Creation vs evolution
Pastor Frank
>>>>>> lightchannel pounded silicon into:
>
> > Creation and Evolution both fall down under close scrutiny. Is
> > there another alternative? Serious suggestions please
>
>1) Recognize that 'creation' and 'evolution' attempt to address
> different aspects of the situation.
>
Yes. Creation is philosophy and evolution is science, and the twain
don't meet.
Pastor Frank
The philosopher proves that the philosopher exists.
The poet merely enjoys existence.
Wallace Stevens (1879–1955),
Martin
thousands of years to us. Thus when he created something, say the birds for
instance, they evolved over time, so evolution might have been the
sciebtific way God created everything.
For example, the great cities of the world, started off as a shack, then a
couple of shacks, then bigger houses, businesses etc, so whilst a city has
been created, it evolved from something else.
Well, thats just my view
Martin
Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7s71d7$981$3...@goblin.uunet.ca...
> Wallace Stevens (1879-1955),
>
>
>
>
>
Pastor Frank
<937900451.6405.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:7s71d7$981$3...@goblin.uunet.ca...
>> Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
>> >>>>>> lightchannel pounded silicon into:
>> >
>> > > Creation and Evolution both fall down under close scrutiny. Is
>> > > there another alternative? Serious suggestions please
>> >
>> >1) Recognize that 'creation' and 'evolution' attempt to address
>> > different aspects of the situation.
>> >
>> Yes. Creation is philosophy and evolution is science, and the twain
>> don't meet.
>>
>thousands of years to us. Thus when he created something, say the birds for
>instance, they evolved over time, so evolution might have been the
>sciebtific way God created everything.
>For example, the great cities of the world, started off as a shack, then a
>couple of shacks, then bigger houses, businesses etc, so whilst a city has
>been created, it evolved from something else.
>Well, thats just my view
>
interpretation, belief and faith it is still philosophy and not science
which is supposed to be based on *observable* fact.
Pastor Frank
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
--2 Timothy 3:16
Dux Gregis
Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7s71d7$981$3...@goblin.uunet.ca...
> Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
> >>>>>> lightchannel pounded silicon into:
> >
> > > Creation and Evolution both fall down under close scrutiny. Is
> > > there another alternative? Serious suggestions please
> >
> >1) Recognize that 'creation' and 'evolution' attempt to address
> > different aspects of the situation.
> >
> Yes. Creation is philosophy and evolution is science, and the twain
> don't meet.
Yes, creation is philosophy, evolution is science and creationism is
nonsense. Evolution merely explains how life changed in complexity and says
absolutely nothing about how life or the universe originated in the first
place. Creation and evolution are not incompatable unless you take a
strictly literal interpretation of several stories in Genesis. You could
even make the claim that God guided evolution and still not logically
contradict either evolution or the Bible.
Bobbi
Y...@swbell.net
>Why can't it be a combination of both?
List of contradictions which clearly demonstrate the impossibility of
reconciling evolution with Scripture
I .Bible; God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1).
Evolution: natural chance processes can account for all things.
2. Bible: World created in six literal days (Gen.1)
Evolution: World evolved over the eons.
3. Bible: Creation is completed (Ge.. 2:3).
Evolution: Creative process continuing.
4. Bible: Oceans before land (Gen. 1:2).
Evolution: Land before oceans.
5. Bible: Atmosphere between two hydrospheres (G-. 1:7).
Evolution: Contiguous atmosphere and hydrosphere.
6. Bible: First life on land (Gen. 1: I 1).
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.
7. Bible: First life was land plants (Gen. 1:1 1).
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.
8. Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Gen. 1: 14-19).
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.
9. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes (Gen.1: I 1, 20, 2 1).
EvolutionFishes before fruit trees.
10. Bible: All stars made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16).
Evolution: Stars evolved at verious times.
11. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20-21).
Evolution: Fishes evolved hundreds of millions of years before
birds apeared.
12. Bible: Birds before insects. (Gen. 1:20-31).
Evolution: Insects before birds.
13. Bible: Whales before reptiles (Gen. 1:20-3 1).
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.
14. Bible: Birds before reptiles (Gen, 1:20-3 1)
15. Bible; Man before rain (Gen. 2:5)
Evolution:Rain before man.
16. Bible: Man before woman (Gen. 2:21-2)
Evolution: Woman before man (by genetics)
17. Bible: Light before the sun (Gen. 1:3-19).
Evolution: Sun before any light.
18. Bible: Plants before the sun (Gen. 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.
19. Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life all at once (Gen.
1:20-21)
Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive
organic blob.
20. Bible: Man's body from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7).
Evolution: Man evolved from monkeys.
21. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms (Gen. 1:28)
Evolution: Many organisms extinct before man evolved.
22. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat eater.
23. Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds. (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25;
1 Cor. 15: 38-39)
Evolution: Life forms in a continual state of flux.
24. Bible: Man's sin the cause of death (Rom. 5:12).
Evolution: Struggle and death existent long before the
evolution of man.
YM1
egor
You forgot one:
25. Bible: Myth
Evolution: Science
Thanks for playing!
<snipped>
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:7s71d7$981$3...@goblin.uunet.ca...
>> Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > different aspects of the situation.
>>
>> Yes. Creation is philosophy and evolution is science, and the twain
>> don't meet.
>
>Yes, creation is philosophy, evolution is science and creationism is
>nonsense.
Creationism is NOT nonsense because it makes perfect sense from the
religious / philosophical point of view. What you meant possibly was
creation-science, wasn't it? That may be not just mixing oranges and apples,
but methaphors and apples. What do you think?
Pastor Frank
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
--2 Timothy 3:16
Matt Silberstein
<rlmi...@home.com>:
>Why can't it be a combination of both?
>
>
It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
(rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
they have changed the meaning of "Christian"). If by "creation" you
just mean that God did it, then there is no contradiction at all. God
could be behind evolution just like God is behind the movement of the
planets or hurricanes. But, if by "creation" you mean something like
"creation science", something along the lines that Genesis is a
description (in some reasonably undistorted way) of what actually
happened, then it can't be both. The world just does not look like
Genesis describes. Either Genesis is not an accurate description or
the world itself is untrue. Now which do you think is more likely?
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptists celebrating with praises to the Lord
Rednecks celebrating with gin
Me and Suzy are just celebrating the joys of sleeping in.
M.T.
Bobbi
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Bobbi
> <rlmi...@home.com>:
>
> >Why can't it be a combination of both?
> >
> >
> It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
> (rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
> they have changed the meaning of "Christian"). If by "creation" you
> just mean that God did it, then there is no contradiction at all. God
> could be behind evolution just like God is behind the movement of the
> planets or hurricanes. But, if by "creation" you mean something like
> "creation science", something along the lines that Genesis is a
> description (in some reasonably undistorted way) of what actually
> happened, then it can't be both. The world just does not look like
> Genesis describes. Either Genesis is not an accurate description or
> the world itself is untrue. Now which do you think is more likely?
I think it would show how powerful and wonderful God is that he created
the world with the intention of it growing and developing. That God
created the world but evolution was part of His plan.
Pastor Frank
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Bobbi
><rlmi...@home.com>:
>
>>Why can't it be a combination of both?
>>
>It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
>(rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
>they have changed the meaning of "Christian").
Evidence please of "Fundamentalists 'changing' meanings of words". All
we know is that atheists have changed the meaning of atheism from 'a'
meaning no, none, without, to meaning 'anti' as evidenced by the virulent
anti-Christian polemics in our Christian NGs by trolling atheists.
If by "creation" you
>just mean that God did it, then there is no contradiction at all. God
>could be behind evolution just like God is behind the movement of the
>planets or hurricanes. But, if by "creation" you mean something like
>"creation science", something along the lines that Genesis is a
>description (in some reasonably undistorted way) of what actually
>happened, then it can't be both. The world just does not look like
>Genesis describes. Either Genesis is not an accurate description or
>the world itself is untrue. Now which do you think is more likely?
>
May I suggest. that the Bible is NOT a science nor even a history text,
but an ancient compendium on moral and social philosophy, needing a great
deal of interpretation. Therefore, if your interpretation of the Bible's
creation story doesn't match your interpretation of abiogenesis, eventual
speciation and evolution, one or both of your interpretations must be amiss.
For to the Christians in our Christian NGs, the Bible is the Word of God and
cannot contain error.
Pastor Frank
"I am the resurrection and the life, and he that believeth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he live".
--Jesus in John 11:25
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <3805c217....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Bobbi
>><rlmi...@home.com>:
>>
>>>Why can't it be a combination of both?
>>>
>>It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
>>(rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
>>they have changed the meaning of "Christian").
>
> Evidence please of "Fundamentalists 'changing' meanings of words".
I suppose you have not seen anyone in the "religious newsgroups" speak
of being a "true Christian". And seeing people deny, for example, that
Catholics are Christian. But the best evidence I have is a good friend
of mine who denied being a Christian. Yes, she believed in Christ and
went to church and all that, but to her the term "Christian" belonged
to the fundamentalists. They had succeeded in making her deny that she
was a Christian.
> All
>we know is that atheists have changed the meaning of atheism from 'a'
>meaning no, none, without, to meaning 'anti' as evidenced by the virulent
>anti-Christian polemics in our Christian NGs by trolling atheists.
>
No, but a nice attempt.
>If by "creation" you
>>just mean that God did it, then there is no contradiction at all. God
>>could be behind evolution just like God is behind the movement of the
>>planets or hurricanes. But, if by "creation" you mean something like
>>"creation science", something along the lines that Genesis is a
>>description (in some reasonably undistorted way) of what actually
>>happened, then it can't be both. The world just does not look like
>>Genesis describes. Either Genesis is not an accurate description or
>>the world itself is untrue. Now which do you think is more likely?
>>
>
> May I suggest. that the Bible is NOT a science nor even a history text,
>but an ancient compendium on moral and social philosophy, needing a great
>deal of interpretation.
Yes, you may.
> Therefore, if your interpretation of the Bible's
>creation story doesn't match your interpretation of abiogenesis, eventual
>speciation and evolution, one or both of your interpretations must be amiss.
I don't understand what you mean by "interpretation of abiogenesis". I
can understand interpreting observations, but abiogenesis is not an
observation.
>For to the Christians in our Christian NGs, the Bible is the Word of God and
>cannot contain error.
>
Nice, irrelevant, but nice.
Pastor Frank
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>Matt Silberstein wrote in message
<3805c217....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Bobbi
>>><rlmi...@home.com>:
>>>
>>>>Why can't it be a combination of both?
>>>>
>>>It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
>>>(rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
>>>they have changed the meaning of "Christian").
>>
>> Evidence please of "Fundamentalists 'changing' meanings of words".
>
>I suppose you have not seen anyone in the "religious newsgroups" speak
>of being a "true Christian". And seeing people deny, for example, that
>Catholics are Christian. But the best evidence I have is a good friend
>of mine who denied being a Christian. Yes, she believed in Christ and
>went to church and all that, but to her the term "Christian" belonged
>to the fundamentalists. They had succeeded in making her deny that she
>was a Christian.
>
You would assume, that if someone calls himself a professional, that he
has a profession. A Christian therefore is one who knows the dictums of
Christ and tries to implement them in his life. Historically the Bible was
only available in the Latin Vulgate, most people were illiterate and anyone
not clergy caught reading the Bible, or worse a translation of the Bible,
was burned at the stake. They were functionally atheist.
Until the middle of this century reading the Bible, including such
innocuous books as the Confessions of St. Augustin was considered a sin by
the RCC in most of the RC world. In Spain and Portugal including their
former colonies, RCs were to avert their eyes and spit on the floor when
passing a Protestant church.
Excepting a growing Catholic Charismatic movement, RCs were, and still
are largely functionally atheist. Of my own non-Charismatic RC relatives,
none own, nor have ever read the Bible, nor would recognise a single quote
of Christ, YET all call themselves Christian, just and ONLY because they
were baptised as such and go to church every now and then.
I am a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian and I call a
professional one who has profession and practices his profession and a
Christian one who knows his NT and practices Christianity.
>> All
>>we know is that atheists have changed the meaning of atheism from 'a'
>>meaning no, none, without, to meaning 'anti' as evidenced by the virulent
>>anti-Christian polemics in our Christian NGs by trolling atheists.
>>
>No, but a nice attempt.
>
"No" what? Do I have to add aditional evidence? Anti-Christian polemics
are much more pronounced in atheist NGs, and atheists really outdo
themselves in anti-Christian virulency in hate-groups such as
news:alt.flame.jesus.christ. "No" indeed!!!!!!
>>If by "creation" you
>>>just mean that God did it, then there is no contradiction at all. God
>>>could be behind evolution just like God is behind the movement of the
>>>planets or hurricanes. But, if by "creation" you mean something like
>>>"creation science", something along the lines that Genesis is a
>>>description (in some reasonably undistorted way) of what actually
>>>happened, then it can't be both. The world just does not look like
>>>Genesis describes. Either Genesis is not an accurate description or
>>>the world itself is untrue. Now which do you think is more likely?
>>
>> May I suggest. that the Bible is NOT a science nor even a history
text,
>>but an ancient compendium on moral and social philosophy, needing a great
>>deal of interpretation.
>
>Yes, you may.
>
>> Therefore, if your interpretation of the Bible's
>>creation story doesn't match your interpretation of abiogenesis, eventual
>>speciation and evolution, one or both of your interpretations must be
amiss.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "interpretation of abiogenesis". I
>can understand interpreting observations, but abiogenesis is not an
>observation.
>
Glad you admit to that. My Biology text shows a long row of creatures,
starting with single-celled animals and ending with Homo sapiens emerging
from a puddle of "primordeal slime". Can I assume you to mean that
"observation" to be erronous?
>>For to the Christians in our Christian NGs, the Bible is the Word of God
and
>>cannot contain error.
>>
>Nice, irrelevant, but nice.
>
Only "irrelevant" to confirmed atheists trolling our Christian NGs.
Scott
Bobbi <rlmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37E7C417...@home.com...
> Why can't it be a combination of both?
>
Here is main problem, Bobbi, with the Creation story were evolution is
concerned from the Christian point of view.
Let me preface this with a quote: "Your religion must keep up with what it
is you know about nature or else it won't work." Mythologist Joseph Campbell
to Bill Moyers of the PBS special and book "The Power of Myth."
It isn't so much how the universe or the world was created that's important
but the relationship of God to man in the story of creation, specifically
Adam and Eve.
The science of anthropology indicates that we have anatomically correct
modern humans living in Australia 60,000 years ago (and now some indications
from a found skull of them making it to South America 14,500 years ago where
they were latter whipped out by the Indians who came down after the ice had
melted enough to get through Alaska, about 12,500 years ago). It now appears
there were modern humans living near (and off of ) the ocean at least
100,000 years ago in South Africa. Europeans in Europe 30,000 years ago. Now
think about all the different races of people living around the world --
from the pygmies in Africa, to white blond-hair people in Europe, to the
Aboriginal in Australia, to Eskimos of North America, to the Asians, etc.
Where does Adam and Eve come in? How long does it take for humans to become
(evolve into) so many different races from these two people? Do we push
there existence back 100,000+ years -- or all the way back to Homo erectus
for that matter -- to make our Judeo-Christian religion and science work
together? Or, why haven't other cultures/peoples maintained memories of
these first parents?
So the problem is this from a religious & science point of view: If there
wasn't an Adam and Eve (at least a literal Adam and Eve), than what do we
make of this thing we call Original Sin, or the Fall? And then, ultimately,
ultimately, what is this stuff about Jesus having to atone for the Sin of
Adam?
Can this be reconciled? Or do we deny the science hoping that science will
come around in the future? If the scientists believe the clergy is outdated
(or out moded) in their belief about the universe, does that encourage them
to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues? The religions certainly
can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist. (BTW what does it mean
to say: "what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven? Anyone? Just a
thought) I was asking a Catholic friend (BTW I'm Catholic) this the other
day who also believes in evolution and is very, very serious about our
faith. He didn't know if theology could ever reconcile it. Is that admitting
in so many words that at least on this very important issue his religion isn
't working!? Myself, I'm not ready to give up on Catholic theologians'
ability to deal with it. Do we let the issue fade from memory as the
generations pass on? I'll give you what I think are some examples of that
below:
The Church use to believe the Earth was the center of the Universe but it
took until (I believe) John Paul II to admit the Church was wrong. The laity
just adjusted to the new paradigm centuries ago. But why was it so serious
at the time? Because people believed that the Universe was a flat
three-layered cake with Earth being the middle kingdom. Heaven was the upper
kingdom and if you wanted to see heaven just go out at night and look up.
The stars were once thought to be the radiance shining through the floor of
Heaven.
And how did Jesus come to be? The Holy Sprit descended from up there and
"seeded" Mary. Jesus ascended back. These were very literal, concrete
beliefs about this three-layered universe that are written into the Creeds.
Do we so-called modern peoples read these Creeds with the same literal,
concreteness that our ancestors did? I doubt it. Who believes the Universe
is a three layered cake? I think most of us read this as metaphorical
language, which is to say from the point of view of mythology. That isn't to
say it is false. It means you are using metaphor to describe something that
can't be put directly into words. God, for me, is beyond words.
How about human biology? Our ancestors were farmers and they thought human
biology was similar to planting. You put a seed into the *womb* of the earth
and the earth nurtures it until it grows and so on and so on. They thought
the same of reproduction. The man "seeds" the woman. It's were the
expression the "man's seed" comes from. Children were not descendent
directly from the woman's biology but from the man's. It's why girls didn't
get inheritance and why the children took on the man's name. It is also why
the Bible speaks of the sin of Adam, not really Eve. And how is it that
Jesus wasn't born with Original Sin? Because he wasn't a descendant from
Adam but from the Holy Sprit. Now in the 1700's science discovered that
women produce an egg cell and this whole biology with its social structure
has been *blown up*. Do women not pass on Original Sin, if it is passed on
by sex? And what of Mary to Jesus? The Catholic Church had argued and
debated for centuries that Mary was born with out Original Sin and so for us
the Conception was Immaculate and so for us no problem here.
Except for the Earth being the center of the Universe, most of these others
have pretty much faded from memory. However, I guess what goes around comes
around. ;-) Guess what physics has discovered. It's called the Big Bang
Theory. A couple of things about this theory: (1) the Universe started from
one point, and (2) we live in a closed universe. According to this theory if
you look out into space, in any direction, you will see all the galaxies
flying away from the earth as if this is were the center of were it all got
started. So it is *now* once again possible to say that the Earth is at the
center of this expansion. But that is also true of anywhere *you* go in the
Universe. The center is everywhere. But we also live in a closed universe,
which means that if you go long enough and far enough in any direction you
would end up right back were you started, as if you were traveling around a
sphere. Who was it that said "God is an intelligible sphere known to the
mind whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere"? Maybe science,
in its own way, will come around to Genesis in some way or another that we
can't yet know.
What many of us are ended up with is this psychological tug-of-war between
traditional faith and what science tells us is true about nature. It must
have been great to have lived 2000 years ago when this issue was not in
conflict.
For me God created the Universe. I have no doubt about that. And God is
everywhere and with in you, and the kingdom of heaven is with in you. And
that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Sprit are three persons of this one
God. And I find this God through Sacraments. I just don't believe God
dictated word for word to the OT writers. They were inspired to write, which
is to say they were living in the Sprit.
Scott
Goyra
<S9xG3.149$ko.3...@feed.centuryinter.net>...
> If the scientists believe the clergy is outdated
> (or out moded) in their belief about the universe
There is nothing "outdated" about religious belief.
It makes just as much sense in any century.
>, does that encourage them
> to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues?
It is hard to take seriously someone whio
is demonstrably wrong.
>The religions certainly
> can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist.
Why not? What are the criteria for what you
can and cannot do with a religion? Where is that rule
written down?
> For me God created the Universe. I have no doubt about that.
Why do you believe that?
Goyra
Scott
Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
news:01bf0619$490b7560$c18791c2@goyra...
>
> There is nothing "outdated" about religious belief.
> It makes just as much sense in any century.
>
>
> > to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues?
>
> is demonstrably wrong.
>
Then demonstrate where they are wrong.
>
>
>
> >The religions certainly
> > can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist.
>
> Why not? What are the criteria for what you
> can and cannot do with a religion? Where is that rule
> written down?
>
Who died and made science God?
>
>
>
> > For me God created the Universe. I have no doubt about that.
>
> Why do you believe that?
>
Call it an inspiration
Ace Ventura
>
> Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37eed9da....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>
> >I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
> >BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
> >
> It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
> taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads. And and atheist is
> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible, as you have
> been doing consistently in our Christian NGs. Both are only a very small
> percentage of the world's population.
Oh Frank, you're a hoot! First off, an atheist is not "one who rejects God
and His holy and infallible word, the Bible". An atheist is simply one who
lacks belief in God(s). Now, let's pretend that your inane definition is
correct, for the sake of discussion. If a Christian is "one who knows what
Christ taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads" (I actually
agree with you so far), and atheists are essentially everyone else, in your
twisted opinion, then how can the two groups be "only a very small percentage
of the world's population"? You really should not drink before you post, you
only babble, and make an ass of yourself.
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37fea4c5....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote in message
><3805c217....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Bobbi
>>>><rlmi...@home.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>Why can't it be a combination of both?
>>>>>
>>>>It depend on what "creation" means. The Fundamentalists have attempted
>>>>(rather successfully) to change the meaning of this word (much like
>>>>they have changed the meaning of "Christian").
>>>
>>> Evidence please of "Fundamentalists 'changing' meanings of words".
>>
>>I suppose you have not seen anyone in the "religious newsgroups" speak
>>of being a "true Christian". And seeing people deny, for example, that
>>Catholics are Christian. But the best evidence I have is a good friend
>>of mine who denied being a Christian. Yes, she believed in Christ and
>>went to church and all that, but to her the term "Christian" belonged
>>to the fundamentalists. They had succeeded in making her deny that she
>>was a Christian.
>>
>
> You would assume, that if someone calls himself a professional, that he
>has a profession. A Christian therefore is one who knows the dictums of
>Christ and tries to implement them in his life.
If you want to apply a private definition, fine. But you have just
proven my point, you are changing the definition of Christian. I was
taught that a Christian was one who accepted Jesus Christ as their
savior.
> Historically the Bible was
>only available in the Latin Vulgate, most people were illiterate and anyone
>not clergy caught reading the Bible, or worse a translation of the Bible,
>was burned at the stake. They were functionally atheist.
Irrelevant to this topic.
> Until the middle of this century reading the Bible, including such
>innocuous books as the Confessions of St. Augustin was considered a sin by
>the RCC in most of the RC world.
Please support that slander with some evidence. The RCC position has
been that reading scripture *along* was a bad idea, not that reading
scripture was a bad idea.
> In Spain and Portugal including their
>former colonies, RCs were to avert their eyes and spit on the floor when
>passing a Protestant church.
So? I know of Protestants who consider Catholics cultists. All you are
doing is proving my point.
> Excepting a growing Catholic Charismatic movement, RCs were, and still
>are largely functionally atheist. Of my own non-Charismatic RC relatives,
>none own, nor have ever read the Bible, nor would recognise a single quote
>of Christ, YET all call themselves Christian, just and ONLY because they
>were baptised as such and go to church every now and then.
> I am a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian and I call a
>professional one who has profession and practices his profession and a
>Christian one who knows his NT and practices Christianity.
>
And practices it in the way you think it should be practiced.
>>> All
>>>we know is that atheists have changed the meaning of atheism from 'a'
>>>meaning no, none, without, to meaning 'anti' as evidenced by the virulent
>>>anti-Christian polemics in our Christian NGs by trolling atheists.
>>>
>>No, but a nice attempt.
>>
>
> "No" what?
No, that chance has not occurred like that.
>Do I have to add aditional evidence? Anti-Christian polemics
>are much more pronounced in atheist NGs, and atheists really outdo
>themselves in anti-Christian virulency in hate-groups such as
>news:alt.flame.jesus.christ. "No" indeed!!!!!!
>
So? Do you have evidence that posters to those groups are
representative of the worlds atheists?
You can do what you want, but you would assume falsely in this case.
Abiogenesis is not an observation, it is the name of an event. Now
either that event (the rise of life from non-life) took place via
natural or supernatural means, or life (and the Universe) has been
around forever. Scientists study to see how life could have arisen
naturally. (And, btw, they have much better understanding of this than
they did 100, or even 10, years ago.) It may well be that someday we
will understand enough of the process and the early condition of the
Earth to have a strong idea of what happened. But, however life
arose,there is plenty of evidence (multiple independent lines of
evidence, AAMOF) that all life on Earth (H.s. included) arose from a
common population of ancestors. The row did not "end" with H.s., it
(currently) ends with all of the life on Earth.
>>>For to the Christians in our Christian NGs, the Bible is the Word of God
>and
>>>cannot contain error.
>>>
>>Nice, irrelevant, but nice.
>>
>
> Only "irrelevant" to confirmed atheists trolling our Christian NGs.
>
Also irrelevant to the subject. And if you claim I am an atheist, then
I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
Matt Silberstein
<sfe...@nortexinfo.net>:
[snip]
>Can this be reconciled? Or do we deny the science hoping that science will
>come around in the future? If the scientists believe the clergy is outdated
>(or out moded) in their belief about the universe, does that encourage them
>to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues? The religions certainly
>can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist. (BTW what does it mean
>to say: "what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven? Anyone? Just a
>thought) I was asking a Catholic friend (BTW I'm Catholic) this the other
>day who also believes in evolution and is very, very serious about our
>faith. He didn't know if theology could ever reconcile it.
Have you read any of the Catholic publications on this subject? Many
Catholic scholars certainly think they have reconciled the two. Since
this concerns you, you should take a look.
[snip]
>
>For me God created the Universe. I have no doubt about that. And God is
>everywhere and with in you, and the kingdom of heaven is with in you. And
>that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Sprit are three persons of this one
>God. And I find this God through Sacraments. I just don't believe God
>dictated word for word to the OT writers. They were inspired to write, which
>is to say they were living in the Sprit.
>
IOW you have faith in your religion. Enough faith to look at the world
with open eyes. Good for you.
Pastor Frank
>>
>Also irrelevant to the subject. And if you claim I am an atheist, then
>I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
>BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
>
taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads. And and atheist is
one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible, as you have
been doing consistently in our Christian NGs. Both are only a very small
percentage of the world's population.
Pastor Frank
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
that which spitefully use you and persecute you".
-- Jesus in Matt. 5:44
Bobbi
Goyra
> > >, does that encourage them
> > > to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues?
> >
> > It is hard to take seriously someone whio
> > is demonstrably wrong.
> >
> Then demonstrate where they are wrong.
Which clergy do you mean? I was
thinking of the Catholic clergy, for example. It's
easy to prove they are fundamentally wrong in their
reasoning about contraception See http://goyra.com/doublethink
Also, Christian clergy tend to use phrases like "human
life begins at birth" as if this was an undisputed fact. The
truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
> > >The religions certainly
> > > can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist.
> >
> > Why not? What are the criteria for what you
> > can and cannot do with a religion? Where is that rule
> > written down?
> >
>
> Who died and made science God?
You're not answering my question. Who says
you can't alter a religion? The Bible is an altered Torah,
for example.
Goyra
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37eed9da....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>
>>> Only "irrelevant" to confirmed atheists trolling our Christian NGs.
>>>
>>Also irrelevant to the subject. And if you claim I am an atheist, then
>>I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
>>BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
>>
> It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
>taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
Do you consider Catholics Christians? A simply yes/no question.
> And and atheist is
>one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible, as you have
>been doing consistently in our Christian NGs.
Please show one post where I reject "God and His holy and infallible
word", just one. Please post the message-id and a relevant quote. You
can't do it because I have done no such thing. You have made a direct
statement that is contrary to fact and for which you simply have no
evidence. You have born false witness and your soul is in peril.
> Both are only a very small
>percentage of the world's population.
>
Do you consider Hindu's (those who know of Christ and the Bible)
atheists? Again, a simply yes/no question.
Goyra
<7sf1vf$5t9$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
> taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
Hmmm....OK....
> And and atheist is
> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
BULL SHIT. You think that Muslims are Atheists!!
Goyra
Wostenberg
Goyra wrote:
> Scott <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote in article
> <lTAG3.170$ko.4...@feed.centuryinter.net>...
>
> > > >, does that encourage them
> > > > to ignore the clergy on matters of morals issues?
> > >
> > > It is hard to take seriously someone whio
> > > is demonstrably wrong.
> > >
> > Then demonstrate where they are wrong.
>
> Which clergy do you mean? I was
> thinking of the Catholic clergy, for example. It's
> easy to prove they are fundamentally wrong in their
> reasoning about contraception See http://goyra.com/doublethink
> Also, Christian clergy tend to use phrases like "human
> life begins at birth" as if this was an undisputed fact. The
> truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
> the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
I read the article. Yes, the core of the Catholic criticism is that
artificial contraceptives are unnatural. But one must understand this
term 'unnatural'. The author http://goyra.com/doublethink understand
the term 'natural' as opposed to the term 'artificial', and rightly
points out we use all sorts of artificial things (glasses, antibiotics,
etc.). How can the reasonable Catholic be for, say, artificial
antiobiotics and against artificial contraceptives?
The criticism misunderstands the Catholic argument. There is nothing
wrong with artificial things. "natural" means of contraceptives like sea
sponges are concemned on the same basis as artificial condoms. To read a
good Catholic presentation in oder to criticize what the Church actually
teaches, instead of what many misunderstood her to teach, read Abp.
Chaput's http://www.sni.net/archden/dcr/1998072220.htm , especially
Paragraph 13
"13. This is why the Church is not against "artificial" contraception.
She is against all contraception. The notion of "artificial" has nothing
to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by
implying that the debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body's
organic system. It is not. The Church has no problem with science
appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily health. "
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><7sf1vf$5t9$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>
>> It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
>> taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
>
> Hmmm....OK....
>
>> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
>
> BULL SHIT.
>
religious NGs?
>
You think that Muslims are Atheists?
>
I stand by my statement. I believe Muslims call those NOT believing in
Muhammad and the Quran, infidels. But you have to ask them for confirmation.
Pastor Frank
> Which clergy do you mean? I was
>thinking of the Catholic clergy, for example. It's
>easy to prove they are fundamentally wrong in their
>reasoning about contraception See http://goyra.com/doublethink
>Also, Christian clergy tend to use phrases like "human
>life begins at birth" as if this was an undisputed fact.
You REALLY blew your fuses in this one. Christian clergy believe life
begins at conception, NOT at "birth". That's an atheist, pro death view,
where anyone can twist off a living healthy baby's head as soon as it
emerges from the birthcanal and kill the kid calling the murder "partial
birth abortion" with total legal impunity.
The
>truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
>the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
>
That may be true, but your view is in support of inhumanity and death,
to "suit yourself".
Pastor Frank
>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>Matt Silberstein wrote in message
>>>>
>>>Also irrelevant to the subject. And if you claim I am an atheist, then
>>>I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
>>>BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
>>>
>>taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
>
>
I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine: Are Germans
Nazis, Chinese Communists and atheists devil worshippers? "A simple yes/no"
answer will suffice.
>> And and atheist is
>>one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible, as you
have
>>been doing consistently in our Christian NGs.
>
>Please show one post where I reject "God and His holy and infallible
>word", just one. Please post the message-id and a relevant quote. You
>can't do it because I have done no such thing. You have made a direct
>statement that is contrary to fact and for which you simply have no
>evidence. You have born false witness and your soul is in peril.
>
I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have sufficient
reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out additionally.
If you feel you wish to make a correction to this impression, please point
to a post where you discuss theology in support of God and His infallible
and holy Word, the Bible, as well as His saints.
If you cannot, then it's never too late to start. Let's hear it in
support of your religion, whichever it may be, to the glory of God.
>> Both are only a very small
>>percentage of the world's population.
>>
>Do you consider Hindu's (those who know of Christ and the Bible)
>atheists? Again, a simply yes/no question.
>
This must be one of your most silly questions you ever came up with.
Read the Vedas and the Gaghavad Gita and get a load of Hindu gods....... but
why do I bother? You have shown yourself to believe in science to the
exclusion of all else. I can't think of a single post of yours in our
Christian NGs that would indicate that you have any other beliefs.
egor
>
> Goyra wrote in message <01bf0687$ab5529a0$508491c2@goyra>...
> >Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
> ><7sf1vf$5t9$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
> >
> >> taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
> >
> >
> >> And an atheist is
> >> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
> >
> >
> The expletive you are using is not Biblical. Are you an atheist trolling our
> religious NGs?
What a hypocritical peice of shit you are, Frankenstein. You called someone a
"anti-Christian asshole", but that's okay in your book?
<snipped>
egor
>
> Goyra wrote in message <01bf0686$e2201180$508491c2@goyra>...
>
> > Which clergy do you mean? I was
> >thinking of the Catholic clergy, for example. It's
> >easy to prove they are fundamentally wrong in their
> >reasoning about contraception See http://goyra.com/doublethink
> >Also, Christian clergy tend to use phrases like "human
> >life begins at birth" as if this was an undisputed fact.
>
> You REALLY blew your fuses in this one. Christian clergy believe life
> begins at conception, NOT at "birth". That's an atheist, pro death view,
> where anyone can twist off a living healthy baby's head as soon as it
> emerges from the birthcanal and kill the kid calling the murder "partial
> birth abortion" with total legal impunity.
It's not an "atheist, pro death view", you ignorant bigot. There are plenty
of religious people who don't agree with your view, which by the way is
not biblical, it's only the opinion of you and nut cases like you.
> >The truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
> >the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
> >
> That may be true, but your view is in support of inhumanity and death,
> to "suit yourself".
What a stupid ass you are, Frankenstein.
> Pastor Frank
Wostenberg
world was created that's important but the relationship of God to man in the
Bible is not about how the heavens go 'round but how to get to heaven.
You need to help your Catholic friend (I am, Catholic, too) think through he
means by 'evolution'. If by evolution a person means simply 'change', there is
little over which to disagree. But usually when scientists say 'evolution' they
mean the theory that all life, including man, arose by accidential process, with
no divine intervention at any point in the chain. This is at best a deistic
theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God directly
creates each person ex nihilo.
Now perhaps God did endow life with an aspiration and innate ability to improve
itself in it's descendents. Perhaps He preprogrammed the changes, and millions
of years ago a bird literally crawled out of a reptile's egg. This fits all
available evidence, but is it 'evolution' as scientists use the term today?
Probably not.
Matt wisely suggests you read what the Catholics are saying. So much of this
debate is dominated by biblical literalists and atheists. If you're interested
in what Catholic theologians and scientists have to say on the relation of
evolution to religion, George Sim Johnson's _did darwin get it right: catholics
and the theory of evolution_ quotes them extensively and has a good
bibliography. The Intelligent Design site http://www.origins.org/ has some very
good papers on this "middle ground", including some from Michael Behe, a modern
Catholic micriobologist critical of natural evolution.
-Alan
Wostenberg
egor wrote:
> It's not an "atheist, pro death view", . There are plenty
> of religious people who don't agree with your view, which by the way is
> not biblical, it's only the opinion of you
That organtic human life begins at the cataclysmic event of conception is a
conclusion of science, not religous dogma. The unscientific view that human life
begins later, say, when measurable brainwave activity commences, should be
rejected by atheists on purely rational grounds, since it bifurcates the human
being to two entities: a brain using a body as a driver uses a car.
-Alan
Job (Ian Rohrbacher)
Goyra wrote:
> Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
> <7sf1vf$5t9$1...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>
> > It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
> > taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
>
> Hmmm....OK....
>
> > And and atheist is
> > one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
>
> BULL SHIT. You think that Muslims are Atheists!!
The Koran acknowledges both the OT and NT as Scriptural.
>
>
> Goyra
Goyra
> >> an atheist is
> >> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
> You think that Muslims are Atheists?
> I stand by my statement.
OK, so you have completely redefined the word
'atheist'. You will have many short and heated debates here,
Frank, if you go around changing the meaning of words
without telling anyone.
Goyra
Goyra
> >Also, Christian clergy tend to use phrases like "human
> >life begins at birth" as if this was an undisputed fact.
> You REALLY blew your fuses in this one. Christian clergy believe life
> begins at conception, NOT at "birth".
Ooops, OK, so it was a pretty obvious typo.
> The
> >truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
> >the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
> >
> That may be true, but your view is in support of inhumanity and
death,
> to "suit yourself".
You don't know my view in this matter, and
you don't know whether it suits me or not.
Goyra
Goyra
> > BULL SHIT.
> >
> The expletive you are using is not Biblical. Are you an atheist trolling
our
> religious NGs?
Personal computers are not Biblical either, but you use them.
Goyra
Goyra
> Now perhaps God did endow life with an aspiration and innate ability to
improve
> itself in it's descendents.
The evolution theory does not tell us that
"improvements" occur, in fact an "improvement"
is entirely in the eye of the beholder. You don't need
to look for a way to explain "improvements", Alan.
Goyra
Goyra
> That organtic human life begins at the cataclysmic event of conception is
a
> conclusion of science, not religous dogma.
Wrong. Science tells us that a lot of things
begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
no definition of the world "life".
You can call it "life" if you want, but don't
pretend to be scientific.
Goyra
Goyra
> This is at best a deistic
> theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God
directly
> creates each person ex nihilo.
God creates each person? That's funny, I thought
it was their mothers. Is this the most extreme example of
misogyny so far?
Goyra
Scott
Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37EBB802...@home.com...
> Scott, you're right to point out "..It isn't so much how the universe or
the
> world was created that's important but the relationship of God to man in
the
> story of creation, specifically Adam and Eve.". As the old saying goes,
the
> Bible is not about how the heavens go 'round but how to get to heaven.
>
> You need to help your Catholic friend (I am, Catholic, too) think through
he
> means by 'evolution'. If by evolution a person means simply 'change',
there is
> little over which to disagree. But usually when scientists say 'evolution'
they
> mean the theory that all life, including man, arose by accidential
process, with
deistic
> theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God
directly
> creates each person ex nihilo.
>
improve
millions
> of years ago a bird literally crawled out of a reptile's egg. This fits
all
> available evidence, but is it 'evolution' as scientists use the term
today?
> Probably not.
>
> Matt wisely suggests you read what the Catholics are saying. So much of
this
> debate is dominated by biblical literalists and atheists. If you're
interested
> in what Catholic theologians and scientists have to say on the relation of
> evolution to religion, George Sim Johnson's _did darwin get it right:
catholics
> and the theory of evolution_ quotes them extensively and has a good
> bibliography. The Intelligent Design site http://www.origins.org/ has some
very
> good papers on this "middle ground", including some from Michael Behe, a
modern
> Catholic micriobologist critical of natural evolution.
>
> -Alan
Thanks, Alan, I check them out. BTW go to www.ewtn.com and under the Audio
Library - Programs type "evolution". There are several discussions on
RealAudio about this subject. Am I wrong to think some of them sound like
fundamentalism?
Scott
Scott
Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
>
>
> > That organtic human life begins at the cataclysmic event of conception
is
> a
> > conclusion of science, not religous dogma.
>
> Wrong. Science tells us that a lot of things
> begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
> no definition of the world "life".
>
> You can call it "life" if you want, but don't
> pretend to be scientific.
What do you concider to be human? What sets up apart from the other mammals
of this world?
Scott
Scott
Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
> > > >The religions certainly
> > > > can't change it's beliefs just to suit the scientist.
> > >
> > > Why not? What are the criteria for what you
> > > can and cannot do with a religion? Where is that rule
> > > written down?
> > >
> >
> > Who died and made science God?
>
>
> You're not answering my question. Who says
> you can't alter a religion? The Bible is an altered Torah,
> for example.
>
I'm not saying you can't. But that change must be based on theological
reasoning. By that I mean "Faith seeking knowledge". Humans don't (well some
of us do) just run down to a religious shopping mall and pick beliefs of
the counter that fit their personnal desires; kind of flippant I think.
Others would argue that this is humanistic.
This is an argument I've use with people who argue that we are largely
products of our society. For example men and women precieve life differently
because of the way we are raised. If we could just change society (which is
a man made creation) we would all live in a much better world. Well who died
and made society God? As far as society being the cause of differences in
male female percepts, there is is plenty of neurological evidence (on the
net -- I can pull them up) to prove this argument wrong. IMO society must
start with a working understand of *created* human psychology and build from
there. To many people, today, think society creates human reality.
BTW why do atheist hang out in religious news groups. What is the motive?
Scott
Scott
Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:7sgb3f$clc$1...@demon.uunet.ca...
> >Please show one post where I reject "God and His holy and infallible
> >word", just one. Please post the message-id and a relevant quote. You
> >can't do it because I have done no such thing. You have made a direct
> >statement that is contrary to fact and for which you simply have no
> >evidence. You have born false witness and your soul is in peril.
> >
>
> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have
sufficient
> reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out
additionally.
> If you feel you wish to make a correction to this impression, please point
> to a post where you discuss theology in support of God and His infallible
> and holy Word, the Bible,
But what does "infallible" mean of the Bible? From the following quote I
have to ask 2 questions. Who made these mistakes that McBrien points out?
Did Jesus make them or did the NT writers make them about what Jesus said?
I've quoted from Catholicism by Richard McBrien:
Chapter XV Special Question In Chirsology
The knowledge, Or Consciousness, Of Jesus
The question of the knowledge, or consciousness, of Jesus is important for
two reasons: (1) Many problems of New Testament interpretation cannnot be
solved if there is no possibility of development, even error, in the
knowledge of Jesus and (2) Hebrews 4:15 and the Concel of Chalcedon assert
that Jesus is like us in all things "yet without sin." How much like us is
Jesus if he knew exactly what the future held for him, down to the finest
detail? We face the future with wonder and hope, and sometimes with fear and
dread. Jesus would have experienced none of these human emotions if he knew,
with factual certitude, precisely what the Father had in store for him, and
especially that the Father would raise him from the dead "on the third
day.".... Is he really one with us --in all things except sin?
There are three subquestion to be considered: (1) does the New Testament
attribute ignorance and even error to Jesus? (2) Does the official Church
admit of ignorance and error in the mind of Jesus? (3) Can the New Testament
record be reconciled with the official teaching of the Church?
Does the New Textament Attribute Ignorance and Even Error to Jesus? Although
there are indications in the New Testament that the early Church thought
Jesus to be in possession of unlimited and infallible knowledge, the weight
of the evidence seems to be on the other side.
Given the development from a low (Jesus-as-human) to a high
(Jesus-as-divine) Christology within the New Testament and within the
Gospels themselves (eg., from Mark to John), it is not surprising that the
later New Testament material shuld have suppressed any suggestion of Jesus'
ignorance. For example, Matthew 9:20-22 reports the same incident found in
Mark 5:25-33, where a woman "afflicted with a hemorrahage for a dozen years"
touched Jesus' garment and "healing power had gone out from him." In the
earlier Marcan account, however, Jesus does not know who touched him. In
Matthew's account, Jesus turns and immediately identifies the woman.
In John's report of the miracle of the loaves, Jesus asks Philip where they
could find enough bread to feed such a "large crowd" (John 6:5). But John
quickly adds that Jesus "said this to test him, for he himself knew what he
was going to do" (v. 6)....
All of the Gospels attribute to Jesus the ability to know what others are
thinking (Mark 2:6-8; Mark 9:33-34; Luke 9:46-47; John 2:24-25; 16:19,30).
But it is not always clear whether this reflects Jesus' own keen perception
of human nature or whether it is really a form of superhuman knowledge....
Indications Against Unlimited Knowledge
In Mark 5:30-33 ( = Luke 8:45-47), to which we referred above, Jesus does
not know who in the crowd touched his garment. In Luke 2:46 he asks
questions of the teachers of the Law in the Temple. In Luke 2:52 he is
described as having "increased in wisdom." both these texts are significant
because they are part of the Lucan Infancy Narrative, where Jesus is
presented unequivocally as God's Son from the moment of his conception.
Even in the specifically religious realm Jesus is shown to have been
ignorant about certain matters. He reflects the inadequate and sometime
erroneous biblical views of this contemporaries. He cites an Old Testament
text which apparently does not exist (John 7:38). He is wrong about the
identity of the high priest at the time David entered the house of God and
ate the holy bread which only priest were permitted to eat (Mark 2:26); it
was Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1-6) and not Abiathar, as Jesus thought. He was
in error, too, about the fact that Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was killed in
the Temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-22); it was not Zechariah, son of Barachiah,
as Jesus said (Matthew 23:35). And Jesus mistakenly attributed Psalm 110 to
David, making it a messianic psalm besides (Mark 12:36), even though there
was no expectation of a Messiah at the time it was composed. Jesus also
shared the primitive ideas of the contemporaries about demons, confusing
demon possesssion with epileply and insanity (Mark 5:4, 9:17-18; Matthew
12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26). He drew upon the same limited religious concepts
of his day to describe the afterlife and the end of the world (Mark 9:43-49;
13). There is nothing new, superhuman, or unique about such declarations.
Jesus simply employed iedas and imager that were already current.
We cannot even take at face value his foreknowledge and predictions of this
passion, death, and resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; and parallels).
Among other exegetical problems, one has to account for the exceedingly
curious attitude of the desciples who, if they had really heard Jesus make
such predictions, should not have been taken by such complete surprise by
the crucifixion even when it was imminent; nor, of course, should they have
been so totally unprepared for the resurrection (Luke 24:19-26)....
....The biblical and theological discussions about Jesus' knowledge of the
date of the Second Coming (parousia) cannot usefully be summarized here. But
all those who favor a so-called maximalist position (namely, that Jesus knew
everything, and everything about everything) have to contend with the stark
assertion: "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32)....
Does the Official Church Admit of Ignorance and error in Jesus? The gap
betweenthe New Testament and the official teaching of the Church is greater
here than on the first two special questions, the virginal conception and
the sinlessness of Jesus. On the other hand, the magisterial sources are
less authoritative (nothing approaching an ecumenical concil, for example),
and their dependence upon the medieval synthesis is even more pronounced.
Medieval Christology had argued , on the basis of the hypostatic union, that
no perfection is to be denied Jesus if it was as all possible for him to
have had it. Therefore, he not only klnow everything, but he knew everything
about everything. He ad *beatific* knowledge, i.e., God's knowledge of all
things; *infused* knowledge, i.e., angelic knowledge requiring no learning
effort; and experimental knowledge, i.e., what he inescapalbly encountered
within the particularitites of his earthly life. An extreme from of the
medieval position was expressed by certain seventeenth-century commentators
of Thomas Aquinas, known as the *Salmanticenses*. In their view , Jesus'
knowledge was so unlimited that he could accurately be described as the
greatest mathematician, the greatest doctor, the greatest painter, the
greatest farmer, the greatest sailor, the greatest philosopher, and so
forth....
In 1907 the Holy Office, under the direction of Pope Pius X, issued its
anti-Modernist decree *Lamentabili*, in which it rejected certain
contemporary assumptions about the knowledge and consciouness of Jesus,
namely, that he was in error about "the proximity of the Messianic advent"
and that his human knowledge was limited.
In 1918 the same Holy Office, this time under the direction of Pope Benedict
XV, categorized certain propositions as being "unsafe" for teaching in
Catholic seminaries and universities, namely, the opinion that Christ may
not have had the beatific vision during his lifetime, that he would not have
known "from the beginning... everything, past, present, and future, that is
to say everthing which God knows with the 'knowledge of vision.' "
Finally, in 1943 Pope Pius XII declared in an encyclical letter on the
Church as the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) that Jesus enjoyed
the beatific vision "from the time He was received into the womb of the
Mother of God." consequently, "the loving knowledge with which the divine
Redeemer has pursued us from the first moment of His incarnation is such as
completely to surpass all the searching of the human mind."....
Can We Reconcile the New Testament Record and the Teaching of the
Church?
No; at least not *these* teaching. But then, what precisely are these
teachings excluding, and what authority do they have?
The difficulty with answering the first of these two questions is compounded
by the variety of theological universes that are operative in the New
Testament, the medieval period, and in contemporary thought. On closer
examination, the three universes are not mutually opposed. The medieval
position is the "odd one out." The New Testament and present-dayt theology
are in closer harmony, one with another.
Scott
Wostenberg
Goyra wrote:
> Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in article <37EBB802...@home.com>...
>
> > This is at best a deistic
> > theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God
> directly
> > creates each person ex nihilo.
>
> God creates each person? That's funny, I thought
> it was their mothers. Is this the most extreme example of
> misogyny so far?
>
>
Sure, human consorts contribute the genetic material. But no matter how many
atoms you line up you don't get a person, since you are not your body. You are
a person who has a body. So if you think there is such a thing as 'person', it
can only be if there is a third Party to the blessed event.
-Alan Wostenberg
Wostenberg
Goyra wrote:
> Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in article <37EBBAA3...@home.com>...
>
> > That organtic human life begins at the cataclysmic event of conception is
> a
> > conclusion of science, not religous dogma.
>
> Wrong. Science tells us that a lot of things
> begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
> no definition of the world "life".
>
> You can call it "life" if you want, but don't
> pretend to be scientific.
>
>
Then your quarrel is with the scientists, who recognize there are such things
as microscopic single celled living organisms. Observe under a microscope the
one celled human being is capable of homeostasis, growth, all the qualities
distinguish life from nonlife. Give your definition of life such that it
includes single celled amoebae but excludes single celled humans.
-Alan
Wostenberg
Scott wrote:
> Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:37EBB802...@home.com...
> The Intelligent Design site http://www.origins.org/ has some
> very
> > good papers on this "middle ground", including some from Michael Behe, a
> modern
> > Catholic micriobologist critical of natural evolution.
>
> Thanks, Alan, I check them out. BTW go to www.ewtn.com and under the Audio
> Library - Programs type "evolution". There are several discussions on
> RealAudio about this subject. Am I wrong to think some of them sound like
> fundamentalism?
Scott, I went to http://www.ewtn.com and couldn't find audio programs keyworded
'evolution'. But I've always found their text documents on the subject OK and
would be surprised if there were any biblical literalism there. I do know they
interviewed Georg Sims Johnson (mentioned above) who's book copiously references
Catholic philosophers, scientists and ecclesiastical authorities. Any urls or
particular auditory comments?
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><7sgatr$clc$3...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>
>> >> an atheist is
>> >> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
>
>> You think that Muslims are Atheists?
>
Why are you snipping my answer? I cannot answer for Muslims.
>
>> I stand by my statement.
>
The word "atheist" ONLY applies to the Judeo-Christian religion. Muslims
call their atheists "infidels" to my knowledge.
>
> OK, so you have completely redefined the word
>'atheist'. You will have many short and heated debates here,
>Frank, if you go around changing the meaning of words
>without telling anyone.
>
I could say the same about your complaint. Only, a cagey guy like you
doesn't stick his neck out by posting his own definition, hey? Trashing
someone else's definition is so much easier.
Pastor Frank
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
that which spitefully use you and persecute you".
-- Jesus in Matt. 5:44
Scott
I don't recall and urls mentioned. Go to http://www.ewtn.com/ Look in the
"Libraries" window for "Audio Libraries" and Select it (should be
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp ) Page down to
"Select from a list of EWTN Programs " and type "evolution" programs 3,4,5,6
are about evolution.
Scott
CJ Watson
Goyra wrote:
> Scott <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote in article
> <Z8QG3.237$ko.7...@feed.centuryinter.net>...
>
> > BTW why do atheist hang out in religious news groups. What is the motive?
>
> The religious are attacking everybody
> else. They won a battle in Kansas recently.
What do you think they did?
--W
Scott
Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
> Scott <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote in article
> <Z8QG3.237$ko.7...@feed.centuryinter.net>...
>
> > BTW why do atheist hang out in religious news groups. What is the
motive?
>
>
> The religious are attacking everybody
> else. They won a battle in Kansas recently.
>
I don't agree with the Kansas School Board. Fact is, my kids go to a
Catholic school and guess what they've studied in grade school
already....evolution.
> p.s. I am not an atheist.
My mistake
Scott
Scott
Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Science tells us that a lot of things
> > > begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
> > > no definition of the world "life".
> > > You can call it "life" if you want, but don't
> > > pretend to be scientific.
>
>
> > up apart from the other mammals of this world?
>
>
> LIFE begins, not whether it is human.
>
Well then, when would you say human life begins? I'm asking for your
philosophical opinion, not science. What is it that makes us human, IYO?
Scott
Goyra
> BTW why do atheist hang out in religious news groups. What is the motive?
The religious are attacking everybody
else. They won a battle in Kansas recently.
p.s. I am not an atheist.
Goyra
Goyra
> > Science tells us that a lot of things
> > begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
> > no definition of the world "life".
> > You can call it "life" if you want, but don't
> > pretend to be scientific.
> What do you concider to be human? What sets
> up apart from the other mammals of this world?
That's a different issue. The issue is when
LIFE begins, not whether it is human.
Goyra
Goyra
> > Wrong. Science tells us that a lot of things
> > begin at conception, but not "life". In fact science has
> > no definition of the world "life".
> Then your quarrel is with the scientists
No, my quarrel is with you, who
pretend to be scientific and are not.
> Observe under a microscope the
> one celled human being is capable of homeostasis, growth, all the
qualities
> distinguish life from nonlife.
There IS no distinction between life and
nonlife. Once again, you are distorting the facts.
Are viruses alive? They do not have Growth.
Are corporatiosn alive? They DO have Growth.
Are air-conditioned cars alive? They have
homeostasis.
You see Alan, you don't HAVE a workable
definition of the word "life", you're just pretending.
Goyra
Goyra
> >> >> an atheist is
> >> >> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
> >
> >> You think that Muslims are Atheists?
> Why are you snipping my answer? I cannot answer for Muslims.
You did answer for Muslims - they do reject
the bible. To them, Jesus was just a man.
> The word "atheist" ONLY applies to the Judeo-Christian religion.
Muslims
> call their atheists "infidels" to my knowledge.
> >
> > OK, so you have completely redefined the word
> >'atheist'.
> I could say the same about your complaint. Only, a cagey guy like you
> doesn't stick his neck out by posting his own definition, hey? Trashing
> someone else's definition is so much easier.
I don't have a definition of my own. I get
one from the dictionary. That helps me to communicate
with others and generally get along.
Goyra
Goyra
> > God creates each person? That's funny, I thought
> > it was their mothers.
> Sure, human consorts contribute the genetic material. But no matter how
many
> atoms you line up you don't get a person
Can you prove that? I'm pretty sure nobody has
conducted the experiment, so how do you know the result?
Surely you're not (gasp) BLUFFING? Christians are supposed
to tell the truth!
Goyra
Ross Millar (Pukeko Courseware)
> Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
> > > Creation and Evolution both fall down under close scrutiny. Is
> > > there another alternative? Serious suggestions please
> >
Both look at the same thing from different point of view.
Evolution attempts to explain observations from nature - including fossil
remains.
Creation as in Gen 1 is not an observation by a human. (They didn't come
around till day 6 remember.) Rather (believers believe) it is revealed
truth.
I also wish a lot of creation scientists would also recognise the poetry
that is in the Genesis account. Gen 1 is not pure poetry, but it does have
a lot of poetical elements.
Gen 1:1 in Hebrew is ... (with apologies for my transliteration)
bera'shit bara' elohim (In the beginning God created...)
Look at the first two words (br'sht br') and you will see a triple
alliteration. That's impressive poetical device.
The first thing revealed about God is that he's into the arts! Okay he
created first and then has it described poetically.
Also note the parallels between the days
Day 1
Light Dark
Day 4
Sun Moon
Day 2
Water above (skys) and below (seas)
Day 5
Animals above (birds) and below (fish, etc)
Day 3
Land
Day 6
Land animals and humanity (Adam = man _and_ humanity)
Whatever one's position on the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 3, one
must not forget the _literary_ aspects of the passage. It is not just
informative, it is beautiful - just like some of the trees.
Ross Millar
Goyra
> > > What do you concider to be human? What sets
> > > up apart from the other mammals of this world?
> >
> > That's a different issue. The issue is when
> > LIFE begins, not whether it is human.
> Well then, when would you say human life begins?
I don't want to say, I don't want to get
deeply involved in an abortion debate...I just
want to point out that some of the participants
here are talking about "human life" and pretending
it's a well-defined thing. In fact "life" is not defined
at all.
> I'm asking for your philosophical opinion, not science.
As such it would only be my opinion,
so why would it matter to you?
> What is it that makes us human, IYO?
I don't think there exists a definition of
"human" either. If we could resurrect all our dead
ancestors of the evolutionary tree, the older ones
would be chimpanzees in everybody's estimate;
so how could we choose the "first human" when
each one is almost identical to his parents?
Goyra
Wostenberg
Goyra wrote:
> Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in article <37EBE735...@home.com>...
> > Observe under a microscope the
> > one celled human being is capable of homeostasis, growth, all the
> qualities
> > distinguish life from nonlife.
>
> There IS no distinction between life and
> nonlife.
>
> Are viruses alive? They do not have Growth.
> Are corporatiosn alive? They DO have Growth.
Sure, there is an analogy betwee social organizations (an ording of people to
a purpose) and social organisms (and ordering of cells to a purpose), which
why the term 'organ' occurs in both disciplines.
Virus alive? A bearded man plucks a whisker. Still bearded? Plucks another. And
so on. At what point do we say he has no beard? The fact that there are
difficulties at the boundry condition (do seven whiskers a beard make? are viri
alive?) does not mean there is no category boundry between beard/nobeard or
life/nonlife.
No distinction between life/nonlife? I am surprised how quickly a defense of
abortion rights turns into an attack on science.
-Alan
Wostenberg
Goyra wrote:
> Wostenberg <pw...@home.com> wrote in article <37EBE8C8...@home.com>...
>
> > Sure, human consorts contribute the genetic material. But no matter how
> many
> > atoms you line up you don't get a person
>
> Can you prove that? I'm pretty sure nobody has
> conducted the experiment, so how do you know the result?
Demonstrate that no matter how many atoms you line up you don't get a person?
Sure. I'll give a rational demonstration but offer no experiments, for the same
reason one does not do experiments to demonstrate some mathematical conclusion
such as there are an infinity of prime numbers. Truth is not limited to
scientific truth.
Let a person be "a being endowed with intellect and free will". What the
intellect does is grasp knowledge which timeless and universal. But atoms are
in time and particular place. Therefore, no matter how many atoms you arrange,
you don't get a being endowed with intellect (a person).
-Alan Wostenberg
Pastor Frank
>
> You don't know my view in this matter, and
>you don't know whether it suits me or not.
>
Well!!!! Aren't we cagey. A man of many words signifying nothing. Are
you an atheist refuter?
Pastor Frank
Being a REFUTER is easy, fun, and requires only a little basic
knowledge:
1. How to find a post.
2. How to create breaks in the right places of the post for your comments.
3. How to type short comments.
By following the simple guidelines below, you too can see your name next
to post after post. You WILL get e-mail from people you don't know, and
best of all, people will notice you.
To be a Refuter, you must first find a Poster. That is someone who has
something to say and creates a post. The wonderful thing is, you don't have
to know anything about the poster's subject to push his buttons, just choose
one of the following methods to reply:
1. Ask the poster to prove every statement he makes.
2. Automatically trash everything the poster says.
3. Simply keep asking 'Why'? of every idea expressed.
4. Ignore the post and flame the poster.
Next, sit back and watch him try explain or defend himself. You can make him
define his definitions, then his definitions of his definitions etc. ad
infinitum, and generally cause him to make a fool of himself by jumping
through your hoops. It's a great way to kill time, and nobody will ever know
you haven't got the faintest of what the poster is talking about.
-à la Kevin Hall's 'Refuter's Instruction Kit'
Ace Ventura
>
> Goyra wrote in message <01bf06b7$d1b44f60$1b8391c2@goyra>...
> >
> > You don't know my view in this matter, and
> >you don't know whether it suits me or not.
> >
> Well!!!! Aren't we cagey. A man of many words signifying nothing. Are
> you an atheist refuter?
What a deceitful pig you are, Pastor Dishonesty. Why did you snip the
portion of your post he was replying to? Here it is:
> > > >The truth is, science does not even define the word "life" and
> > > >the clergy are simply making a definition to suit themselves.
> > > >
> > > That may be true, but your view is in support of inhumanity
> > > and death to "suit yourself".
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Goyra wrote in message <01bf06b7$883dda40$1b8391c2@goyra>...
>>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
>><7sgatr$clc$3...@demon.uunet.ca>...
>>
>>> >> an atheist is
>>> >> one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible,
>>
>>> You think that Muslims are Atheists?
>>
>
> Why are you snipping my answer? I cannot answer for Muslims.
>>
>>> I stand by my statement.
>>
>
> The word "atheist" ONLY applies to the Judeo-Christian religion. Muslims
>call their atheists "infidels" to my knowledge.
Your "knowledge" is warped by your preconceptions. An "infidel" may be
a non-muslim, but that does not mean infidel means atheist. Atheist
means without belief in God, not without belief in Jesus Christ. "God"
in this context is a category, not an instance.
You do, of course, have the right to use any definition of words that
you chose. But if you want to use the words to communicate, you should
use the standard definitions, not private ones.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptists celebrating with praises to the Lord
Rednecks celebrating with gin
Me and Suzy are just celebrating the joys of sleeping in.
M.T.
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37ec6d44....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote in message
><37eed9da....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>>>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Only "irrelevant" to confirmed atheists trolling our Christian NGs.
>>>>>
>>>>Also irrelevant to the subject. And if you claim I am an atheist, then
>>>>I would like to see the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.
>>>>BTW, do you divide people into either atheists or (True) Christians?
>>>>
>>> It should be obvious, that a Christian is one who knows what Christ
>>>taught and seeks to follow it as the Holy Spirit leads.
>>
>>Do you consider Catholics Christians? A simply yes/no question.
>>
>
> I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine: Are Germans
>Nazis, Chinese Communists and atheists devil worshippers? "A simple yes/no"
>answer will suffice.
>
What an odd way of discussing things. I don't remember you asking this
question at any time, so I find it hard to understand how I now have
the burden of answering first. AFAICT you are simply avoiding
answering a rather simple question and have presented three more
complex off topic questions in its place. But I will answer with the
hope that you will then answer mine.
German is a nationality, Nazi is an ideology. There is a non-empty
intersection between the two. That is, there are people who are both,
people who are one and not the other, and people who are neither. The
same goes for Chinese and Communist. I doubt there are many atheists
who are devil worshipers. The Devil is usually considered a deity of
some sort, at least for the purposes of atheism, and atheists, by
definition do not believe in the existence of such. I suppose there
are people who worship something they don't believe in, but I suspect
few atheists worship the (or a) devil.
Now answer mine. I will even make it more specific so you will not
have to give as comprehensive an answer as I gave. Christianity is a
religion, Catholicism is a religion. Do you consider some lay
Catholic, who goes to mass and such a Christian? Or do you not
consider that following the Holy Spirit? If not, can you explain how
you know what the Holy Spirit requires of them?
>>> And and atheist is
>>>one who rejects God and His holy and infallible word, the Bible, as you
>have
>>>been doing consistently in our Christian NGs.
>>
>>Please show one post where I reject "God and His holy and infallible
>>word", just one. Please post the message-id and a relevant quote. You
>>can't do it because I have done no such thing. You have made a direct
>>statement that is contrary to fact and for which you simply have no
>>evidence. You have born false witness and your soul is in peril.
>>
>
> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have sufficient
>reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out additionally.
Biblical Truths as defined by Pastor Frank. Unfortunately you confuse
yourself with God and you confuse your interpretation of the Bible
with God actual word. And you confuse rejecting your interpretation of
the Bible with rejecting God. As I said, your soul is in peril.
>If you feel you wish to make a correction to this impression, please point
>to a post where you discuss theology in support of God and His infallible
>and holy Word, the Bible, as well as His saints.
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, not me. I stand by what I
have said in all of my posts. I do not confuse myself with God, my
thoughts with God's word, or my interpretation of any text with God's
word.
> If you cannot, then it's never too late to start. Let's hear it in
>support of your religion, whichever it may be, to the glory of God.
>
>>> Both are only a very small
>>>percentage of the world's population.
>>>
>>Do you consider Hindu's (those who know of Christ and the Bible)
>>atheists? Again, a simply yes/no question.
>
> This must be one of your most silly questions you ever came up with.
>Read the Vedas and the Gaghavad Gita and get a load of Hindu gods.......
Silly or not, you could answer. Do you consider them atheists. Not do
you consider them non-Christians, but do you consider them atheists?
> but
>why do I bother? You have shown yourself to believe in science to the
>exclusion of all else.
No *belief* in science at all. And my views of science are not to the
exclusion of anything.
> I can't think of a single post of yours in our
>Christian NGs that would indicate that you have any other beliefs.
>
So? Do you think that all my ideas and thoughts have been posted to
these newsgroups? I post on a very narrow set of issues and pretty
much ignore the others. That does not mean I only consider those
issues, but that I focus my usenet activities.
Matt Silberstein
<pw...@home.com>:
>
>
>egor wrote:
>
>> It's not an "atheist, pro death view", . There are plenty
>> of religious people who don't agree with your view, which by the way is
>> not biblical, it's only the opinion of you
>
>That organtic human life begins at the cataclysmic event of conception is a
>conclusion of science, not religous dogma.
Only if you choose to equivocate. The question of when life begins
depends on what you mean by life. The question of when it is human is
not a scientific issue, it is a legal (and religious and moral) issue.
>The unscientific view that human life
>begins later, say, when measurable brainwave activity commences, should be
>rejected by atheists on purely rational grounds, since it bifurcates the human
>being to two entities: a brain using a body as a driver uses a car.
>
So? Some atheists are dualists, some theists are not. And you have
confused two issues anyway. The current legal standard has to do with
viability, not with brain wave activity. The brain wave test is used
to determine death, not the beginning of life.
Matt Silberstein
<pw...@home.com>:
>Scott, you're right to point out "..It isn't so much how the universe or the
>world was created that's important but the relationship of God to man in the
>story of creation, specifically Adam and Eve.". As the old saying goes, the
>Bible is not about how the heavens go 'round but how to get to heaven.
>
>You need to help your Catholic friend (I am, Catholic, too) think through he
>means by 'evolution'. If by evolution a person means simply 'change', there is
>little over which to disagree. But usually when scientists say 'evolution' they
>mean the theory that all life, including man, arose by accidential process, with
>no divine intervention at any point in the chain.
No, they do not and repeating this won't make it so. Science says
nothing at all about God's intervention. God has not more and no less
place in evolutionary biology than God has in meteorology. If you that
the people tracking Hurricane Floyd were rejecting God, then you have
a problem to deal with.
>This is at best a deistic
>theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God directly
>creates each person ex nihilo.
>
And yet the Pope does not reject the science. I wonder why you have so
much a better understanding of the Catholic position than he does.
>Now perhaps God did endow life with an aspiration and innate ability to improve
>itself in it's descendents. Perhaps He preprogrammed the changes, and millions
>of years ago a bird literally crawled out of a reptile's egg. This fits all
>available evidence, but is it 'evolution' as scientists use the term today?
>Probably not.
>
It is indistinguishable from evolution as used by scientists. Just
like God could have programmed the world so the hurricane would hit
when and where it did. Or he could have actively intervened at each
and every step of the process. Science cannot and does not distinguish
between these options.
>Matt wisely suggests you read what the Catholics are saying. So much of this
>debate is dominated by biblical literalists and atheists. If you're interested
>in what Catholic theologians and scientists have to say on the relation of
>evolution to religion, George Sim Johnson's _did darwin get it right: catholics
>and the theory of evolution_ quotes them extensively and has a good
>bibliography. The Intelligent Design site http://www.origins.org/ has some very
>good papers on this "middle ground", including some from Michael Behe, a modern
>Catholic micriobologist critical of natural evolution.
>
And yet the Pope is not. And Behe's science and reasoning is terrible.
And he fails to provide a single step between "this probably did not
evolve" and "an Intelligent Designer did it".
Matt Silberstein
<pw...@home.com>:
>
>
All you are doing is repeating your assertion. It is fine to assume
this and assume their is some God responsible for these qualities. But
I doubt you can come up with a single test in the world that can
distinguish between the following possibilities:
1) there is a God and everything is determined: no free will
2) there is a God and we have free will
3) there is not God and everything is determined: no free will
4) there is no God and we have free will
You can argue that you prefer one over the other or that one "makes
more sense" to you. But you can't provide any way of actually
distinguishing them in the world. These are purely
religious/metaphysical issues and have no relevance to science at all.
Ask yourself this. What is to prevent God from endowing atoms with the
quality that when they line up in a particular way, free will appears?
Goyra
> > Are corporations alive? They DO have Growth.
>
> Sure, there is an analogy betwee social organizations (an ording of
people to
> a purpose) and social organisms (and ordering of cells to a purpose)
And that is why it is useless to
define "Life" as "that which has growth".
All of which supports my assertion that the
word life" is undefined.
> The fact that there are
> difficulties at the boundry condition (do seven whiskers a beard make?
are viri
> alive?) does not mean there is no category boundry between beard/nobeard
or
> life/nonlife.
But it DOES mean that. And while we usually
don't have to worry about the issue, it becomes very
important in an abortion debate.
By pretending that "life" is a well-defined term,
the pro-lifers can swing the votes their way. But they
are lying.
> No distinction between life/nonlife?
If you think there IS one, write it down.
> I am surprised how quickly a defense of
> abortion rights turns into an attack on science.
Can't you read what I wrote? I said that
SCIENCE has no definition of life. It's the pro-lifers
who pretend otherwise that I am attacking.
Goyra
Goyra
> > Can you prove that? I'm pretty sure nobody has
> > conducted the experiment, so how do you know the result?
> Demonstrate that no matter how many atoms you line up you don't get a
person?
Yes, Alan, you SAID it and I
want you to prove it somehow.
> Sure. I'll give a rational demonstration but offer no experiments, for
the same
> reason one does not do experiments to demonstrate some mathematical
conclusion
> such as there are an infinity of prime numbers. Truth is not limited to
> scientific truth.
Go ahead, use whatever technique
you think suitable. Just prove what you said.
> Let a person be "a being endowed with intellect and free will".
Neither of those two terms is defined
in any useful way. But let that go for now...
> What the
> intellect does is grasp knowledge which timeless and universal. But atoms
are
> in time and particular place. Therefore, no matter how many atoms you
arrange,
> you don't get a being endowed with intellect (a person).
Alas, you're talking shit and you know it.
Goyra
Ace Ventura
he has the consideration to dialouge with others who don't agree
with him, instead of labeling them "devils" as you do. You are
a sick man, Pastor Fake, you ought to take a clue from Keith and
try treating others like human beings.
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote in message <37EC5D9F...@pe.net>...
> >Pioneer wrote:
> >>
> >> Give me some tests for your "intuition" or admit it's just faith and
> >> nothing more and give up the charade.
> >
> >Show me how you can substantiate the reliability of your perceptions
> >without relying on things you perceived to do so, and then maybe we can
> >talk.
> >
> OK Keith, it's time to "give up the charade" of us being Christians.
> Austin won't be happy till we confess of actually being devils like himself
> in the service of the pinnacle of God"s creation "the star of the morning"
> Lucifer, the most beautiful, talented and intelligent angel of all, he who
> became the symbol of hubris of those worshipping their own perfection,
> instead the perfection of their creator, God almighty.
> That Austin spends time proselytizing in our Christian NGs tells me, His
> bunch of freethinkers must be thinning out again, but no matter how
> seductive Lucifer may be, I will follow Jesus, and I'm sure you do the same.
> Let's pray Austin will see the light one day and join us.
>
> Pastor Frank
CJ Watson
Scott wrote:
> Goyra <Da...@goyra.com.spampreventer> wrote in message
> news:01bf06fa$191a2e00$ba8391c2@goyra...
> > Scott <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote in article
> > <Z8QG3.237$ko.7...@feed.centuryinter.net>...
> >
> > > BTW why do atheist hang out in religious news groups. What is the
> motive?
> >
> >
> > The religious are attacking everybody
> > else. They won a battle in Kansas recently.
> >
>
> I don't agree with the Kansas School Board. Fact is, my kids go to a
> Catholic school and guess what they've studied in grade school
> already....evolution.
So you disagree with them. About what?
--W
Pastor Frank
>>
>> I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine: Are Germans
>>Nazis, Chinese Communists and atheists devil worshippers? "A simple
yes/no"
>>answer will suffice.
>>
>What an odd way of discussing things.
It's a much odder way of asking utterly stupid questions, just after I
finished telling you that the same holds true for Christians as for
professionals. You either know what you profess to or you are NOT a
professional NOR a Christian. Most professions as well as Christians also
are required to know, and adher to a code of ethics or morals.
If you want to know whether a particular professional or a member of a
Christian denomination fulfills these requirements, you need to ask that
person, not me.
>
>> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have
sufficient
>>reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out
additionally.
>
>Biblical Truths as defined by Pastor Frank.
All of a sudden the Bible which was previously a book of fables and
myths in your opinion, now becomes "Biblical Truths", when it's convenient.
You ARE a cagey guy, aren't you?
>Unfortunately you confuse
>yourself with God and you confuse your interpretation of the Bible
>with God actual word. And you confuse rejecting your interpretation of
>the Bible with rejecting God. As I said, your soul is in peril.
>
I never claimed that my Biblical interpretation is the final and perfect
one, a fact which I reiterated quite frequently. This differs marketly from
your view, expressed with absolute certainty equally frequently, that
Biblical Truth is outmoded superstition which has been replace by scientific
truth.
>>If you feel you wish to make a correction to this impression, please point
>>to a post where you discuss theology in support of God and His infallible
>>and holy Word, the Bible, as well as His saints.
>
>Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, not me. I stand by what I
>have said in all of my posts. I do not confuse myself with God, my
>thoughts with God's word, or my interpretation of any text with God's
>word.
>
Since you do not accept the Bible as proof, you are obviously at enmity
with God's Word, which makes everything else you say about spiritual matters
mere sophistry.
Forget about science already, and if you can't believe it's never too
late to start. In keeping with our spiritual / religious NG s, let's hear
what you hvae to say in support of your religion, whichever it may be, and
to the glory of your God.
Pastor Frank
"I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
-- Jesus in Matthew 11:25
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
Pastor Frank
>Pioneer wrote:
>>
>> If our information is so limited about this god that we cannot infer the
>> nature of intentions, then we cannot call this god good.
>
> Well, Keith doesn't infer that God is good. Keith defines God as good.
Since
>God is also omnipotent, and omniscient, this means that all the things we
>normally consider evil are not really evil in the grand scheme of things.
God is
>assumed to have good (i.e. non-evil) reasons for permitting or performing
acts
>which we normally consider evil, and this assumption is necessary because,
well,
>God is good. Keith has previously admitted not knowing what these reasons
are,
>and without those reasons, inferring God's intentions (whether "good" or
"evil")
>is impossible.
>
> The gist of it is, God is assumed good, therefore evil (in the grand
scheme of
>things, at least) cannot exist - by definition. I previously explained to
Keith
>that this makes the words "good" and "evil" meaningless, but he didn't get
it.
>
God is and represents "the good" and the dialectic opposite must be
Satan or evil. Both absolutes are necessary to set the parameter of
knowledge about good and evil. For without the other neither can be known.
Atheists have a stake in denying the existence of absolutes, for God is
the absolute of that which is "good", for that gives them the latitude to
set their own moral parameters, to choose in the weakness of the flesh,
rather than the self-denial of the spirit.
Ace Ventura
>
> Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37ee2608....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>
> >> I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine: Are Germans
> >>Nazis, Chinese Communists and atheists devil worshippers? "A simple
> >>yes/no" answer will suffice.
> >>
> >What an odd way of discussing things.
>
> finished telling you that the same holds true for Christians as for
> professionals. You either know what you profess to or you are NOT a
> professional NOR a Christian. Most professions as well as Christians also
> are required to know, and adher to a code of ethics or morals.
You are an idiot of staggering proportions, Frank. One would think that
after seeing that no one understands your babble, that you'd consider the
probability that it's you, and _not_ everyone else, who makes no sense.
Matt asked if you consider Catholics Christians, since you have spoken
negatively of them. You answer with a question in return that has no
bearing on the topic, and when he tells you it's odd, you call him stupid?
Trust me Frank, you're in no position to call anybody stupid.
<snip>
Ace Ventura
<snip>
> Atheists have a stake in denying the existence of absolutes, for God is
> the absolute of that which is "good", for that gives them the latitude to
> set their own moral parameters, to choose in the weakness of the flesh,
> rather than the self-denial of the spirit.
For all your self proclaimed religiousity, Frank, you're just a bitter,
bigoted, paranoid, mindless troll, for all the good it's done you.
> Pastor Frank
(He means self-titled "pastor")
<snip>
> "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
> he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
The only thing you have in common with a little child, Frank, is their
mental capabilities.
CJ Watson
Scott wrote:
> CJ Watson <p21...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:37ED87CF...@hotmail.com...
> I my be wrong on this Kansas issue ( the news is reporting isn't without
> biase)
It surely isn't. Read the actual policy, exactly what is everyone so paranoid
about? It seems that nothing is being "eliminated" at all. It seems only that
dogmas in the textbook orthodoxy may be being put up for question. So?
Besides, aren't these the same people who lecture about being open minded? Do
they think their ideas if based on true science couldn't stand up in debate?
What's their problem if creationism is so wrong and wicked and evil. (I'm not
kidding either. Dawkins even calls anyone who doesn't believe in evolution as
he does either stupid, ignorant or "wicked". What he bases "wicked" on, I have
no idea.)
> but it appears to me that they are trying to get the subject removed
> from the schools.
Kansas Science Education Standards, Fifth working draft, July 1999.
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/scidraft5.html
Kansas Science Education Standards, Final 8/11/99
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/cgi-bin/science_stds
Demonstrate what you base that opinion on. There's the policies.
> I have a friend who is a Baptist deacon. He claims that
> there are fundamentalist who run for school board election with the hidden
> agenda to have evolution removed from the course studies wherever they can.
> This appears to be the case for me.
Hmmm, this is what you base that opinion on? What's next, "vast right wing
conspiracies"? Those just don't seem to hold for some reason.... ;-)
<snip>
I'm not aware what fundamentalism has to do with anything.
> How much of Genesis is "out-of-date cosomology" and how much is read to be
> read as litteral. IOW, from the point-of-view of Catholicism, are Adam and
> Eve part of this out-of-date cosomology or are they to be considered
> *concrete*? It's an important question for christians because it gets right
> back to Jesus.
Again.
Non sequitur.
> <snip>Kansas Science Education Standards. The full text:
> http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science81199.html
> "Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education."
Ah, finally, a cite, a fact, well, one, at least..... =)
So what is your critique of that statement?
> IOW IMO compelling student to kind of intellectual suicide.
That's not a critique of the statement. So you believe that students should be
compelled to believe?
> <snip>
> "The Kansas skirmish marks the latest episode of a long struggle by
> religious Fundamentalists and their allies to restrict or eliminate the
> teaching of evolution in public schools--
Mr. Gould does not demonstrate this by the policy. He seems paranoid about it.
Gee, one has to wonder why. Could it be that there's some reason he's so
fearful? I hope that atheistic dogmatists cannot keep a strangle hold on
"science" by demonization and politics alone.
I think you should ask yourself why he doesn't actually cite the policy and
demonstrate what is wrong with it by any kind of rational analysis. It's clear
that whatever he is doing has more to do with politics than science.
> a misguided effort that our courts
> have quashed at each stage, and that saddens both scientists and most
> theologians.
Still politics....
> No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose any threat
> to religion--for these two great tools of human understanding operate in
> complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally separate realms:
> science as an inquiry about the factual state of the natural world, religion
> as a search for spiritual meaning and ethical values.?"
Non sequitur.
What is he driveling on about and why? He's not talking about science and what
is "fact" and should be taught as such, or what is actually hypothesis, theory
or law.
Have you seen the textbooks? Their numerous statements of "fact" have no basis
but hypotheses ad naseum.
> I dunno, this seems to make a lot of sense to me.
What does? It seems irrelevant to me.
> Sounds right on.
> Theologians are not mathematicians, and we don't want them teaching physics.
It seems that it's atheist theologians who often put their metaphysics before
their physics.
> Or geology, or chemistry. Why are we letting them decide about biology?
Decide what, according to the policy?
> It
> worries me more that radical Fundamentalists are imposing their belief
> system on a nation that was once called "the melting pot" of the world". Are
> we all supposed to shuck off our diversity now, and become whatever it is
> they say we should become?
Are we all supposed to accept the political games being played by what often
seem to be religious bigots attempting their demonizations or have a rational
analysis of actual policy?
<snip>
> Why am I having visions of George Orwell in a turban?
I have no idea. Perhaps because you've accepted the strident projections of
what seems to be phobic and paranoid elitist totalitarians?
On the other hand, perhaps their fears aren't irrational. Perhaps there is
something more to them..... I think you may want to ask, what are they really
afraid of?
--W
Pastor Frank
>
> "It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations
>that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
>does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
>every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
>fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
>suicide.
I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of equal
importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For who
is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right one?
You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have the
edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
I would propose the opposite from what you say is true, in that those
relying on OTHER people's interpretation of God's Word instead of their own
interpretation as the Holy Spirit leads, are committing "intellectual
suicide".
Pastor Frank
"...and furthermore, I recognize no fixed
standard for the interpretation of scripture."
- Martin Luther
Pastor Frank
>
>group. Its is one I agree with her on:
>Here's another article, this time by Stephen Jay Gould
>http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,29479,00.html
>
>He says -
>
>"The Kansas skirmish marks the latest episode of a long struggle by
>religious Fundamentalists and their allies to restrict or eliminate the
>have quashed at each stage, and that saddens both scientists and most
>to religion--for these two great tools of human understanding operate in
>complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally separate realms:
>science as an inquiry about the factual state of the natural world,
religion
>as a search for spiritual meaning and ethical values.?"
>
>Theologians are not mathematicians, and we don't want them teaching
physics.
>
Are you having your faith swayed by every article writing Catholic? Most
RC do not know the Bible except from commentaries by wise and prudent RC
theologians and church officials. Why would Christ say: "I thank thee O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Jesus in Matthew
11:25). Are you saying Christians should regard the "wise and prudent" more
qualified to interpret God's Word than the "Babes"?
I am a "babe" in the spirit and that's why I am a Bible-believing
Fundamentalist Christian, because ONLY Fundamentalism regards my Biblical
interpretation in the spirit of God at least the equal of interpretations
from the most learned, erudite, credential encrusted academic laureat
Theologians. And for that, I too "thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth".
>Or geology, or chemistry. Why are we letting them decide about biology? It
>worries me more that radical Fundamentalists are imposing their belief
>system on a nation that was once called "the melting pot" of the world".
Are
>we all supposed to shuck off our diversity now, and become whatever it is
>they say we should become?
>
Well!!! Whose belief system should then be "imposed", and why should ANY
belief system be "imposed"? Are you against democratic choice, believing the
ultimate truth lies in science? Furthermore, are you proposing as an
alternative to the Fundamentalist beliefs sytem, you would want atheism
"imposed", demanding total public silence regarding religion? (they already
got that silence "imposed" on governement property such as schools). Or
should Skepticism be "imposed", Skepticism, which can't interpret ancient
spiritual symbolism and metaphor and keeps objecting to literal Biblical
interpretations, and who demands interminable debate over what in the Bible
is true and what isn't. And then there are the Agnostics who want to
"impose" a religion-free envionment on the rest of us, till spiritual
principles have been proved in a science lab.
>This nation is becoming entirely to concerned with being PC, and
>homogenizing itself down by virtue of whomever can scream the loudest.
There
>are currently more than 2000 people in the US right now screaming that
>they are the new Messiah, and urging their followers to their own
particular
>brands of armageddon. Should one of them by some chance get enough
>political clout, what would you suppose would happen then? Sci/fi
>scenario's straight out of Heinlein, Orwell, and The Handmaids Tale, I
>would easily imagine.
>
Skkkkarry ain't it? I am in the thick of it and never heard of any of
those things you mention. Are you paranoid by any chance?
>I don't want a physicist telling me that there is no God, but I certainly
>don't want a preacher twisting the speed of light, or claiming a "testing
>God" who tricks us with fossils that only "seem" old pushing his
creationism
>stuff on me either.
Have you read creationist literature and are sure of your facts? Tell
us, how DOES one "push creationism" on you or anyone?
I don't know what anyone else believe here, but I sure
>believe there was a "Big Bang" - and I also believe that God spoke, and the
>Word became our universe, BANG! I "believe" in carbon 14 testing, even if
>it IS only accurate for 50,000 years or so... I believe in a constant rate
>of decay for uranium, and the speed of light. Those are not issues of
>"belief" for me. That's like saying 2 + 2 used to equal 5, or 9 or
>something.
>
Are you sure creationism disallow you to believe in those things? What
would happen if you don't?
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
>
THE
>INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. page down to section "F.
>Fundamentalist Interpretation" I've quoted from the end of the text that I
>think go with this threat:
>
>"Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of
>certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns
>historical events or supposedly scientific truth...."
>
So what? I am a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian exactly BECAUSE
we regard every Biblical interpretation in the sprit of God, whether
literal or spiritual being of equal value.
>"Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of
>view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date
>cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this
>blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship
>between culture and faith...."
>
Again, so what? Who is to judge which Biblical interpretation in the
spirit of God is the only right one? The above author? One with the most
academic credentials? The one who can write articles and posts?
Ace Ventura
>
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >
> >that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
> >does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
> >every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
> >fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
> >suicide.
>
> I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
> Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of equal
> importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For who
> is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right one?
> You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have the
> edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
<snip>
You don't have a clue what a fundamentalist is, Frank. No big surprise there,
you don't seem to have a clue what a Christian is either.
Ace Ventura
>
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >
> THE
> >INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. page down to section "F.
> >Fundamentalist Interpretation" I've quoted from the end of the text that I
> >think go with this threat:
> >
> >"Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of
> >certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns
> >historical events or supposedly scientific truth...."
>
> So what? I am a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian exactly BECAUSE
> we regard every Biblical interpretation in the sprit of God, whether
> literal or spiritual being of equal value.
Translation: "So, it doesn't matter how loony my interpretation, I can have
it say whatever I want it to say, and I will be right, if I say so."
> >"Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of
> >view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date
> >cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this
> >blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship
> >between culture and faith...."
>
> Again, so what? Who is to judge which Biblical interpretation in the
> spirit of God is the only right one? The above author? One with the most
> academic credentials? The one who can write articles and posts?
Translation: "I have no way of countering your argument, so I'll just
say God is on my side, not yours. So there."
Scott
>
>
> Scott wrote:
> > <snip>Kansas Science Education Standards. The full text:
> > http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/outcomes/science81199.html
> > "Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education."
>
> Ah, finally, a cite, a fact, well, one, at least..... =)
>
> So what is your critique of that statement?
>
Lets apply this to quote to History as an example: Living here in the South
you can still (and I've been in college history classes where this argument
was conducted with the teacher) hear people argue that the Civil War was
fought over state's rights, not slavery. What happens when you have a
history teacher whose professional belief is that slavery was the basis of
the war while the student's have parents who believe it was not and that it
was fought over states' rights? And that they don't want the teacher
compelling their children to a belief that is inconsistent with the parent's
belief or the belief they want their children to have?
Even the study of physics gets to be inconsistent with Genesis when it gets
into the study of astrophysics. Do we start to limit the study of this
subject in school as well because it could compell a student to a belief
that is inconsistent with that of the parents?
BTW I'm I wrong in thinking that I observed fear in you by your response?
Scott
Scott
Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:OiKH3.31$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >
> >that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
> >does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
> >every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
> >fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
> >suicide.
>
> I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
> Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of
equal
> importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For who
> is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right one?
> You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have the
> edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
> relying on OTHER people's interpretation of God's Word instead of their
own
> interpretation as the Holy Spirit leads, are committing "intellectual
> suicide".
>
You should've read the Introduction to
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.TXT
A. The State of the Question Today
The problem of the interpretation of the Bible is hardly a modern
phenomenon, even if at times that is what some would have us
believe. The Bible itself bears witness that its interpretation can
be a difficult matter. Alongside texts that are perfectly clear, it
contains passages of some obscurity. When reading certain
prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel pondered at length over their
meaning (Dn. 9:2). According to the Acts of the Apostles, an
Ethiopian of the first century found himself in the same situation
with respect to a passage from the Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and
recognized that he had need of an interpreter (Acts 8:30-35). The
Second Letter of Peter insists that "no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it also observes
that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult
passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained
distort, as they do also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their
own ruin" (2 Pt. 3: 16).
Pastor Frank
be invalid, or that Jesus lied, when he said: "I thank thee O Father, Lord
of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
obvious, that Jesus meant, that whatever was important can be understood by
a simple and trusting mind. The Bible may be the infallible and holy Word of
God, but not all of it may be of equal importance, especially those
"difficult" and obscure passages mentioned above.
Pastor Frank
"...and furthermore, I recognize no fixed
standard for the interpretation of scripture."
- Martin Luther
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
Bobbi
Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >
> > "It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations
> >that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
> >does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
> >every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
> >fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
> >suicide.
>
> I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
> Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of equal
> importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For who
> is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right one?
> You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have the
> edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
> I would propose the opposite from what you say is true, in that those
> relying on OTHER people's interpretation of God's Word instead of their own
> interpretation as the Holy Spirit leads, are committing "intellectual
> suicide".
Except when others biblical interpretation does not agree with yours you
call them an atheist.
egor
And that's the catch, isn't it? Frankenstein says that all his interpretations
are correct, but anyone else's that don't concur with his come from "functional
atheists". I used to think the term was another one of his made-up, nonsensical
bastardizations of the English language, but upon further reflection, realized
that he describes himself in the term: One who claims to believe in God but
acts otherwise. Yep, that's our Pastor Frankenstein for you.
Scott
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> > "It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations
> >> >that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
> >> >does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
> >> >every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
> >> >fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
> >> >suicide.
> >>
> >> I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
> >> Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of
> >equal
> >> importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For
> who
> >> is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right
> one?
> >> You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have
the
> >> edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
> >> I would propose the opposite from what you say is true, in that
those
> >> relying on OTHER people's interpretation of God's Word instead of their
> >own
> >> interpretation as the Holy Spirit leads, are committing "intellectual
> >> suicide".
> >
But how can *you* know what is and isn't of equal importance?
> "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
> he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
But what does that mean? It's best if one has the intelletc like that of a
child? Or something else?
Scott
Pastor Frank
>>
>> Unless you want to say that the whole Bible is so full of errors as
to
>> be invalid, or that Jesus lied, when he said: "I thank thee O Father,
Lord
>> of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and
>> prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Jesus in Matthew 11:25), it
>>is obvious, that Jesus meant, that whatever was important can be
>>understood by a simple and trusting mind.
>> The Bible may be the infallible and holy Word of
>> God, but not all of it may be of equal importance, especially those
>> "difficult" and obscure passages mentioned above.
>
>But how can *you* know what is and isn't of equal importance?
>
And every day the Holy Spirit changes something I didn't understand and
considered unimportant, to something I can understand and therefore IS
important.
>> "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
>> he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
>
>But what does that mean? It's best if one has the intelletc like that of a
>child? Or something else?
>
You can't fool a child about love, and what's "important" has nothing to
do with "intellect".
Pastor Frank
"I am the resurrection and the life, and he that believeth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he live".
--Jesus in John 11:25
Pastor Frank
>>finished telling you that the same holds true for Christians as for
>>professionals. You either know what you profess to or you are NOT a
>>professional NOR a Christian. Most professions as well as Christians also
>>are required to know, and adher to a code of ethics or morals.
>
>
"What you said"? It does not need to be relevant to that, because all
you did is ask a question which I answered.
>> If you want to know whether a particular professional or a member of a
>>Christian denomination fulfills these requirements, you need to ask that
>>person, not me.
>
>So you object to your own classification of people as Christians or
>atheists. After all, you did not ask me about my views, you asserted
>that you knew that I was anti-God.
>
Did I say you were "anti-God"? When did I say that? You have been
posting to religious NGs for a very long time without mentioning your God
once, and that means to me you don't have one. I believe you are a true
atheist, not one of these God-hating anti-theists posing as atheists in our
Christian NGs, but a true atheist, one devoid of, without, none, no God.
>>
>>>> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have
>>sufficient
>>>>reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out
>>additionally.
>>>
>>>Biblical Truths as defined by Pastor Frank.
>>
>> All of a sudden the Bible which was previously a book of fables and
>>myths in your opinion, now becomes "Biblical Truths", when it's
>>convenient. You ARE a cagey guy, aren't you?
>
>Please support this claim with some reference to something I have
>written. Again you bear false witness and again you imperil your soul.
Stop being inane. Look above.
>If you read the post again you will notice that *you* mentioned
>"Biblical truths", I was referring to the things mentioned by you. I
>don't know if I am particularly cagey, but you seem to have had a
>reading comprehension problem.
>
After admitting, that you consider the Bible mere myth, what do YOU know
about "Biblical truths", that you can now assert sans evidence, that
Biblical "truths" as "defined" by me are erroneous? Prove me wrong by
quoting the Bible, or be honest and admit you don't know.
>>
>> I never claimed that my Biblical interpretation is the final and
perfect
>>one,
>
>But you do claim that my support for evolution means I have rejected
>God.
Please back up your "support for evolution" with the actual words of God
from His Bible.
You do claim that your interpretation is sufficiently true and
>perfect that you can know what I think about God based on comments
>about some other topic.
>
Only if you contradict God's infallible and holy word, the Bible.
>> a fact which I reiterated quite frequently.
>
>You may reiterate that fact, but I have to look at all that you say.
>And your statements seem to contradict each other.
>
"Contradict" as in "the Bible contradicts itself" so often uttered by
skeptics and atheists?
>> This differs marketly from
>>your view, expressed with absolute certainty equally frequently, that
>>Biblical Truth is outmoded superstition which has been replace by
scientific
>>truth.
>>
>Well if I have frequently expressed this view then you can find posts
>where I have done it. Please supply a reference. Again you bear false
>witness and again you imperil your soul.
>
I will stand corrected if you will declare and uplift your God and His
Word to all of us. Unless you have a religion, why are you posting to our
Christian NGs?
>>
>> Since you do not accept the Bible as proof,
>
>I do not accept *your* interpretation of the Bible as proof of
>anything.
If my interpretation is unsatisfactory to you, then kindly give your own
interpretation of the the Bible. For all I know yours may be vastly
supperior to mine. But again you play cagy and prefer to trash my
interpretation without giving us yours.
I accept the world as the appropriate reference.
>
And now you are confessing you have no use for ANY Biblical
interpretation, not just for mine, but prefer "the world" instead of the
Bible as reference, whatever that means. So, now you confess to lying to us,
don't you? No matter, confessions good for the soul, as long as you own up
to your sins.
>>
>> Forget about science already, and if you can't believe it's never too
>>late to start. In keeping with our spiritual / religious NG s, let's hear
>>what you hvae to say in support of your religion, whichever it may be, and
>>to the glory of your God.
>>
>For those who have paid attention you will notice that Pastor Frank
>did not answer my questions about Catholics and Hindus. He said he
>would if I answered his questions, I answered them. Yet he has not
>answered my questions. So one more time we see Pastor Frank making
>false statements. I leave it up to the reader as to whom has written
>to further the glory of God.
>
Where is what you have to say in SUPPORT of your religion? You have one,
don't you? You would hardly have the temerity to post to religious NGs
unless you had a religion, one would think.
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37ee2608....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>>>
>>>>Do you consider Catholics Christians? A simply yes/no question.
>>>
>>> I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine: Are Germans
>>>Nazis, Chinese Communists and atheists devil worshippers? "A simple
>yes/no"
>>>answer will suffice.
>>>
>>What an odd way of discussing things.
>
> It's a much odder way of asking utterly stupid questions, just after I
>finished telling you that the same holds true for Christians as for
>professionals. You either know what you profess to or you are NOT a
>professional NOR a Christian. Most professions as well as Christians also
>are required to know, and adher to a code of ethics or morals.
I fail to see how this is at all relevant to what I said.
> If you want to know whether a particular professional or a member of a
>Christian denomination fulfills these requirements, you need to ask that
>person, not me.
So you object to your own classification of people as Christians or
atheists. After all, you did not ask me about my views, you asserted
that you knew that I was anti-God.
>>
>>> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have
>sufficient
>>>reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out
>additionally.
>>
>>Biblical Truths as defined by Pastor Frank.
>
> All of a sudden the Bible which was previously a book of fables and
>myths in your opinion,
Please support this claim with some reference to something I have
written. Again you bear false witness and again you imperil your soul.
> now becomes "Biblical Truths", when it's convenient.
>You ARE a cagey guy, aren't you?
If you read the post again you will notice that *you* mentioned
"Biblical truths", I was referring to the things mentioned by you. I
don't know if I am particularly cagey, but you seem to have had a
reading comprehension problem.
>>Unfortunately you confuse
>>yourself with God and you confuse your interpretation of the Bible
>>with God actual word. And you confuse rejecting your interpretation of
>>the Bible with rejecting God. As I said, your soul is in peril.
>
> I never claimed that my Biblical interpretation is the final and perfect
>one,
But you do claim that my support for evolution means I have rejected
God. You do claim that your interpretation is sufficiently true and
perfect that you can know what I think about God based on comments
about some other topic.
> a fact which I reiterated quite frequently.
You may reiterate that fact, but I have to look at all that you say.
And your statements seem to contradict each other.
> This differs marketly from
>your view, expressed with absolute certainty equally frequently, that
>Biblical Truth is outmoded superstition which has been replace by scientific
>truth.
>
Well if I have frequently expressed this view then you can find posts
where I have done it. Please supply a reference. Again you bear false
witness and again you imperil your soul.
>>>If you feel you wish to make a correction to this impression, please point
>>>to a post where you discuss theology in support of God and His infallible
>>>and holy Word, the Bible, as well as His saints.
>>
>>Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you, not me. I stand by what I
>>have said in all of my posts. I do not confuse myself with God, my
>>thoughts with God's word, or my interpretation of any text with God's
>>word.
>
> Since you do not accept the Bible as proof,
I do not accept *your* interpretation of the Bible as proof of
anything. I accept the world as the appropriate reference.
> you are obviously at enmity
>with God's Word,
Again you confuse your interpretation with God's Word. You imperil
your soul again.
>which makes everything else you say about spiritual matters
>mere sophistry.
> Forget about science already, and if you can't believe it's never too
>late to start. In keeping with our spiritual / religious NG s, let's hear
>what you hvae to say in support of your religion, whichever it may be, and
>to the glory of your God.
>
For those who have paid attention you will notice that Pastor Frank
did not answer my questions about Catholics and Hindus. He said he
would if I answered his questions, I answered them. Yet he has not
answered my questions. So one more time we see Pastor Frank making
false statements. I leave it up to the reader as to whom has written
to further the glory of God.
Matt Silberstein
Wostenberg
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Wostenberg
> <pw...@home.com>:
Since have a scientific way of testing for extra-terrestrial intelligences (SETI
project), why cannot science test for extra-cosmological intelligent influence?
>
> >This is at best a deistic
> >theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God directly
> >creates each person ex nihilo.
> >
> And yet the Pope does not reject the science. I wonder why you have so
> much a better understanding of the Catholic position than he does.
>
> >Now perhaps God did endow life with an aspiration and innate ability to improve
> >itself in it's descendents. Perhaps He preprogrammed the changes, and millions
> >of years ago a bird literally crawled out of a reptile's egg. This fits all
> >available evidence, but is it 'evolution' as scientists use the term today?
> >Probably not.
> >
> It is indistinguishable from evolution as used by scientists. Just
> like God could have programmed the world so the hurricane would hit
> when and where it did. Or he could have actively intervened at each
> and every step of the process. Science cannot and does not distinguish
> between these options.
>
What do you mean? No naturalist accepts the hypothesis that the bird literally
crawled out of a reptiles egg since that is indestinguishable from direct special
creation.
And why cannot science distinguish the options? If the hurricane spelled "sent by
Yahweh" in large letters in the sky are you really forbidding us from entertaining as
scientists the hypothesis it was sent by Yahweh? Why?
-Alan Wostenberg
Goyra
<1WWH3.146$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> >But how can *you* know what is and isn't of equal importance?
> >
> That's the easy part. Whatever I can understand IS what's
"important".
> And every day the Holy Spirit changes something I didn't understand and
> considered unimportant, to something I can understand and therefore IS
> important.
Umm, forgive me for suggesting that you
are taking the trivial liftle thoughts and notions in your
own mind, and projecting them on the Holy Spirit,
thus revealing yourself to be a man of huge ego.
Goyra
Goyra
> You have been
> posting to religious NGs for a very long time without mentioning your God
> once, and that means to me you don't have one.
Frank: you have been posting to religious NGs
for a very long time without mentioning your penis once.....
Goyra
Matt Silberstein
<NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message <37f002f5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read this message from "Pastor Frank"
>><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com>:
>>>
I don't know if people noticed, but Frank snips out material without
marking the snips. Here he has snipped out the context. If you look
back you will see that his comments on my professing are irrelevant to
the conversation. Unlike Frank, I have not proposed any standards for
determining who is or is not a Christian.
>>> It's a much odder way of asking utterly stupid questions, just after I
>>>finished telling you that the same holds true for Christians as for
>>>professionals. You either know what you profess to or you are NOT a
>>>professional NOR a Christian. Most professions as well as Christians also
>>>are required to know, and adher to a code of ethics or morals.
>>
>>I fail to see how this is at all relevant to what I said.
>
> "What you said"? It does not need to be relevant to that, because all
>you did is ask a question which I answered.
>
No, you did not answer my questions. 1) Do you consider a Catholic a
Christian. 2) Do you consider a Hindu an atheist. I have not seen
anything that approaches an answer to those questions.
>>> If you want to know whether a particular professional or a member of a
>>>Christian denomination fulfills these requirements, you need to ask that
>>>person, not me.
>>
>>So you object to your own classification of people as Christians or
>>atheists. After all, you did not ask me about my views, you asserted
>>that you knew that I was anti-God.
>
> Did I say you were "anti-God"? When did I say that?
You are right, you said I reject God, not that I am anti-God. Do you
want the message ids for that quote? And are you going to provide any
evidence to support that claim (or any of the other claims you have
made about me?) Pastor Frank has a habit of decrying others as atheist
trolls and proclaiming his own Christianity. *If* he were right, and I
don't think he is about many issues, he is a good demonstration of the
moral superiority of atheist trolls over Christian. Let me emphasize
that I don't agree with him, but he does repeatedly show immorality
when judged by Christian standards.
>You have been
>posting to religious NGs for a very long time without mentioning your God
>once, and that means to me you don't have one.
Well that is a nonsensical conclusion. And it is foolish of you to
assert a conclusion like that as though it were a fact. You should
really learn to distinguish between your own ideas and how the world
works. I do not proclaim or promote my religion because my religion
(and other personal issues and views) are not the issue here. If you
did not proclaim and promote yours, I would not make them the issue
either. I only bring them up because you make them the issue. The
issues for me, as can be seen from my posting history, center around
whether we take the world as the primary authority on the world or
whether we take a text, any text, as such authority. In particular,
whether we take some particular interpretation of Genesis as authority
over how the world actual looks. And that issue does not depend on my
religious views.
> I believe you are a true
>atheist, not one of these God-hating anti-theists posing as atheists in our
>Christian NGs, but a true atheist, one devoid of, without, none, no God.
And your beliefs here, as elsewhere, are irrelevant.
>>>
>>>>> I have read enough of your denials of Biblical truths to have
>>>sufficient
>>>>>reasons to presume the above, without needing to spell it out
>>>additionally.
>>>>
>>>>Biblical Truths as defined by Pastor Frank.
>>>
>>> All of a sudden the Bible which was previously a book of fables and
>>>myths in your opinion, now becomes "Biblical Truths", when it's
>>>convenient. You ARE a cagey guy, aren't you?
>>
>>Please support this claim with some reference to something I have
>>written. Again you bear false witness and again you imperil your soul.
>
> Stop being inane. Look above.
>
>>If you read the post again you will notice that *you* mentioned
>>"Biblical truths", I was referring to the things mentioned by you. I
>>don't know if I am particularly cagey, but you seem to have had a
>>reading comprehension problem.
>>
>
> After admitting, that you consider the Bible mere myth,
One more time, where did I admit that? You keep making claims about my
views that have no support.
>what do YOU know
>about "Biblical truths", that you can now assert sans evidence, that
>Biblical "truths" as "defined" by me are erroneous?
I know plenty about what the Bible says and how various people
interpret it. I don't need to know that your interpretations are
erroneous nor did I claim they were. I claimed that you present your
interpretations as though they were the Word of God. I see you
confusing what you think the Bible means with what God actually said.
> Prove me wrong by
>quoting the Bible, or be honest and admit you don't know.
I could point out the vast gap between the Bible prohibition on
bearing false witness and your actions. Or the Bibles promotion of
humility with your actions. Or the vast difference, and this is really
the only point that concerns me in this context, between your
descriptive interpretation of Genesis and the evidence in the world.
The world is billions of years old, all life stems from a single
ancestral population, and there was no world-wide extinction causing
flood within the last 10,000 (or 100,000) years.
>>>
>>> I never claimed that my Biblical interpretation is the final and
>perfect
>>>one,
>>
>>But you do claim that my support for evolution means I have rejected
>>God.
>
> Please back up your "support for evolution" with the actual words of God
>from His Bible.
>
I back up my support for evolution with evidence from the world. I do
not look to God's secondary word, a text, when his primary word, the
world itself, is available. I would look to the Bible for information
about God's relationship with Man, not for how the world works.
>You do claim that your interpretation is sufficiently true and
>>perfect that you can know what I think about God based on comments
>>about some other topic.
>
> Only if you contradict God's infallible and holy word, the Bible.
>
Only if it contradicts *your* interpretation of that word.
>>> a fact which I reiterated quite frequently.
>>
>>You may reiterate that fact, but I have to look at all that you say.
>>And your statements seem to contradict each other.
>
> "Contradict" as in "the Bible contradicts itself" so often uttered by
>skeptics and atheists?
>
No. And one more time you try to promote yourself to the level of the
Bible. Are you sure you are a Christian?
>>> This differs marketly from
>>>your view, expressed with absolute certainty equally frequently, that
>>>Biblical Truth is outmoded superstition which has been replace by
>scientific
>>>truth.
>>>
>>Well if I have frequently expressed this view then you can find posts
>>where I have done it. Please supply a reference. Again you bear false
>>witness and again you imperil your soul.
>
> I will stand corrected if you will declare and uplift your God and His
>Word to all of us. Unless you have a religion, why are you posting to our
>Christian NGs?
Wow, you don't take any responsibility for your actions, do you? You
have made unsupported claim about me after unsupported claim. And you
seen to think that your making the claim is, by itself, sufficient to
make it so. So you demand of me evidence that your claim is false.
Sorry, but it is up to you to defend what you say with evidence. It is
your soul, not mine, that is imperiled by these false statements.
>>>
>>> Since you do not accept the Bible as proof,
>>
>>I do not accept *your* interpretation of the Bible as proof of
>>anything.
>
> If my interpretation is unsatisfactory to you, then kindly give your own
>interpretation of the the Bible.
Genesis does not describe actual events. Genesis describes a
relationship between God and Man and asserts a relationship between
God and other gods.
> For all I know yours may be vastly
>supperior to mine. But again you play cagy and prefer to trash my
>interpretation without giving us yours.
>
No, I prefer to discuss the evidence *in the world* that supports
evolution. I discuss you only because you bring it up as a topic. If
you did not make an issue of who was more Christian or more atheist I
would not particularly care who was Christian or atheist.
> I accept the world as the appropriate reference.
>
> And now you are confessing you have no use for ANY Biblical
>interpretation, not just for mine, but prefer "the world" instead of the
>Bible as reference, whatever that means.
I prefer the world as reference to how the world works. That does not
mean I have no use for any Biblical reference. If I want to know how
the world itself works or what has happened in the world I do not look
to the Bible. I look to the world.
> So, now you confess to lying to us,
>don't you? No matter, confessions good for the soul, as long as you own up
>to your sins.
>>>
>>> Forget about science already, and if you can't believe it's never too
>>>late to start. In keeping with our spiritual / religious NG s, let's hear
>>>what you hvae to say in support of your religion, whichever it may be, and
>>>to the glory of your God.
>>>
>>For those who have paid attention you will notice that Pastor Frank
>>did not answer my questions about Catholics and Hindus. He said he
>>would if I answered his questions, I answered them. Yet he has not
>>answered my questions. So one more time we see Pastor Frank making
>>false statements. I leave it up to the reader as to whom has written
>>to further the glory of God.
>>
> Where is what you have to say in SUPPORT of your religion? You have one,
>don't you? You would hardly have the temerity to post to religious NGs
>unless you had a religion, one would think.
>
Irrelevant. *My* religion is not an issue here and I won't make it an
issue. If it bothers you, consider me a poorly written 'bot. My
religion does not make my words and ideas true or false. Judge them on
their own, not on how you categorize the writer.
BTW, let us remember that Frank said he would answer my questions if I
answered his. I did so, he has not done so.
Matt Silberstein
<pw...@home.com>:
>
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Wostenberg
>> <pw...@home.com>:
>
>Since have a scientific way of testing for extra-terrestrial intelligences (SETI
>project), why cannot science test for extra-cosmological intelligent influence?
>
Can you propose such a test? I can't imagine how we could, but the
limits on my imagination do not limit the world. If you can figure out
a way to test for something being extra-cosmological let us know. And
if you can figure out a way to test for God, let us know that as well.
>>
>> >This is at best a deistic
>> >theory of evolution. It contradicts the Catholic conclusion that God directly
>> >creates each person ex nihilo.
>> >
>> And yet the Pope does not reject the science. I wonder why you have so
>> much a better understanding of the Catholic position than he does.
>>
>> >Now perhaps God did endow life with an aspiration and innate ability to improve
>> >itself in it's descendents. Perhaps He preprogrammed the changes, and millions
>> >of years ago a bird literally crawled out of a reptile's egg. This fits all
>> >available evidence, but is it 'evolution' as scientists use the term today?
>> >Probably not.
>> >
>> It is indistinguishable from evolution as used by scientists. Just
>> like God could have programmed the world so the hurricane would hit
>> when and where it did. Or he could have actively intervened at each
>> and every step of the process. Science cannot and does not distinguish
>> between these options.
>
>What do you mean? No naturalist accepts the hypothesis that the bird literally
>crawled out of a reptiles egg since that is indestinguishable from direct special
>creation.
>
That it did not happen as far as we can tell does not mean it could
not have happened in principle. *If* we had evidence that a
"fully-formed" bird crawled out of a reptile egg, then we would accept
that such an event took place and try to figure out how. Special
creation (in that form) is rejected because we have no evidence that
it occurred.
>And why cannot science distinguish the options? If the hurricane spelled "sent by
>Yahweh" in large letters in the sky are you really forbidding us from entertaining as
>scientists the hypothesis it was sent by Yahweh? Why?
>
Suppose it did say that in the sky. How and why should we connect that
to the actual hurricane? If it said "I created the world, Sidney"
would you think that Sidney created the world? (BTW, the hurricane and
cell and planets do not have that kind of signature, so your question
is really irrelevant.)
>-Alan Wostenberg
Scott
Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1WWH3.146$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Scott wrote in message ...
> >Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:D0PH3.74$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >>
> >> Unless you want to say that the whole Bible is so full of errors as
> to
> >> be invalid, or that Jesus lied, when he said: "I thank thee O Father,
> Lord
and
> >> prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Jesus in Matthew 11:25),
it
> >>is obvious, that Jesus meant, that whatever was important can be
> >>understood by a simple and trusting mind.
> >> The Bible may be the infallible and holy Word of
> >> God, but not all of it may be of equal importance, especially those
> >> "difficult" and obscure passages mentioned above.
> >
> >
> That's the easy part. Whatever I can understand IS what's "important".
> And every day the Holy Spirit changes something I didn't understand and
> considered unimportant, to something I can understand and therefore IS
> important.
>
> >> he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
> >
> >But what does that mean? It's best if one has the intelletc like that of
a
> >child? Or something else?
> >
> You can't fool a child about love, and what's "important" has nothing
to
> do with "intellect".
>
So I take it is not only OK but one should commit a kind of "intellectual
suicide" if that's what it takes for someone to take the Bible as literal
fact?
If you believe human intellect is a creation of God's. And we are to use
that intellect to aquire knowledge to better understand our relationship
with God, with cosmology. And faith is a gift of God's. How can knowledge
and faith be incompatible? What you do with knowledge can be evil. But is
the acquisition of?
Genesis, IMO, is all about humans understanding our place in cosmology. It
isn't the *end* of that understanding. It's the Beginning.
"what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Is that not a
directive by Jesus for his religion to do away with (or at least change)
those beliefs that no longer work when our paradigm of the world is changed?
Scott
Y...@swbell.net
wrote:
>> "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child,
>> he shall not enter therein." -- Jesus in Mark 10:15
>
>But what does that mean? It's best if one has the intelletc like that of a
>child? Or something else?
>
>Scott
"Whosoever shall not recieve the kingdom of God as a little child, he
shall noit enter therein."
Means that we must trust God as much as a little child trusts his
father, knowing that God is watching over us and will work everything
out for our good.
YM1
>
>
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank <NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><1WWH3.146$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
>
>> >But how can *you* know what is and isn't of equal importance?
>> >
>> That's the easy part. Whatever I can understand IS what's
>"important".
>> And every day the Holy Spirit changes something I didn't understand and
>> considered unimportant, to something I can understand and therefore IS
>> important.
>
>are taking the trivial liftle thoughts and notions in your
>own mind, and projecting them on the Holy Spirit,
>thus revealing yourself to be a man of huge ego.
>
for I just finished telling you, the Holy Spirit "projects" / reveals
understanding onto me, not the other way around.
Pastor Frank
"I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
-- Jesus in Matthew 11:25
Pastor Frank
>In article <OiKH3.31$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Pastor Frank"
>>>that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible
>>>does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and
>>>every problem. Without saying as much in so many words,
>>>fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual
>>>suicide.
>>
>> I am a Bible believing Fundamentials Christian because only
>>Fundamentalism allows my interpretation in the spirit of God to be of
equal
>>importance and value than one from the most celebrated theologian. For who
>>is qualified to judge which Biblical interpretation is the ONLY right one?
>>You seem to think those who can write articles and get published have the
>>edge, is that a reasonable assumption?
>> I would propose the opposite from what you say is true, in that those
>>relying on OTHER people's interpretation of God's Word instead of their
own
>>interpretation as the Holy Spirit leads, are committing "intellectual
>>suicide"
>
children)
>commit intellectual suicide by forcing your religious views on them.
>
"Moron"? You sure love being a flaming Troll don't you, but it's you
who doesn't even know that Christians are proud to be MOROI DIA CHRISTON.
Christians don't force anything, for that would defeat the intent and
purpose of Christianity. For love cannot be forced. Consequently we have
many atheists graduating from Christian schools. Ask egor.
Are you, who is philosophically challenged and unable to interpret
ancient relgious symbolism and metaphor, actually saying religionists are
your mental inferiors because they committed "intellectual suicide"? You
sure have a bad case of terminal hubris. "Duhhhh...." indeed!!!!!
>
>Your above comment is nice, but a meaningless lie, since it contradicts
the
>religious tyranny that you wish to force others to live under.
>You committed intellectual suicide decades ago ... and your main problem is
>that you get pissed when others refuse to be as brain dead as you.
>
You are just sore, because Christians don't want to live under
anti-religious censorship and atheist tyranny. As far as being "brain-dead",
who can be more brain-dead than an atheist like you posting atheism and
flames to Christian NGs?
Pastor Frank
>In article <NiKH3.30$i3....@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Pastor Frank"
>>THE
>>>INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. page down to section "F.
>>>Fundamentalist Interpretation" I've quoted from the end of the text that
I
>>>think go with this threat:
>>>
>>>"Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of
>>>certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns
>>>historical events or supposedly scientific truth...."
>>
>> So what? I am a Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian exactly
BECAUSE
>>we regard every Biblical interpretation in the sprit of God, whether
>>literal or spiritual being of equal value.
>>
>>>view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date
>>>cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this
>>>blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship
>>>between culture and faith...."
>>
>> Again, so what? Who is to judge which Biblical interpretation in the
>>spirit of God is the only right one? The above author? One with the most
>
>How about the one who can present REAL evidence that refute the
>fanaticism that biblical fables are real science or real historical events?
>You do know what "evidence" .. don't you?
>
The purpose of Christianity is to emulate the ideal moral citizen fit
for the kingdom of heaven. Every story and saying etc. In the Bible is
devoted to illustrating what it means to be "holy" and the popular history
and science of the day are mere vehicles to that end.
If you want to major in the minors and waste your time disproving
ancient science and history, that's your problem, don't make it our problem.
But if you want proof of what it means to be humane, then Christ provides
that proof, and we can talk.
Pastor Frank
"Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect"
- Jesus in Matt. 5:48
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
gentleness, goodness, faith, generosity, self control."
- Galatians 5:22-23