Summoning Ethelred. . . About Genesis

[ckweb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I never saw this one before. Allegedly its for real.

Messiahcam

http://www.olivetree.org/

Most of the other sites are pretty sad but this one made me laugh. This is funny!

I was thankful to see that Landover Baptist was a parody. Although, I got to ask: what kind of non-Christian actually wastes his time making a parody site of Christian Fundamentalism. It's a pretty sick site.

[Grandpa Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by ckweb


Troll: Your post is not a demonstration of love nor is it in Jesus' name. I make this statement with the opinion that you do not display the fruits of the spirit. In my opinion, you bring disrepute upon Christ and his church. I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Well, coming from a sinner UNSAVED I shall not miss your hard heartedness, from a sinner SAVED, I will pray for you and again, sorry for any NON-GOSPEL offenses, if any were misconstrued!

As for opinions, yes indeed, you are entitled to yours as well as I am to represent facts from God, the warmth of Love Jesus offers has a downside if you deny it, that was my whole point! I noticed that you came down on me for my offerings but found it satisfactory for others to attack Christianity? so..wheres the logic?..either its bad for all or none at all?

I was at least pointing out a valid issue, DENY CHRIST=Accepting Hell.
Not a lie..simple Cold,Hard facts of Eternity. Jesus offers Love to those whom accept him, he offers Hell and Condemnation for eterntiy for those whom deny him. I am not talking about Jesus not loving the sinner, he loves you and I equally as much. BUT..you need to repent, accept and confess prior to entering Eternal Rest, Your Choice, but you need to make the final decision, THIS SIDE of eternity, prior to meeting your maker, whether you deny him or not, once you stand before him, if your name is not in The Lambs Book of Life, off you go to HELL, now, I am simply sharing where UNSAVED people go. I didnt expound on all other areas of Christianity, and for your information, Jesus Tells the same thing, "Depart ye workers of iniquity, I knew you not"..now, how is that NOT of Jesu, me telling you or anyone else where you will end up if you dont repent?..I didnt mock you or even attack you, simply stated what is going to happen should you continue on the path your on.

I apologize not for sharing the Gospel, the end times and what happens, I would be more than glad to discuss what the plan of Salvation is, what ways a person can become more mature, leave the"milk" & "Honey" for the "Meat" of the Word. I have taught Sunday School for over 8 years, taught Discipleship Classes, preached in Prisons and am an Ordained Deacon. I have some first hand knowlege of what it means to be a Christian, not what you say, or what I say, but what God through his Son Jesus Christ says!

Have a blessed evening!

Troll

[Ethelred]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by ckweb


Most of the other sites are pretty sad but this one made me laugh. This is funny!

I was thankful to see that Landover Baptist was a parody. Although, I got to ask: what kind of non-Christian actually wastes his time making a parody site of Christian Fundamentalism. It's a pretty sick site.

Thats the one. All the rest apear to be sincere even if rationality is scarce. To me its Jack Chick that is the sickest. His comics are toxic. They were often posted on the Maximum PC forum. Both to ridicule and to cow the the unbelievers. Not very good at the latter.

There is Christian site that wants to shut down Landover Baptist. That site is just as over the top. I tried to get to it but it was either down or I just couldn't connect to it. So I didn't post that link.

Got to them now.

http://objectiveministries.tripod.com/shutdown.html

These guys think they own the internet. They are going with the popular Right Wing Christian fairy story that the US is a Christian nation rather that what it really is. A secular nation with a mostly christian population.

I did a seach to find most of those. The most effective was:

Sagan Satan Creation

Creationists often think Carl Sagan was a minion of Satan. The reason being that he was one the more prominent scientists that thought it was not a good idea to ignore the Creationists and merely hope they don't get their way with US education.

I really don't think the Landover site is sick. The sites being parodied are. Well some of them aren't really sick just very strange. I think the B&D one is more strange than sick and I think B&D is at least a bit sick.

I suspect that Landover makes a profit. How much is another question but I am guessing its at least enough to cover the bandwidth and expenses. He probably gets a lot of free material from college students that have just escaped from a strict christian homes.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ckweb
I rely on ex-Mormons for information because many aspects of Mormon practice are highly secretive to the uninitiated. I take their comments with a grain of salt, however, recognizing that they all-too-often have an extremely jaded view of their ex-Faith. However, they are often an excellent source of information because they still often retain the ability to speak objectively about their ex-religion, particularly the farther removed they are from their involvement in it.

It is a rather difficult subject to get an objective view on. Those who know what's going on from experience tend to be very polarized in their views. When you leave the LDS church (especially in Utah) it's hard not to feel like an outcast. So much of the socializing between church members happens at church functions. Even though I consider it false, I still get defensive when dealing with the subject. Just an ingrained reaction that I haven't gotten over yet.

[ckweb]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eighteen Inches!

Originally posted by Troll
Well, coming from a sinner UNSAVED I shall not miss your hard heartedness, from a sinner SAVED, I will pray for you and again, sorry for any NON-GOSPEL offenses, if any were misconstrued!

As for opinions, yes indeed, you are entitled to yours as well as I am to represent facts from God, the warmth of Love Jesus offers has a downside if you deny it, that was my whole point! I noticed that you came down on me for my offerings but found it satisfactory for others to attack Christianity? so..wheres the logic?..either its bad for all or none at all?

I was at least pointing out a valid issue, DENY CHRIST=Accepting Hell.
Not a lie..simple Cold,Hard facts of Eternity. Jesus offers Love to those whom accept him, he offers Hell and Condemnation for eterntiy for those whom deny him. I am not talking about Jesus not loving the sinner, he loves you and I equally as much. BUT..you need to repent, accept and confess prior to entering Eternal Rest, Your Choice, but you need to make the final decision, THIS SIDE of eternity, prior to meeting your maker, whether you deny him or not, once you stand before him, if your name is not in The Lambs Book of Life, off you go to HELL, now, I am simply sharing where UNSAVED people go. I didnt expound on all other areas of Christianity, and for your information, Jesus Tells the same thing, "Depart ye workers of iniquity, I knew you not"..now, how is that NOT of Jesu, me telling you or anyone else where you will end up if you dont repent?..I didnt mock you or even attack you, simply stated what is going to happen should you continue on the path your on.

I apologize not for sharing the Gospel, the end times and what happens, I would be more than glad to discuss what the plan of Salvation is, what ways a person can become more mature, leave the"milk" & "Honey" for the "Meat" of the Word. I have taught Sunday School for over 8 years, taught Discipleship Classes, preached in Prisons and am an Ordained Deacon. I have some first hand knowlege of what it means to be a Christian, not what you say, or what I say, but what God through his Son Jesus Christ says!

Have a blessed evening!

Troll

Against my better judgment, I have decided to post a reply to your message.

The reason, Troll, that I come down hard on you and not on the others is because, regardless of how misguided I believe you are in your approach, I do believe you are my brother in Christ.

Jesus showed nothing but compassion upon those who were not practicing faith in God. He did not judge, rather he encouraged. To the adultress, he did not say, "You will go to Hell if you don't start following me." No. Jesus was an encouragement to her. He saved her from the wrath of those who would condemn (even though according to God's own law they were justified in that condemnation) and he offered her a new path to take, "Go and sin no more." He did not demand she take this path and he did not threaten her with the consequences of failing to take that path. He only pointed her the way.

On occasion, you are right, Jesus did take people to task but it was almost always with those who already believed in God. While applauding their faith and righteousness (and he did do so), he chided them because they considered themselves saved on account of their adherence to the laws of God. He also chided them because they usurped God's prerogative as judge and placed it upon themselves to decide that the adulterers, the tax collectors, the Gentiles, and the unclean were unsaved.

You usurp that same prerogative by judging that I am unsaved even though I have testified my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. You also judge the rest of the people on this board, though you do not see their hearts. You declare that simple faith is all you need and yet my declared faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient for you. Clearly, simple faith is NOT sufficient for you but I am thankful that you are not my judge. Instead, it is Jesus Christ who has been given all authority to judge me. And, because of my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I have the assurance of things hoped for and I know that I will carry the righteousness of Christ when I stand before the judgment seat of God.

Re: Your offer to teach me the plan of salvation. I am a student of the Word and am devoting my life to continuing studies at a level I'm doubtful you have any experience in and while I do not doubt that your practical experiences could potentially grant me some insights, I have my own mentors and teachers. On moving past the simple things (to the "Meat"), I have studied Hebrew and Greek. I, therefore, read the Bible in its original languages. I will soon study Aramaic. I have read and studied extensively the works of Christian and non-Christian interpreters on whose shoulders I am grateful to stand. I continue to do so. From the substance of things offered so far, I'm relatively certain that you could learn alot more about the biblical text from me than I could learn from you. This is not meant as an insult but reflects the fact that thus far you have given no indication that you take seriously the biblical text you cherish so much. Instead, it appears to me that you read it and study it in a manner that conforms it to your particular views, as far too many Christians do, rather than allowing it to conform you to its message. You would no more admit to my being able to teach you about the biblical text then you would consider the historical and scientific knowledge you so easily dismiss. It threatens you and so you fall back on what you know. C'est la vie! Christ is at work in you and I am content in that knowledge.

EDIT: BTW, Christ does not offer Hell and condemnation to anyone. At most, it is an unfortunate and undesired consequence. Here's a word to you, as Gandalf says in Jackson's movie, "Many that live deserve death and many that are dead deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and punishment. Even the very wise can not see all ends." Only God sees all ends, let him be the judge, declaring his judgments in his time in his voice.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
It is a rather difficult subject to get an objective view on. Those who know what's going on from experience tend to be very polarized in their views. When you leave the LDS church (especially in Utah) it's hard not to feel like an outcast. So much of the socializing between church members happens at church functions. Even though I consider it false, I still get defensive when dealing with the subject. Just an ingrained reaction that I haven't gotten over yet.

I don't always show patience or consideration in dealing with Mormonism. I think the reason is that Mormons characterize themselves as Christian and to me, they are not. On a personal level, I find their misreading of the Bible embarrassing and much of their religion very dangerous. They seem to have some cultic tendencies that seem to destroy families and communities rather than build them up. It concerns me that such is in part the result of their misreading of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, I've really come to the conviction that my over-the-top comments about Mormonism were inappropriate. I won't write the divine name in this thread out of respect for Orthodox Jews and yet I was completely disrespectful to Mormons. My double standard was wrong and I apologize.

It must be hard to have left the Mormon Church. Did you leave with your entire family? Or, has your family shunned you? I can't imagine what that must feel like. Either way, it must have been a difficult decision to walk away from the church. I hope that you are adjusting well to life outside the church.

[Aeson]

All of my family is Mormon, though there are a few who aren't that active. I still get along great with all of them, in some ways I get along with them better now. Most of the Mormons I've known are very open minded towards other religions or beliefs. There are judgemental people of course, but thats a personality trait, not something which is taught in the church. There is no hell, and just about everyone on this earth will end up in one degree of glory or another. The doctrine doesn't lend itself to judgement when understood.

The feeling of being shunned has more to do with how Mormon communities plan activities. Most get togethers are in some way organized by or through the church, so not going to church leaves a person out of the loop. I haven't noticed or experience active 'shunning', quite the opposite, Mormons are always looking to convert or bring you back. Some people take it too far, but for the most part they are just friendly, invitation to church activities, dinner, that sort of thing.

So all in all, I haven't had any bad experiences, other than difficulty finding the right girl; who is always looking to marry a return missionary. I've read the horror stories, and all I can say is those families had no idea what the LDS religion is all about. It probably stems from the fact that outside Utah it can be very hard to be a Mormon, so members tend to be more fanatic. Also the communities are smaller, and since members are given teaching roles without any proper schooling on doctrine, the members in those areas can lose their perspective. Even in Utah this ends up being a problem, and every once in a while someone breaks away forming their own church, often with themselves as a savior. The polygamists still in Utah always fall into this category.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
All of my family is Mormon, though there are a few who aren't that active. I still get along great with all of them, in some ways I get along with them better now. Most of the Mormons I've known are very open minded towards other religions or beliefs. There are judgemental people of course, but thats a personality trait, not something which is taught in the church. There is no hell, and just about everyone on this earth will end up in one degree of glory or another. The doctrine doesn't lend itself to judgement when understood.

The feeling of being shunned has more to do with how Mormon communities plan activities. Most get togethers are in some way organized by or through the church, so not going to church leaves a person out of the loop. I haven't noticed or experience active 'shunning', quite the opposite, Mormons are always looking to convert or bring you back. Some people take it too far, but for the most part they are just friendly, invitation to church activities, dinner, that sort of thing.

So all in all, I haven't had any bad experiences, other than difficulty finding the right girl; who is always looking to marry a return missionary. I've read the horror stories, and all I can say is those families had no idea what the LDS religion is all about. It probably stems from the fact that outside Utah it can be very hard to be a Mormon, so members tend to be more fanatic. Also the communities are smaller, and since members are given teaching roles without any proper schooling on doctrine, the members in those areas can lose their perspective. Even in Utah this ends up being a problem, and every once in a while someone breaks away forming their own church, often with themselves as a savior. The polygamists still in Utah always fall into this category.

This is interesting. What motivated your decision to leave the church?

[Aeson]

A realization that I didn't actually believe it. I've always placed a lot of trust in my family and friends, and since all of them believed it, I figured it must be true. Of course I knew I didn't believe it before, and there was a lot of self imposed guilt because I didn't believe this thing I accepted as true. I don't know if that makes any sense.

I've had a lot of problems with depression, and about the time I turned 17 it all just became too much for me to deal with. I ended up in a mental institution after a suicide attempt, and that was really my first environment were I met people who weren't Mormon. Up till then just about everyone I knew had been. It was an under 18 ward, and all the kids there were good kids dealing with problems they shouldn't have had to deal with. It just got me questioning things. I still couldn't let go though.

It wasn't until after another couple hospitalizations and ECT (electro convulsive therapy) that I could. The ECT was the kicker, wiping out just about all my memory for a few months, resetting my brain as it were, and I grew up all over again. It wasn't fun, but as my memories started to return it gave me a huge insight into why I thought like I did. Basically I had 2 different perspectives developed independantly of each other.

The conclusions I came up with in that comparison just could not coexist with the Mormon teachings. So that was it.

[Lincoln]

I hope I am not interrupting anything here but I think I can add something here to the subject of biblical interpretation. I agree with much of what both Etheired and ckweb said here and also Troll, Aeson and Spencer makes some good points. Perhaps there is a middle ground which contains the actual truth of the matter of correct interpretation.

One key to understanding the scriptures is the spiritual nature of the books within it. Jesus for example said to his followers who took his words “eat my flesh and drink my blood” literally, “the flesh profits nothing... my words are spirit and life.” In the New Testament epistles we are told again that there is a dichotomy between spiritual things and earthly ones. The earthly or natural things are examples for us to use in understanding the spiritual or eternal things. The whole idea of “born again” Christians is not rooted in some fanatical ultra conservative sect. For example Jimmy Carter called himself a born again Christian and he certainly does not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible nor is he a conservative. The words “born again” come from Jesus himself and they refer to the central issue upon which biblical doctrine rests.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is of course the central doctrine of Christianity. The death represents among other things, the spiritual death of the believer along with his savior Jesus. As Paul said “I am crucified with Christ.” The resurrection is also shared spiritually with the believer. Or as Paul again said, “nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.” In another place he taught that “the life that I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God”. Notice the words “the faith of the Son of God”. This faith is a gift “of” the Son of God. It is a spiritual gift. No one is born again regardless of what they say or believe unless they are partaker of this spiritual gift of faith. So Jimmy Carter, or myself, or Jerry Falwell or Mother Theresa may or may not be a true Christian because it is not what we think about ourselves that matters so much as what spirit we are partakers of. “If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his”. That is the central issue of the Bible. It is a book about the things of the spirit and the opposing works of “darkness”.

Literal interpretation of certain passages is important if we are to grasp the spiritual meaning. For example when Jesus claims to have raised the dead there is no reason to think that there is a deeper understanding (although there is) that annuls the actual act of miraculously raising from the dead someone who was really dead. If there is no miracle involved in the earthly example then why should we believe in a spiritual realm at all? Which is easier for God, to raise the dead or to send a spirit to possess his true followers? Either way we are talking about a supernatural act that defies, suspends or forces the laws of physics. The evidence that remains after the witnesses are dead does not lend itself to examination using the laws of physics.

So we are left with a problem in exploring the Bible from a purely scientific standpoint because it inherently claims (tacitly at least) to defy the laws of nature upon which science is largely based. What would a scientist, who was not present shortly after Lazarus was raised from the dead say after he examined the now resurrected man? If he didn’t know for sure that Lazarus was ever dead and came upon the scene, blind to the history of the events, what would his examination prove? Would it prove that he was never dead to begin with? Would it prove that he was one day old? He could actually prove nothing relevant because he would be examining the results of a supernatural miracle that defied the laws of nature. If he arrogantly said anyway that the man is clearly one day old then he would be a fool. Or is he said that the man never was dead he would likewise be a fool. The interpretation of the evidence at hand does not lend itself to a literal interpretation. This is a spiritual problem.

Likewise, the flood story, the story of the tower of Babel and the creation account does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny because they are all claimed to be the result of supernatural, spiritual intervention. Examining these events now using the laws of physics that presently rule our natural world is foolish. One is only left with opinions. Those who have strong opinions can ridicule their opponents if they choose but the fact remains that no one really knows the exact truth of what happened during an event that supposedly involved supernatural intervention. In the days of Peleg according the Bible “the earth was divided”. Who, or what divided it? Was this a miraculous event, a huge earthquake or just some type of migration among inhabitants? Who decides now what it was – the scientist or the theologian? I am not suggesting an answer but I am proposing that no one knows for sure and it is certainly foolish now to say that the Bible is wrong because it does not give enough details for the scientist to work with.

If the Bible had claimed that the flood was the result of the natural order of events (such as ‘el nino’) then the evidence could be examined now. If the creation account was simply an account of molecules following the laws of physics and natural selection then it could likewise be tested. If the word “begat” always means “the son of” and if “son of” always means the next descendant after the father then the genealogy could be examined precisely. But it is not possible to take a book that inherently claims to be spiritual and of supernatural inspiration and logically use it to prove or disprove science. Nor can science ever be an adequate tool for proving that the Bible is spurious.

Galileo certainly did not believe literally that “the sun stood still” yet he believed the Bible. His religious opponents claimed to believe it better than he did. They were the fools, not Galileo.

I do not generally enter debates about evolution and creation because one either has to debate fools or he has to make a fool of himself. If I am on 33mh and my opponent is on 44mh then there is no communication. Neither is their communication when one believes in the supernatural and the other does not. Nor is there meaningful dialogue when one tries to use a spiritual book as if it was a science textbook. Anyway, have a nice day everyone. I do not have time for an extended debate on this. It seems like some like to write books here and I don’t have time to write another one in response.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Aeson
A realization that I didn't actually believe it. I've always placed a lot of trust in my family and friends, and since all of them believed it, I figured it must be true. Of course I knew I didn't believe it before, and there was a lot of self imposed guilt because I didn't believe this thing I accepted as true. I don't know if that makes any sense.

I've had a lot of problems with depression, and about the time I turned 17 it all just became too much for me to deal with. I ended up in a mental institution after a suicide attempt, and that was really my first environment were I met people who weren't Mormon. Up till then just about everyone I knew had been. It was an under 18 ward, and all the kids there were good kids dealing with problems they shouldn't have had to deal with. It just got me questioning things. I still couldn't let go though.

It wasn't until after another couple hospitalizations and ECT (electro convulsive therapy) that I could. The ECT was the kicker, wiping out just about all my memory for a few months, resetting my brain as it were, and I grew up all over again. It wasn't fun, but as my memories started to return it gave me a huge insight into why I thought like I did. Basically I had 2 different perspectives developed independantly of each other.

The conclusions I came up with in that comparison just could not coexist with the Mormon teachings. So that was it.

Sounds rough. But, by the sounds of it, you have started to come out from many of the problems of your teens. I commend you for your perseverance. For what it is worth, may God bless you as you continue to pursue truth in your life. I hope that the process continues for you under less difficult circumstances and challenges.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I hope I am not interrupting anything here but I think I can add something here to the subject of biblical interpretation. I agree with much of what both Etheired and ckweb said here and also Troll, Aeson and Spencer makes some good points. Perhaps there is a middle ground which contains the actual truth of the matter of correct interpretation.

One key to understanding the scriptures is the spiritual nature of the books within it. Jesus for example said to his followers who took his words “eat my flesh and drink my blood” literally, “the flesh profits nothing... my words are spirit and life.” In the New Testament epistles we are told again that there is a dichotomy between spiritual things and earthly ones. The earthly or natural things are examples for us to use in understanding the spiritual or eternal things. The whole idea of “born again” Christians is not rooted in some fanatical ultra conservative sect. For example Jimmy Carter called himself a born again Christian and he certainly does not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible nor is he a conservative. The words “born again” come from Jesus himself and they refer to the central issue upon which biblical doctrine rests.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is of course the central doctrine of Christianity. The death represents among other things, the spiritual death of the believer along with his savior Jesus. As Paul said “I am crucified with Christ.” The resurrection is also shared spiritually with the believer. Or as Paul again said, “nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.” In another place he taught that “the life that I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God”. Notice the words “the faith of the Son of God”. This faith is a gift “of” the Son of God. It is a spiritual gift. No one is born again regardless of what they say or believe unless they are partaker of this spiritual gift of faith. So Jimmy Carter, or myself, or Jerry Falwell or Mother Theresa may or may not be a true Christian because it is not what we think about ourselves that matters so much as what spirit we are partakers of. “If any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his”. That is the central issue of the Bible. It is a book about the things of the spirit and the opposing works of “darkness”.

Literal interpretation of certain passages is important if we are to grasp the spiritual meaning. For example when Jesus claims to have raised the dead there is no reason to think that there is a deeper understanding (although there is) that annuls the actual act of miraculously raising from the dead someone who was really dead. If there is no miracle involved in the earthly example then why should we believe in a spiritual realm at all? Which is easier for God, to raise the dead or to send a spirit to possess his true followers? Either way we are talking about a supernatural act that defies, suspends or forces the laws of physics. The evidence that remains after the witnesses are dead does not lend itself to examination using the laws of physics.

So we are left with a problem in exploring the Bible from a purely scientific standpoint because it inherently claims (tacitly at least) to defy the laws of nature upon which science is largely based. What would a scientist, who was not present shortly after Lazarus was raised from the dead say after he examined the now resurrected man? If he didn’t know for sure that Lazarus was ever dead and came upon the scene, blind to the history of the events, what would his examination prove? Would it prove that he was never dead to begin with? Would it prove that he was one day old? He could actually prove nothing relevant because he would be examining the results of a supernatural miracle that defied the laws of nature. If he arrogantly said anyway that the man is clearly one day old then he would be a fool. Or is he said that the man never was dead he would likewise be a fool. The interpretation of the evidence at hand does not lend itself to a literal interpretation. This is a spiritual problem.

Likewise, the flood story, the story of the tower of Babel and the creation account does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny because they are all claimed to be the result of supernatural, spiritual intervention. Examining these events now using the laws of physics that presently rule our natural world is foolish. One is only left with opinions. Those who have strong opinions can ridicule their opponents if they choose but the fact remains that no one really knows the exact truth of what happened during an event that supposedly involved supernatural intervention. In the days of Peleg according the Bible “the earth was divided”. Who, or what divided it? Was this a miraculous event, a huge earthquake or just some type of migration among inhabitants? Who decides now what it was – the scientist or the theologian? I am not suggesting an answer but I am proposing that no one knows for sure and it is certainly foolish now to say that the Bible is wrong because it does not give enough details for the scientist to work with.

If the Bible had claimed that the flood was the result of the natural order of events (such as ‘el nino’) then the evidence could be examined now. If the creation account was simply an account of molecules following the laws of physics and natural selection then it could likewise be tested. If the word “begat” always means “the son of” and if “son of” always means the next descendant after the father then the genealogy could be examined precisely. But it is not possible to take a book that inherently claims to be spiritual and of supernatural inspiration and logically use it to prove or disprove science. Nor can science ever be an adequate tool for proving that the Bible is spurious.

Galileo certainly did not believe literally that “the sun stood still” yet he believed the Bible. His religious opponents claimed to believe it better than he did. They were the fools, not Galileo.

I do not generally enter debates about evolution and creation because one either has to debate fools or he has to make a fool of himself. If I am on 33mh and my opponent is on 44mh then there is no communication. Neither is their communication when one believes in the supernatural and the other does not. Nor is there meaningful dialogue when one tries to use a spiritual book as if it was a science textbook. Anyway, have a nice day everyone. I do not have time for an extended debate on this. It seems like some like to write books here and I don’t have time to write another one in response.

While I agree with some of what you are saying, I wonder if the last paragraph isn't just a cope out or at least, a way of abdicating the responsibility we as Christians have to engage the world? Also, simply because events are supernatural does not mean they do not leave physical evidence . . . sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But, if there is physical evidence, as with a flood (supernatural or not), science can and does apply. But, as I've indicated, to read the Flood story as a historical record is missing the intent of the story itself, which does not claim historicity. Anyways, overall, some good thoughts Lincoln.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


While I agree with some of what you are saying, I wonder if the last paragraph isn't just a cope out or at least, a way of abdicating the responsibility we as Christians have to engage the world?

More like that is how he deals with not doing so well in those discussions. I do however understand that they oftimes look a bit like what he says. That is partly do to his efforts to prove things by engaging in some dubious definitions that often assume his conclustion in somewhat subtle ways. As a consequence the discussions often wound up with Lincoln and someone else bickering back and forth about the nuances of words.

Nuances can be important but sometimes they are just an effort to avoid the facts. For an example of an importan subtle difference:

If we were discussing why there is the amount of oxygen there is in the universe a very subltle nuance would indeed be important. That one comes down to a energy difference of one part in two-thousand due (IIRC) to a hyperfine transistion involving an electron spin difference. Without that transistion there would be far less oxygen according to the physics of fusion.

However that fine a point is rarely the case in a discusion about religion and science. The differences are often profound even though they can be hidden behind an assumption that is so common its oftime hard to notice.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Troll


I am just representing God, not myself.

Troll

Why do you think a omnipotent being needs you to represent it Troll?

[ckweb]

Wasn't today the day you were going to answer the long posts we've been throwing back and forth?