suspect) on the ultimate meaning of the Genesis stories (divine causation); you disagree on the type of speech that is being employed to convey that meaning. You likely all agree on the main point of Jesus’ statement; you disagree on the type of speech being employed to make that point.
But even if people disagree about ultimate meaning, there is no such thing as reading a text without interpretation—even when our interpretation seems to us the “obviously” correct one. (And, therefore, the one we argue... 😉 )
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehe had to constantly tweak it- baseless assertion.
creation was not enough for god. - baseless assertion
he had to constantly tweak it. - baseless assertion
does it say in the bible anywhere that he made sure any child out of incest is not retarded or stillborn? - no
does it say how did he make adam and all the others live several hundred years? - yes
does it say where did all the water of t ...[text shortened]... nd in how small font that the bastards that served Bruno extra crispy didn't see? - irrelevant!
have you thought about this more than 1 second? have you thought at all? are you capable of independent thinking?
is incest a good idea? is the chance of an offspring of close relatives being genetically flawed great? how about greater is the chance of incestous chidlren having flawed children? and if we are not flawed as incestous children might be, doesn't follow logically that god intervened?
and why the heck am i still responding to a retarded buffon like you?
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydyou will burn in hell, heretic.
Hey tw ! Long time.
You know, Robbie might. But that's where it always bogs down anyway: eventually when talking differences, one will eventually claim a belief that the other declares "a dealbreaker"--that you just CAN'T be a Christian and __________(fill in the blank). Some would put 'be an evolutionist' there; others would go with 'not believe ...[text shortened]... of the Scriptures, but it makes sense to me, so I'm stickin' with it. 😉
PS. sorry, couldn't help myself 😀. nice words, i mean it.
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by vistesdyes, i agree. i would like to add that interpretation cannot be done without outside help, life experience, reading other materials, reasoning.
[b]1. that it is open to interpretation, false! there is nothing to interpret,
This is just strictly incorrect—for all such texts. There is simply no such thing as reading without interpretation (or relying upon someone else’s interpretation). For one thing, one needs to decide if the text in question is poetic/metaphorical speech, literal/factual s ...[text shortened]... ation seems to us the “obviously” correct one. (And, therefore, the one we argue... 😉 )[/b]
this is where robbie gets off the road and goes through the corn fields. he interprets the bible with nothing additional. he uses the bible to understand bible, he uses his priests or ministers or imams understanding of the bible. and he holds dear to his heart that anything that contradicts his view on the world is flawed. and to listen to such garbage would forever break his relationship with god, the same god he had put in shackles to work forever on improving the universe.
all interpretation must be done with logical methods. if we wish to reach a fairly reasonable and logical interpretation
04 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdpants and double triple pants, such a stance leads to nothing more than postulation and arguments over semantics and what is more, many of the statements are self explanatory and require no interpretation, for example when Christ stated to the Pharisees, ' have you not read, in the beginning', this is a self explanatory comment, why? because from our historical and cultural knowledge we can discern that obviously he was talking about the book of Genesis, where else would the Pharisees have read about the act of creation? new scientist magazine? i think not, nothing to interpret! the statement goes on, 'that he who created them male and female', this again is a self explanatory comment, who was Christ referring to, God, what was he referring to, the divine act of creation of human kind as documented in the book of genesis', from this there are easily discernible conclusions that can be drawn, not interpretations, but solid reason based conclusions, how that you can say that this is open to interpretation is incredulous and is nothing more than a cunningly contrived get out clause!
[b]1. that it is open to interpretation, false! there is nothing to interpret,
This is just strictly incorrect—for all such texts. There is simply no such thing as reading without interpretation (or relying upon someone else’s interpretation). For one thing, one needs to decide if the text in question is poetic/metaphorical speech, literal/factual s ...[text shortened]... ation seems to us the “obviously” correct one. (And, therefore, the one we argue... 😉 )[/b]
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethat is an interpretation. your "obvious" is only obvious to you. jesus could have been using a false argument to make another point so that the desired effect, moronic buffons like the pharisees do not leave their wives for idiotic reasons, is achieved.
pants and double triple pants, such a stance leads to nothing more than postulation and arguments over semantics and what is more, many of the statements are self explanatory and require no interpretation, for example when Christ stated to the Pharisees, ' have you not read, in the beginning', this is a self explanatory comment, why? because from our ...[text shortened]... nterpretation is incredulous and is nothing more than a cunningly contrived get out clause!
oh yes, i forgot, you believe the supreme being, the alpha and the omega, the one who made the universe in 6 days cannot tell a lie.
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzino Zapansy my friend, its not an interpretation for there is nothing speculative about it, its solid, founded on sound historical knowledge and fact, is culturally accurate, in harmony with the entire canonical work and as i have shown and demonstrated for your amazement and wonderment, is self explanatory!
that is an interpretation. your "obvious" is only obvious to you. jesus could have been using a false argument to make another point so that the desired effect, moronic buffons like the pharisees do not leave their wives for idiotic reasons, is achieved.
oh yes, i forgot, you believe the supreme being, the alpha and the omega, the one who made the universe in 6 days cannot tell a lie.
i do not believe that God created the earth in six literal days, as i have also demonstrated to you at other times!