Regarding the evolution discussion that I missed: age of earth
mclark
the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
thank you
M. Clark
r norman
The list of "who begat whom" in Genesis is includes the age of each
individual at the time they had children. See, for example, Genesis
11:
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years,
and begat sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and
begat sons and daughters.
20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
and on and on and on.
Start with Adam and work your way down to something where we have
historical data. At least that is the tradition. Bishop Usher worked
it out to October 22, 4004 BC but others have difficulty validating
this date.
But it is generally close enough, give or take a few billion years.
Matt Silberstein
(mclark) wrote:
Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
like 6,000 years or so.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
EjP
The Bible is pretty precise about (ridiculously large)
ages up until the founding of Solomon's Temple, as
described here:
http://www.practicalchristianliving.org/timeline.htm
Then Biblical scholars try to line up historical
events with Bible stories to set a precise date
for the founding of the Temple:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp
Since ages are given in whole years, there's an
inherent rounding uncertaintly, so I'm not sure
how people like Ussher ever came up with precise
dates.
Note, I personally think this is all BS, but I'm
trying to answer your question.
-E
P.S. There's an excellent discussion of this
sort of thing in Stephen Jay Gould's "Challenging
the Millennium".
A. Carlson
(mclark) wrote:
It also has a bit to do with numerology and the significance of the
number three/trinity in the bible.
There appeared to be about 2000 years for the first era, from the
beginning of creation to the flood, another 2000 years for the second
era, from the flood to the coming of Christ, and then another 2000
years assumed for the next era until Christ's return.
Alex
Ernest Major
<amc...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>It also has a bit to do with numerology and the significance of the
>number three/trinity in the bible.
>
>There appeared to be about 2000 years for the first era, from the
>beginning of creation to the flood, another 2000 years for the second
>era, from the flood to the coming of Christ, and then another 2000
>years assumed for the next era until Christ's return.
>
sequiturially) last for 6 millenia - hence all the turn of the millenium
millenarianism
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Weigel
This is sheer non-sense because the earth was NOT...rotating at the time the
chronology begins. They STILL insist that a 'day is defined as 24 hours'
and I tell them "But..when the sun stood still....they STILL called that a
DAY!" It has nothing to do with the amount of time. A day is the cycle of
light. Not a particular amount of time by the Genesis definition if you
read it technically.
Anyway so I believe that first day could have been much much longer.
In fact I believe that it is an 'observational account' and the 'in the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth' is a generalization that he
was working on all this for some time. The big deal here..is that the STARS
being many many light years away....just started appearing on the third day!
So.....if they weren't already created before that, then hey. God painted
light across the universe. Maybe..there's nothing even out there 3 billion
LY's :-). God just painted the photons . Heheh. Anyway it looks from the
grammar that it is a very viable possibility that the heavens were already
created before the earth was settled to where the clouds cleared and the
stars appeared.
The 'canopy' theory suggests that there was some kind of layer of
water also in the upper atmosphere which collapsed to create the flood.
This water could have of course just acted like a big lens if it was like
ice up there. Hehe. Who knows. I mean God..can do anything I believe.
But anyway hope that helps. The actual length of time is estimated from the
ages of peope and when they began other people in the lineage also of
course. But in those first days...hey WHO KNOWS...maybe the earth wasn't
even spinning as fast! So days might have been a lot longer. One can't
really presume about what one does not know. -Bob
"mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
Icarus
This is hysterical! The lengths some people will go to in
attempting to defend long-disproven mythology is incredible. You
only embarass yourself with this absurdity, Bob.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
Hi Brother,
There is no need to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This
figure was given by one Bishop, Ussher, but bearing in mind that the
chronicles of generations given in various places between the time of Peleg
and the time of Abraham seem incomplete, and not even intended as a complete
account in all probability, (although the generations from Abraham onwards
do appear to be complete) it's likely that Ussher underestimated the age of
the earth.
I would personally assume that it was rather older than that, but we don't
know how old. I tend to go for 10,000 as it's a nice round figure and the
exact age isn't provable anyway, as we see mature things being created. Adam
and Eve were not made little babes but already in full maturity. They even
had language already, although unlike us they would have had no memories of
who they learned various words from, and when in childhood they learned it,
although that's a pure assumption on my part, they might have, but I see no
reason why they should have...
Even if you do not accept that the days of creation are days of equal length
to modern days, or believe them to be symbols for rather longer periods of
time, (not at explanation that works for me, I have to say, but others are
happy with it) this doesn't impact whatsoever on your status as a Christian.
If you've repented of your sins and called on Jesus Christ for your
salvation, then you are going to heaven and how you view the level of
metaphor in the opening chapters of Genesis is absolutely secondary.
God bless,
Uncle Davey
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 3-Nov-2004, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> Użytkownik "mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
> > Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> > the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> > a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> > Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
> >
> > thank you
> >
> > M. Clark
> >
>
> Hi Brother,
>
> There is no need to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This
> figure was given by one Bishop, Ussher, but bearing in mind that the
> chronicles of generations given in various places between the time of
> Peleg
> and the time of Abraham seem incomplete, and not even intended as a
> complete
> account in all probability, (although the generations from Abraham onwards
> do appear to be complete) it's likely that Ussher underestimated the age
> of
> the earth.
Good answer, UD.
>
> I would personally assume that it was rather older than that, but we don't
> know how old. I tend to go for 10,000 as it's a nice round figure and the
> exact age isn't provable anyway, as we see mature things being created.
> Adam
> and Eve were not made little babes but already in full maturity. They even
> had language already, although unlike us they would have had no memories
> of
> who they learned various words from, and when in childhood they learned
> it,
> although that's a pure assumption on my part, they might have, but I see
> no
> reason why they should have...
Well, I don't agree with many of the assumptions built into your reply
above, but given the framework you are operating in, I think you did a good
job pointing some things for the questioner to think about.
>
> Even if you do not accept that the days of creation are days of equal
> length
> to modern days, or believe them to be symbols for rather longer periods of
> time, (not at explanation that works for me, I have to say, but others are
> happy with it) this doesn't impact whatsoever on your status as a
> Christian.
> If you've repented of your sins and called on Jesus Christ for your
> salvation, then you are going to heaven and how you view the level of
> metaphor in the opening chapters of Genesis is absolutely secondary.
>
Excellent. I wish more people thought and believed that. Maybe one day....
Good wishes to you, UD.
Skitter the Cat
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik <Skitter...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:j45id.68243$xf6....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
You too,
Davey
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>the earth is only 6000(?) years old.
It is done using genealogy.
>Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
That seems to be a contradiction to me.
Where does God say in Genesis, that it wasn't really
Him, it was evolution?
The fact is, God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let US MAKE".
And in Genesis 2:7, it states clearly that God was
directly involved...
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7
"God formed man" And God, "breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life".
To believe in evolution, is to disbelieve the Bible.
And while theistic evolutionists put God's world above
God's word, the fact is, that I do not believe that
they can be Christians if they do not believe in the
Creation, as it is stated in the Bible.
Part of the message of salvation, is the Creation and
believing in the Creator. When Paul and Barnabas
preached to those worshipping nature, they said to
them; "...turn from these vanities unto the living God,
which made heaven and earth and the sea and all things
that are therein:" - Acts 14:15 Paul believed it too.
Any statements about God and evolution being compatible
are built on a faulty premise, which is that one can
believe in Christ and in evolution. Scripturally, that
isn't possible. And anyone who says it is, is trying
to twist the first chapter of Genesis to cover whatever
they want to believe about Him, so long as they believe
He existed and died on the cross, etc.. But that's the
wrong question and frankly, evolutionists are great at
getting people to ask the wrong questions. The real
question is, What does it mean to believe in Jesus
Christ?". Believing in Jesus Christ also means
believing in what He said AND what the Bible (the WHOLE
Bible) says about Him.
So what does it say about Christ? After all, who is
He? Well, the Bible says He's the Creator.
John 1:1-3
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
3) All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now if He's the Creator, then He knows how it happened.
So the question then becomes, what did Jesus consider
"the beginning"?
In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to Adam and Eve as the
beginning of humankind. Theistic evolutionists will
try to tell me that I'm misreading the Bible and I'm
just inserting my interpretation. Talk about
misreading the Bible! Where does Jesus say, "Once man
and ape split off from a common ancestor and finally
developed into modern humans, then Adam and Eve..." ???
You see, it's the evolutionists who are misreading the
Bible and twisting it. I'm simply reading it as it's
written.
Jesus also told us that Moses was speaking about Him.
And note what He said...
John 5:45-47
45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye
trust.
46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed
me: for he wrote of me.
47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?
Now notice the last verse. If we don't believe what
Moses wrote about Him, then how can we believe what He
says? That's a very powerful statement.
So what did Moses write of Him? Well, a number of
things. Right now, we're going to focus on the
relevant passages. But let's understand first, that it
was Christ who was dealing with Moses. It was Christ
who spoke to Moses. It was Christ who followed them
out there...
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea;
3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Christ.
And what did Christ say about the Creation to Moses?
Exodus 20:8-11
8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates:
11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the
sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it.
He said "six days". Now you either those who state
that Jesus is their Saviour believe Him, or they don't,
thereby denying Him, period. Anything else they say,
is adding to the Bible, since the Bible says, "six
days". Theistic evolutionists can speculate about the
"six days" all they want, but that's all they have, is
speculation. Those who try to make it into millions of
years have the big problem. Speaking of this seven day
period (six days and the Sabbath) and keeping the
statement about this six days in the context in which
it is quoted from, did God command man to work six
millions years and rest for one million years? No.
It's clear that He is talking about six literal days of
Creation, when the passage is taken in context. In
order to make it anything other than six literal days,
they have to rip it out of its context of the Sabbath
day rest.
The fact is that "In the beginning, God created"...
And He did it in six days and said He did it in six
days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed that and
referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8 and in other places.
Going back to Genesis, it is important to note
something about the word usage there in the original
language (Hebrew). The original Hebrew word for "day"
("yom"), is never used to mean anything but a literal
day in the Bible, when a numerical adjective is present
("second, third, etc.). Are we to believe that this is
somehow the one and only exception and that God would
start out His word with a deception?
Now people will try to tell me that God used language
that "ignorant, primitive man could understand".
That's ridiculous! First off, man was a lot smarter
then, than we give him credit for. Language, for
example, gets much more complex, the farther we go back
and it has taken scholars decades to even begin to
decipher some of them. The Egyptians had batteries
thousands of years ago, etc.. Secondly, what is so
hard to understand about God saying... "First there
were animals, including apes and God brought man forth
from these apes". No, it isn't difficult at all to
tell man in that time, that we came from apes.
Theistic evolutionists may claim that man wouldn't
understand the mechanisms involved. Well, even if
everything was created in six days, as I contend, man
still wouldn't understand the mechanisms involved. In
fact, we still wouldn't, so what's the difference? No,
that is a misleading statement by the theistic
evolutionist.
The Bible also makes it clear that no one died before
Adam.
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22
If that isn't true and man existed before Adam, then
the whole concept of Jesus as our Saviour is
ridiculous, since God would be holding everyone since
Adam responsible for their sin and no one before that.
And what about the other humans alive at the time, if
Adam was not the first man? And why would we need a
Saviour, if evolution is true? Man is an animal and is
simply acting as God made Him to act. Like an animal.
If there is no original sin from one man, then where is
the need for a Saviour? Yet the Bible makes it clear
that we do need a Saviour and that Jesus is, "the last
Adam".
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made
a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit." - 1 Corinthians 15:45
As atheist Richard Bozarth said... "Evolution destroys
utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life
was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve
and the original sin and in the rubble, you will find
the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not
the Redeemer... and this is what evolution means, then
Christianity is nothing."
I think he summed it up pretty well. Now if only folks
who state they are Christians and believe in evolution,
were honest with themselves. They claim that man came
from ape, yet the Bible tells us that Jesus was "the
last Adam", not, "the last ape".
What theistic evolutionists believe cannot possibly be
reconciled with Scripture and it makes Jesus a useless,
made over monkey, without the ability to be a
sacrifice.
The Bible tells us that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam...
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned:" - Romans 5:12
The Bible tells us that Jesus believed in Adam and Eve
and after all, He should know, He was there.
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them
male and female," - Matthew 19:4
And now, notice the next verse. While the
evolutionists try to put millions of years into the
Creation (which Genesis 1 & 2 doesn't support), what
did Jesus say about it?
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them
male and female." - Mark 10:6
Not just "the beginning", as if it were millions of
years ago, but rather, the beginning OF THE CREATION.
And where is that account found? In Genesis. Jesus
knew this, of course, as did those who were listening
to Him. They read the Scriptures and knew what they
said. Here, Jesus is confirming the absolute truth of
the Creation account, found in Genesis. Adam and Eve
were there, right from go, just like all other life,
separated only by a few days. And Jesus tells us that
it happened that way. Remember, in Mat 19:4, He
said... "Have ye not READ...". Now, is He talking
about Darwin's book here? No. As I said, He is
confirming the Genesis account.
So what conclusions can logically be drawn from this?
Well, it seems to leave us with three options:
1) Jesus was right and knew what He was talking about,
since He was there and it was done through Him. That
is the logical conclusion to draw from the text of the
Bible itself.
2) Jesus believed in the Creation, as described in
Genesis, but He just didn't know modern science, which
of course, means that He couldn't have been there at
the Creation and the Bible is lying about that. This
would disqualify Him as our Saviour, since our Saviour
has to be free from sin and error and therefore,
there's no point in theistic evolutionists saying that
they believe in Him as such.
3) Jesus was intentionally lying about who He was, or
intentionally misleading the people, even though He
knew evolution was reality, which of course,
disqualifies Him as Saviour and means that the concept
of original sin is a lie, which, once again, means that
God lied about it in His written word to mankind. And
no, the argument about them not being able to
understand it, is not a valid argument, as I pointed
out and even if He did say something like that in the
New Testament text, it would still mean that He lied to
Moses in Genesis. How can a liar be our Saviour?
You see, no matter what they do, they cannot escape
these facts. Either Jesus was right, or He was wrong,
or He was lying. One of those three. If it's the
first, then they are liars, when they claim to believe
in evolution and call Jesus their Lord and Saviour. It
simply cannot be. They may not have seen that and if
it was unintentional on their part, then so be it. But
now they know, if they read this message. As the Lord
Jesus Christ said...
"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not
had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin."
- John 15:22
And there is no more excuse for it. Now it is sin to
them, because they know better.
They do what they want, but their way is the way that,
misreads the Bible" and it is they who must resolve the
problems that their belief brings to the table. As for
me, I have a hard time believing anyone is saved, who
says that they believe in Jesus as His Lord and Saviour
and evolution, when in order to do so, they must call
Jesus a liar, or ignorant and try to convince me that
it's okay to say that they believe the end and yet,
they reject the beginning. As I said, Genesis 1 & 2 do
not allow for evolution. So my advice to theistic
evolutionists, is to pick a side, because they can't
pick both. Not with any integrity. They are
incompatible. I hope they'll pick the side with God.
The funny part is, that science actually lines up with
the Bible. Man started in Africa, for example. And
instead of them questioning how long ago that happened,
they choose to accept what unbelievers say and question
the Bible's time line. They may say they're not doing
that, but they are.
So tell me, where does the Bible say that man evolved
from ape? They can say that it isn't a scientific
book, but that doesn't solve any of the problems. They
still have the problems I mentioned above and the fact
is, that the Bible is accurate when it touches on
matters of science. The fact is, that they consider
what they believe to be true and yet, they don't have
any evidence for it. And then they try to point their
finger at others. That's hypocritical. The fact is,
they call their belief science and that binds them to
show scientific evidence.
They haven't even made a valid point.
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
Seppo Pietikainen
Oh, *that* Bob Weigel! I didn't recognize the name
among the clutter at first...
Well, he is hysterical, all right...
Seppo P.
Richard Forrest
...<snipped>
So do you still assert that the behemoth was a dinosaur?
RF
Eric Root
>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), while
>wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
(snip)
>>Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
>>
>
>That seems to be a contradiction to me.
>
>Where does God say in Genesis, that it wasn't really
>Him, it was evolution?
>
Why does it matter?
(snip)
>
>
>To believe in evolution, is to disbelieve the Bible.
>And while theistic evolutionists put God's world above
>God's word, the fact is, that I do not believe that
>they can be Christians if they do not believe in the
>Creation, as it is stated in the Bible.
>
Why don't you believe it?
(snip)
>
>Any statements about God and evolution being compatible
>are built on a faulty premise, which is that one can
>believe in Christ and in evolution.
>
How do you figure?
>Scripturally, that
>isn't possible. And anyone who says it is, is trying
>to twist the first chapter of Genesis to cover whatever
>they want to believe about Him, so long as they believe
>He existed and died on the cross, etc.. But that's the
>wrong question and frankly, evolutionists are great at
>getting people to ask the wrong questions. The real
>question is, What does it mean to believe in Jesus
>Christ?". Believing in Jesus Christ also means
>believing in what He said AND what the Bible (the WHOLE
>Bible) says about Him.
>
Says you, and you do not inspire much confidence. The whole rest of
this diatribe smacks of making excuses for denying science. Caper
around all you want, pointing at the motes in others' eyes. I'm _sure_
you're exactly the sort God wants to fill Heaven up with.
(snip)
Klaus Hellnick
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
>
>>Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>>the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>>a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>>Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>
>
> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
> like 6,000 years or so.
>
>
Of course, you have to guesstimate some gaps and ignore numerous
contradictions about who begat who.
Klaus
Homer Noodleman
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>
>
> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old.
>
> It is done using genealogy.
>
>
> >Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
>
> That seems to be a contradiction to me.
>
>snip dogmatic crap<
The ENTIRE point of Christianity is that nobody is worthy of salvation
and nobody can earn it. So God developed a system whereby everybody
can obtain salvation by grace - by acknowledging the sacrifice of
Jesus and accepting him as savior.
That is it.
You don't have to understand every nuance of the Bible. You don't even
have to read the thing. You don't even have to know there is a Bible.
Anybody who tells you mastery of Biblical scholarship is a
prerequisite of salvation is lying. Anybody who tells you that your
ability to determine what parts of the Bible are metaphor or parable
from what parts are literally true determines whether you are saved or
not is lying. The ONLY requisite for salivation is faith in Jesus as
savior.
That is it.
From a pastoral perspective, the ease and simplicity of obtaining
salvation is an impediment. Who needs preachers and churches if a man
can go into his closet, ask to accept Jesus' gift of salvation and get
it without further muddling?
The fact that "Uncle Davey" is a preacher is the reason he tries to
make obtaining salvation seem harder than it is. He makes his money by
acting as guide to Heaven, and he realizes his guidance in unnecessary
if there's a huge "SALVATION THIS WAY" sign on the roadside. The fact
that by doing so he denigrates and minimizes the Passion of Christ is
evidence that whatever else he is, he's no Christian.
Daniel Harper
<snip>
> The fact that "Uncle Davey" is a preacher is the reason he tries to make
> obtaining salvation seem harder than it is. He makes his money by acting
> as guide to Heaven, and he realizes his guidance in unnecessary if there's
> a huge "SALVATION THIS WAY" sign on the roadside. The fact that by doing
> so he denigrates and minimizes the Passion of Christ is evidence that
> whatever else he is, he's no Christian.
Please note that Uncle Davey and Pastor Dave are (as far as I know)
completely different people.
--
Romani Ite Domum
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2roho0hjqd2uh6unc...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
>>
>>
>> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old.
>>
>> It is done using genealogy.
>>
>>
>> >Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
>>
>> That seems to be a contradiction to me.
>>
>
>>snip dogmatic crap<
I.e., you didn't want to admit that my point was
supported Biblically.
>The ENTIRE point of Christianity is that nobody is worthy of salvation
>and nobody can earn it. So God developed a system whereby everybody
>can obtain salvation by grace - by acknowledging the sacrifice of
>Jesus and accepting him as savior.
>
>That is it.
No, that isn't it.
>You don't have to understand every nuance of the Bible. You don't even
>have to read the thing. You don't even have to know there is a Bible.
You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
saved.
Earle Jones
"Daniel Harper" <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:13:54 +0000, Homer Noodleman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The fact that "Uncle Davey" is a preacher is the reason he tries to make
> > obtaining salvation seem harder than it is. He makes his money by acting
> > as guide to Heaven, and he realizes his guidance in unnecessary if there's
> > a huge "SALVATION THIS WAY" sign on the roadside. The fact that by doing
> > so he denigrates and minimizes the Passion of Christ is evidence that
> > whatever else he is, he's no Christian.
>
> Please note that Uncle Davey and Pastor Dave are (as far as I know)
> completely different people.
*
Different, yes. But not completely different.
earle
*
Earle Jones
jatsu...@yahoo.com (Homer Noodleman) wrote:
[...]
> Anybody who tells you mastery of Biblical scholarship is a
> prerequisite of salvation is lying. Anybody who tells you that your
> ability to determine what parts of the Bible are metaphor or parable
> from what parts are literally true determines whether you are saved or
> not is lying. The ONLY requisite for salivation is faith in Jesus as
> savior.
*
Your Freudian slip "salivation" caught my attention. I suspect that
some of your Christian brothers are doing exactly that -- salivating!
Jesus does not need to give us salivation -- it comes naturally.
I do not have any 'faith' in your Jesus. How does one go about
getting that 'faith'? How do I persuade myself to believe in some
fictitious being for which there is no evidence?
You must understand this: I am handicapped by a scientific
education. It is not possible for me to have 'faith', which is
after all just belief without any evidence, when all of my education
and experience tells me that I must believe based on evidence.
Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say that I should
just fall down on my knees and make statements like, "Oh God, please
forgive this sinner and take me into your whatever."
I would not want my neighbors to see me do this -- it would be
terribly embarrassing. And to me it would be really living a lie --
I really don't believe it. My mother told me to avoid telling lies.
What do you suggest?
earle
*
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
--David Hume
"While we are uncertain whether there is one deity or many;
whether the deity or deities, to whom we owe our existence, be
perfect or imperfect, subordinate or supreme, dead or alive; what
trust or confidence can we repose in them? What veneration or
obedience pay them? To all the purposes of life, the theory of
religion becomes altogether useless."
--David Hume (in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion")
Earle Jones
Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
*
My own opinion is that the opening chapters of Genesis are pure
bullshit. The closing chapters are, also. Is there still a chance
that I will avoid the fires of hell? Am I denied the pleasures of
floating around in heaven with those bare-limbed teenybopper angels
for the next billion years?
Let me know, won't you.
earle
*
Earle Jones
"Bob Weigel" <dont...@nothing.net> wrote:
*
Bob: Greetings! Your last sentence: "One can't really presume
about what one does not know" tends to shoot down all of your
previous arguments. "God just painted the photons" -- that is
generally referred to in this newsgroup as the "Last Thursday"
argument. You know, "Last Thursday, God put together the universe
as it appeared last Thursday, fooling us into believing it had been
here for 14 billion years."
And whether he did it last Thursday or 6,000 years ago makes no
difference. When we identify objects in space that are millions of
light years away from us, we conclude that they were there millions
of years ago and their light is just now reaching us.
Do you have a problem with that? Or did your god just create the
photons last Thursday? Or 6,000 years ago?
earle
*
Ernest Major
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>
>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
>saved.
>
Jesus a liar.
Secondly, arguably creationism entails "calling God a liar". Perhaps
you'd like to debate the salvatological status of omphalism with the
person calling himself "Uncle Davey".
--
alias Ernest Major
Skitter...@yahoo.com
On 5-Nov-2004, Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert
> >> >that
> >> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old.
> >>
> >> It is done using genealogy.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
> >>
> >> That seems to be a contradiction to me.
> >>
> >
> >>snip dogmatic crap<
>
> I.e., you didn't want to admit that my point was
> supported Biblically.
It wasn't and it wouldn't matter anyway, given the way that the term
"supported Biblically" is generally used.
>
> >The ENTIRE point of Christianity is that nobody is worthy of salvation
> >and nobody can earn it. So God developed a system whereby everybody
> >can obtain salvation by grace - by acknowledging the sacrifice of
> >Jesus and accepting him as savior.
> >
> >That is it.
>
> No, that isn't it.
Really?! Then what is the point of Christianity, as you see it?
>
>
> >You don't have to understand every nuance of the Bible. You don't even
> >have to read the thing. You don't even have to know there is a Bible.
>
> You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
> saved.
That wasn't what he did-you just put words in his mouth, failed to actually
answer his point, and tried to switch the subject.
For examples and support of why he is right, why don't you read the POTM for
Talk.Origins from last month. (Not to pat myself on the back too hard, but,
hey, it does support the point ;)
Skitter the Cat
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
>In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
>>saved.
>>
>Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as calling
>Jesus a liar.
Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that
statement.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> yodeled:
Do you really expect people to respond to you seriously
and respectfully, when you show so much contempt for
them and make fun of them?
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> yodeled:
>You must understand this: I am handicapped by a scientific
>education. It is not possible for me to have 'faith', which is
>after all just belief without any evidence, when all of my education
>and experience tells me that I must believe based on evidence.
Evidence is what you ignore.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net> yodeled:
>Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say that I should
>just fall down on my knees and make statements like, "Oh God, please
>forgive this sinner and take me into your whatever."
>
>I would not want my neighbors to see me do this -- it would be
>terribly embarrassing.
Yes, we definitely want to live our lives based on what
our neighbors would think. (:
Bob Pease
Is this really worse than polite, but condescending, threats of eternal
torture based on trusting your word that you are God's messenger??
Bob Pease
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
<robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
You people keep bringing up "eternal torture" and then
accuse me of being the one to.
Now, what does that have to do with what I said?
Bob Pease
snip
>> Even if you accept that the days of creation are days of equal
Directly, in this mesage
"If you've repented of your sins and called on Jesus Christ for your
salvation ,then you are going to heaven "
I assume you are presenting this as a necessary and sufficient condition.
If you are denying that eternal torture is the only alternative to "heaven"
then I will rescind.
BTW, you still haven't answered why you are using Jack Chick comics and
Hovind's classification scheme as something every educated person ought to
know..
RJ Pease
catshark
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> >My own opinion is that the opening chapters of Genesis are pure
>>> >bullshit. The closing chapters are, also. Is there still a chance
>>> >that I will avoid the fires of hell? Am I denied the pleasures of
>>> >floating around in heaven with those bare-limbed teenybopper angels
>>> >for the next billion years?
>>> >
>>> >Let me know, won't you.
>>>
>>> Do you really expect people to respond to you seriously
>>> and respectfully, when you show so much contempt for
>>> them and make fun of them?
>>
>>Is this really worse than polite, but condescending, threats of eternal
>>torture based on trusting your word that you are God's messenger??
>
>You people keep bringing up "eternal torture" and then
>accuse me of being the one to.
"You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved."
<http://tinyurl.com/3sogj>
>
>Now, what does that have to do with what I said?
Frankly, I haven't a clue as what anything you said has to do with the
discussion Uncle Davey, Skitter and Earle were having, since none of them
referenced you in this. Care to enlighten us?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Stupidity, if left untreated, is self-correcting.
- Robert Heinlein -
Ernest Major
<robe...@askmeinapost.com> writes
>
>Directly, in this mesage
> "If you've repented of your sins and called on Jesus Christ for your
> salvation ,then you are going to heaven "
>
this Works Lite position), not the David you were responding to.
--
alias Ernest Major
Tom McDonald
Thank you for the advice as to what to do to have faith. I, on
the other hand, have faith _and_ do not ignore evidence.
--
Tom McDonald
http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
Earle Jones
"Bob Pease" <robe...@askmeinapost.com> wrote:
*
I do not suffer fools lightly.
"When a proposition is ludicrous enough, we lend it
undeserved credibility when we respond too politely."
--Robert M. Price
earle
*
Pastor Dave
>
I didn't write it.
>BTW, you still haven't answered why you are using Jack Chick comics and
>Hovind's classification scheme as something every educated person ought to
>know..
You continue to make these false accusations, because
you are afraid to deal with what I have said head on.
This is the idiots retreat, which you love to partake
in. You have no scientific refutation for anything
I've said and so, you become so desperate, that you
will risk looking like an idiot (which you succeed at).
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, catshark
<cats...@yahoo.com> yodeled:
>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:43:58 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> >My own opinion is that the opening chapters of Genesis are pure
>>>> >bullshit. The closing chapters are, also. Is there still a chance
>>>> >that I will avoid the fires of hell? Am I denied the pleasures of
>>>> >floating around in heaven with those bare-limbed teenybopper angels
>>>> >for the next billion years?
>>>> >
>>>> >Let me know, won't you.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really expect people to respond to you seriously
>>>> and respectfully, when you show so much contempt for
>>>> them and make fun of them?
>>>
>>>Is this really worse than polite, but condescending, threats of eternal
>>>torture based on trusting your word that you are God's messenger??
>>
>>You people keep bringing up "eternal torture" and then
>>accuse me of being the one to.
>
>"You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved."
><http://tinyurl.com/3sogj>
Now show me the words, "eternal torture". Your
desperation is obvious.
>>Now, what does that have to do with what I said?
>
>Frankly, I haven't a clue as what anything you said has to do with the
>discussion Uncle Davey, Skitter and Earle were having, since none of them
>referenced you in this. Care to enlighten us?
Of course you don't. That takes intelligence.
Daniel Harper
Didn't we already have this discussion a few months ago? As I recall, you
lost.
--
Don't blame me -- I voted for the other guy.
--Daniel Harper
(Insert my name and change terra to earth for email)
catshark
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:53:22 +0000 (UTC), while
>wondering if all people love cupcakes, catshark
><cats...@yahoo.com> yodeled:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:43:58 +0000 (UTC), Pastor Dave
>><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>> >My own opinion is that the opening chapters of Genesis are pure
>>>>> >bullshit. The closing chapters are, also. Is there still a chance
>>>>> >that I will avoid the fires of hell? Am I denied the pleasures of
>>>>> >floating around in heaven with those bare-limbed teenybopper angels
>>>>> >for the next billion years?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Let me know, won't you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really expect people to respond to you seriously
>>>>> and respectfully, when you show so much contempt for
>>>>> them and make fun of them?
>>>>
>>>>Is this really worse than polite, but condescending, threats of eternal
>>>>torture based on trusting your word that you are God's messenger??
>>>
>>>You people keep bringing up "eternal torture" and then
>>>accuse me of being the one to.
>>
>>"You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved."
>><http://tinyurl.com/3sogj>
>
>Now show me the words, "eternal torture". Your
>desperation is obvious.
<Shrug> Then those who aren't "saved" have nothing to fear? Or are you
saying that we can be "saved" after death? Or are you among those (is it
SDA?) who hold that the unsaved are "extinguished" at the final judgment?
Are any of those the orthodox Christian position? If you don't want people
to assume you are talking about hell as the alternative to salvation, maybe
you should announce up front that you are a heretic.
>
>
>>>Now, what does that have to do with what I said?
>>
>>Frankly, I haven't a clue as what anything you said has to do with the
>>discussion Uncle Davey, Skitter and Earle were having, since none of them
>>referenced you in this. Care to enlighten us?
>
>Of course you don't. That takes intelligence.
To pretend that you weren't just projecting your own insecurities onto what
was being said to someone else? No, that only takes obliviousness. Since
you have that in spades, if I ever feel a need for any, I know where I can
borrow some.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The deity described by Creationism is, at a fundamental level,
not the God that sent his Son into the world for the redemption
of sin. It is some mad, fallible, ignorant play-tester squeezed
into the shrinking gaps of human ignorance . . .
- Skitter the Cat -
C.J.W.
catshark wrote:
> you should announce up front that you are a heretic.<snip>
Hmmm, more Christians should realize that when they talk to atheists they are
talking to geeky wimps par excellence. Let the dead bury their dead.
Yes, Evil people will be judged by the Maker in the end.
Right now people who engage in sodomy tend to have viruses growing in their
butts. Drunks have livers that go bad. The tyrant is unhappy, a slave to Fear.
This is just as Socrates said. Etc. Here are some words for you decadent
atheistic wimps who snivel of tolerance incessantly: Truth, vengeance, justice,
duty and honor. You know them not. Already you have nightmares and look at
horror stories about Evil. So it is obvious that people have some concept of
hell.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Ken Shackleton
>
> Hmmm, more Christians should realize that when they talk to atheists they
> are
> talking to geeky wimps par excellence. Let the dead bury their dead.
>
> Yes, Evil people will be judged by the Maker in the end.
>
> Right now people who engage in sodomy tend to have viruses growing in
> their
> butts. Drunks have livers that go bad. The tyrant is unhappy, a slave to
> Fear.
> This is just as Socrates said. Etc. Here are some words for you decadent
> atheistic wimps who snivel of tolerance incessantly: Truth, vengeance,
> justice,
> duty and honor. You know them not. Already you have nightmares and look
> at
> horror stories about Evil. So it is obvious that people have some concept
> of
> hell.
So....you imply that "immoral" deeds incur God's wrath....if you believe
that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, then why did he use such an
imprecise weapon. AIDS kills thousands of innocent babies [don't give me
that born in sin bullshit]. Health care workers have become infected by
getting exposed to the fluids of those they try to help! An omnipotent God
could do a much better job of culling out the "undesirable".
How can you explain lesbians.....as a group they have the lowest incidence
of AIDS, so by your standard they must be God's chosen people.
I am an Atheist [I attempt to follow the teachings of the Buddha] and I do
not fear my inevitable death [I do not believe in re-incarnation]. I
understand that my time on this earth is finite, and I do not need the
promise of paradise of the threat of hellfire to coerce me to act in a good,
decent, and yes....moral fashion. I act that way because it is right and
good.
Humanity may some day mature to the level where we can accept that we are
natural beings, and that this is a natural universe....there is no God to
look after us. We are on our own and it is all up to us to carry on with our
lives. When the human race achieves this level of thinking, rather than
believing in childish stories that only serve to separate and isolate
different cultures....then perhaps we will be more willing to help one
another without first judging them by our own arbitrary standards and
biases.
Ken
> --
> --W
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/
>
catshark
And some more words . . . meds, therapy, rest and rehabilitation . . .
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
To say that secular means irreligious implies
that all the arts and sciences are irreligious,
and is very like saying that all professions
except that of the law are illegal.
- John Stuart Mill -
VoiceOfReason
You provided your personal interpretation, which is in the distinct
minority among Christians.
Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
Richard Forrest
So to be clear: you are accusing the Christian churches of Europe and
most of the rest of the world of calling Jesus a liar.
Are you sure that this what you mean?
RF
Richard Forrest
I should also add that you are accusing all Christian churches before
the middle of the 19th century of calling Jesus a liar. The idea of
biblical literalism is a relatively new phenomenon, and found more or
less exclusively in the USA.
RF
Pastor Dave
So now instead of admitting that you were wrong, you
wish to find another way to attack me and once again,
make up a scenario in which I said things that you
can't quote me saying.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Daniel Harper"
<my_...@terralink.net> yodeled:
>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:27:48 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
>> love cupcakes, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
>>
>>>In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
>>><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved.
>>>>
>>>Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as calling
>>>Jesus a liar.
>>
>> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that statement.
>
>Didn't we already have this discussion a few months ago? As I recall, you
>lost.
Only in your mind.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
No son, I supported it quite well and majority opinion
does not automatically equal truth. And FYI, what I
said was the belief of the church throughout history,
until recently. But now you take man's word over God's
and then wish to tell me what a Christian believes.
>Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
Which speaks to the sad state of the church today. But
the question really becomes, are they actually
Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
catshark
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, <shrug>. If you insist on telling people whether or not they are
"saved" but don't bother to tell them what you mean by that (as you have
*again* avoided doing), then you can't cry when they take it to mean what
the vast majority of people who say such things mean by it.
If it matters, I'm sorry I was unaware of your private meaning of "saved"
and the alternative. I will take comfort from your opinion that my not
being "saved" will have no such unfortunate consequences. I'm sure that
will be marked down to your credit somewhere.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
There has been only one Christian.
They caught him and crucified him -- early.
-- Mark Twain --
Bob Pease
In civilized discourse, challenge is not to be regarded as attack.
I notice that you persistently avoid responding to the challenge.
Your refusal to be direct in this manner suggests that you have an agenda
that is devious, and that your intention is just the same as all fundies.
You must expose people in opposition to your sense of mission to the Truth,
as you see it, being a messenger of God's Word through the Bible.
This agenda includes
1. Accepting Jesus as Personal Savior.
2. Declaring that none can be saved except through HIM
3. Consigning the non-saved to Hell, as the only possible alternative to
salvation.
Entering an evolution thread is evidence to me that you are doing so because
evolutionist in general opposes a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I am stating that failure to address these issues suggests that you cede
them, as is the common rule in debate.
Robert J. Pease
Daniel Harper
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:53:12 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
> love cupcakes, "Daniel Harper" <my_...@terralink.net> yodeled:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:27:48 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
>>> love cupcakes, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
>>>
>>>>In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
>>>><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved.
>>>>>
>>>>Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as
>>>>calling Jesus a liar.
>>>
>>> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that statement.
>>
>>Didn't we already have this discussion a few months ago? As I recall, you
>>lost.
>
> Only in your mind.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924379770d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=pan.2004.03.05.04.26.04.377329%40terralink.net&rnum=39>
(Mind the wrap.)
I don't believe you ever responded to this message -- would you like to
continue our discussion now?
AC
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:53:12 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Daniel Harper"
><my_...@terralink.net> yodeled:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:27:48 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
>>> love cupcakes, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
>>>
>>>>In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
>>>><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved.
>>>>>
>>>>Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as calling
>>>>Jesus a liar.
>>>
>>> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that statement.
>>
>>Didn't we already have this discussion a few months ago? As I recall, you
>>lost.
>
> Only in your mind.
Ah yes, the ol' "I ran out of town, but now I'm back, so you wanna fight me
again?" line.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
I am not accusing "the world". Nice try. I am saying
that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
their Bible carefully. They are taking man's word,
over God's.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Bob Pease"
<robe...@askmeinapost.com> yodeled:
The challenge consists of him back up his accusations,
which he has not done and cannot do. But we know
that's not important to you. Truth isn't important to
you, nor is honesty, nor is integrity.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
No sir, it is not. People like you accuse Christians
of believing the world is flat, because they based
their belief on the Bible (even though the Bible
doesn't say that) and then, when it's convenient for
you, you claim that Christians don't take the Bible
literally. That makes people like you hypocrites.
Pastor Dave
>On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:49:28 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:53:12 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
>> love cupcakes, "Daniel Harper" <my_...@terralink.net> yodeled:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:27:48 +0000, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while wondering if all people
>>>> love cupcakes, Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
>>>>><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be saved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as
>>>>>calling Jesus a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that statement.
>>>
>>>Didn't we already have this discussion a few months ago? As I recall, you
>>>lost.
>>
>> Only in your mind.
>
><http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2924379770d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=pan.2004.03.05.04.26.04.377329%40terralink.net&rnum=39>
>(Mind the wrap.)
>
>I don't believe you ever responded to this message -- would you like to
>continue our discussion now?
If you think claiming that (your words) "evolution
happened" and "Jesus was an ape" chalks up a win for
you, then enjoy yourself.
VoiceOfReason
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:15:44 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>
> >Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9dopo09q9b7e1eq6v...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while
> >> wondering if all people love cupcakes, Ernest Major
> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
> >>
> >> >In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
> >> ><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
> >> >>
> >> >>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
> >> >>saved.
> >> >>
> >> >Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as calling
> >> >Jesus a liar.
> >>
> >> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that
> >> statement.
> >
> >You provided your personal interpretation, which is in the distinct
> >minority among Christians.
>
> No son,
Funny :-D
> I supported it quite well and majority opinion
> does not automatically equal truth. And FYI, what I
> said was the belief of the church throughout history,
> until recently. But now you take man's word over God's
> and then wish to tell me what a Christian believes.
Your statements do not represent God's word. You present one opinion
based on a minority interpretation of ancient writings that may have
been inspired by God. So you're at least a couple layers removed from
God's word.
Do you maintain that your personal interpretation is more correct than
other people's? If so, why?
> >Most Christians are not Biblical literalists.
>
> Which speaks to the sad state of the church today.
Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
biological evolution?
> But
> the question really becomes, are they actually
> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
you must base that judgement on something?
Matt Silberstein
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
>Użytkownik "mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> napisał w wiadomości
>news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
>> Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>> the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>> a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>> Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>>
>> thank you
>>
>> M. Clark
>>
>
>Hi Brother,
>
>There is no need to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This
>figure was given by one Bishop, Ussher, but bearing in mind that the
>chronicles of generations given in various places between the time of Peleg
>and the time of Abraham seem incomplete, and not even intended as a complete
>account in all probability, (although the generations from Abraham onwards
>do appear to be complete) it's likely that Ussher underestimated the age of
>the earth.
>
>I would personally assume that it was rather older than that, but we don't
>know how old. I tend to go for 10,000 as it's a nice round figure and the
>exact age isn't provable anyway, as we see mature things being created. Adam
>and Eve were not made little babes but already in full maturity. They even
>had language already, although unlike us they would have had no memories of
>who they learned various words from,
Why not? You think that everything else was created with a history
that never occurred, why do you stop there? If trees show signs of
weather that never occurred, if fossils show us plants and animals
that never lived, it star light shows novas of stars that never
existed, why shouldn't Adam and Eve have memories of a childhood they
never had?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
mclark
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>
> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
> like 6,000 years or so.
This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
even stated that I'm not a YEC.
M. Clark
mclark
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
> >
> >thank you
> >
>
> The list of "who begat whom" in Genesis is includes the age of each
> individual at the time they had children. See, for example, Genesis
> 11:
>
> 16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
>
> 17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years,
> and begat sons and daughters.
>
> 18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
>
> 19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and
> begat sons and daughters.
>
> 20 And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
>
> and on and on and on.
>
> Start with Adam and work your way down to something where we have
> historical data. At least that is the tradition. Bishop Usher worked
> it out to October 22, 4004 BC but others have difficulty validating
> this date.
>
> But it is generally close enough, give or take a few billion years.
Thank you but my question was not concerned with what is arguably the
age of modern man but with the age of the earth. Can you show from the
Bible how old the earth is? I cannot.
M. Clark
Ernest Major
<pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
>
>I am not accusing "the world". Nice try. I am saying
>that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
>calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
>And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
>their Bible carefully. They are taking man's word,
>over God's.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Matt Silberstein
(mclark) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
>> (mclark) wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>>
>> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
>> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
>> like 6,000 years or so.
>
>This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
>age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
>your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
>even stated that I'm not a YEC.
You asked a question, I answered the question. Your inability to
understand is your problem.
Ernest Major
<idont...@toemail.com> writes
>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
>> (mclark) wrote:
>>
>> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>>
>> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
>> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
>> like 6,000 years or so.
>
>This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
>age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
>your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
>even stated that I'm not a YEC.
>
>
YECs interpret Genesis 1 as describing creation in 6 literal 24 hour
periods, i.e. with the earth scarcely older than the first man, and the
universe scarcely older than the earth.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Earle Jones
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:38:48 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >U?ytkownik "mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> napisa" w wiadomo?ci
> >news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
> >> Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> >> the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> >> a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> >> Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
> >>
> >> thank you
> >>
> >> M. Clark
> >>
> >
> >Hi Brother,
> >
> >There is no need to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This
> >figure was given by one Bishop, Ussher, but bearing in mind that the
> >chronicles of generations given in various places between the time of Peleg
> >and the time of Abraham seem incomplete, and not even intended as a complete
> >account in all probability, (although the generations from Abraham onwards
> >do appear to be complete) it's likely that Ussher underestimated the age of
> >the earth.
> >
> >I would personally assume that it was rather older than that, but we don't
> >know how old. I tend to go for 10,000 as it's a nice round figure...
*
How about 100,000 years? That's also a nice round figure, if that's
what you "tend to go for".
How about several billion years?
How about reading a science book? Try High-School biology 101.
If you don't "tend to go for" books, try Googling on "age of the
earth".
earle
*
Joseph Lyon
> >that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
> >calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
Jesus didn't write the Bible. Genesis itself does not say who wrote
it.
> >And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
> >their Bible carefully.
The Bible has been changed. It has been edited. Whole books have been
left out. Before it was cannonized, the Bible would have taken up a
whole room.
Words have been misinterpretted in translation.
Why does it say "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" and "God" instead of
Elohim? Why does it say "Giants" instead of Nephilim?
There is no evidence or writings that say that ALL Nephilim were
giants.
Why did they conveniently leave out the Book of Enoch and half the
book of Daniel, as well as the Book of Giants when they cannonized the
Bible?
Who are you or they or any other human to decide what is and what is
not the actual Word of God, among the books that the ancient hebrews
kept as sacred?and as part of the Torah?
>>They are taking man's word,
> >over God's.
Or maybe they are taking their own personal relationship with God over
the word of a book that has been changed, mis-copied, and edited over
the last 2000 + years of it's literary evolution.
Have you ever thought that your vehement defence of religion's
assumptions about the nature of God may be turning people off to God?
Turning people away from God is a really big sin, Pastor.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible, if you will open
your mind to the idea.
mclark
Thanks, but again, I'm not a YEC anyway.
M. Clark
mclark
> Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2roho0hjqd2uh6unc...@4ax.com>... > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004
> 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), while > wondering if all people love cupcakes, >
> idont...@toemail.com (mclark) yodeled:
> >
> >
> > >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> > >the earth is only 6000(?) years old.
> >
> > It is done using genealogy.
> >
> >
> > >Note that I am a Christian but not a YEC.
> >
> > That seems to be a contradiction to me.
> >
>
> >snip dogmatic crap<
>
>
> The ENTIRE point of Christianity is that nobody is worthy of salvation
> and nobody can earn it. So God developed a system whereby everybody
> can obtain salvation by grace - by acknowledging the sacrifice of
> Jesus and accepting him as savior.
>
> That is it.
>
> You don't have to understand every nuance of the Bible. You don't even
> have to read the thing. You don't even have to know there is a Bible.
>
> Anybody who tells you mastery of Biblical scholarship is a
> prerequisite of salvation is lying. Anybody who tells you that your
> ability to determine what parts of the Bible are metaphor or parable
> from what parts are literally true determines whether you are saved or
> not is lying. The ONLY requisite for salivation is faith in Jesus as
> savior.
>
> That is it.
>
> From a pastoral perspective, the ease and simplicity of obtaining
> salvation is an impediment. Who needs preachers and churches if a man
> can go into his closet, ask to accept Jesus' gift of salvation and get
> it without further muddling?
>
> The fact that "Uncle Davey" is a preacher is the reason he tries to
> make obtaining salvation seem harder than it is. He makes his money by
> acting as guide to Heaven, and he realizes his guidance in unnecessary
> if there's a huge "SALVATION THIS WAY" sign on the roadside. The fact
> that by doing so he denigrates and minimizes the Passion of Christ is
> evidence that whatever else he is, he's no Christian.
I'm not addressing "Uncle Davey" but I basically agree with everything
else you said.
M. Clark
mclark
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:15:52 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> (mclark) wrote:
>
> >Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
> >> (mclark) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> >> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> >> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> >> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
> >>
> >> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
> >> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
> >> like 6,000 years or so.
> >
> >This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
> >age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
> >your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
> >even stated that I'm not a YEC.
>
> You asked a question, I answered the question. Your inability to
> understand is your problem.
You did not answer my question to my satisfaction.
M. Clrak
mclark
> In article <j45id.68243$xf6....@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
> Skitter...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On 3-Nov-2004, "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Użytkownik "mclark" <idont...@toemail.com> napisa" w wiadomości
> > > news:1gmmhn5.1u5o7t719zworqN%idont...@toemail.com...
> > > > Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
> > > > the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
> > > > a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
> > > > Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
> > > >
> > > > thank you
> > > >
> > > > M. Clark
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Brother,
> > >
> > > There is no need to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This
> > > figure was given by one Bishop, Ussher, but bearing in mind that the
> > > chronicles of generations given in various places between the time of
> > > Peleg
> > > and the time of Abraham seem incomplete, and not even intended as a
> > > complete
> > > account in all probability, (although the generations from Abraham onwards
> > > do appear to be complete) it's likely that Ussher underestimated the age
> > > of
> > > the earth.
> >
> > Good answer, UD.
> >
> > >
> > > I would personally assume that it was rather older than that, but we don't
> > > know how old. I tend to go for 10,000 as it's a nice round figure and the
> > > exact age isn't provable anyway, as we see mature things being created.
> > > Adam
> > > and Eve were not made little babes but already in full maturity. They even
> > > had language already, although unlike us they would have had no memories
> > > of
> > > who they learned various words from, and when in childhood they learned
> > > it,
> > > although that's a pure assumption on my part, they might have, but I see
> > > no
> > > reason why they should have...
> >
> > Well, I don't agree with many of the assumptions built into your reply
> > above, but given the framework you are operating in, I think you did a good
> > job pointing some things for the questioner to think about.
> > >
> > > Even if you do not accept that the days of creation are days of equal
> > > length
> > > to modern days, or believe them to be symbols for rather longer periods of
> > > time, (not at explanation that works for me, I have to say, but others are
> > > happy with it) this doesn't impact whatsoever on your status as a
> > > Christian.
> > > If you've repented of your sins and called on Jesus Christ for your
> > > salvation, then you are going to heaven and how you view the level of
> > > metaphor in the opening chapters of Genesis is absolutely secondary.
>
> *
> My own opinion is that the opening chapters of Genesis are pure
> bullshit. The closing chapters are, also. Is there still a chance
> that I will avoid the fires of hell? Am I denied the pleasures of
> floating around in heaven with those bare-limbed teenybopper angels
> for the next billion years?
>
> Let me know, won't you.
>
> earle
> *
Will you please explain why you regard certain chapters in Genesis as
bs? I regard Genesis as possibly containing allegorical writings.
Indeed, consider that Jesus often taught in terms of parables, many
people oblivious to their alternate meanings.
M. Clark
Bob Pease
you sir are a liar and a knave.
suddenly you are throwing mortal insults at non judgmental challenges to
your blasphemous drivel.
The main response I have at your level is
IKYABWAI used in mockery by a public masturbator
His masturbation was physical which is somehow less frightening than your
style
You intrusive dishonest manners are an insult to the God which you pretend.
in orgies of hubris, to serve.
It is beneath me to call you the insults that you deserve,
You have neither honor OR integrity.
I notice you did not answer my challenge that you have no real interest here
except to PIMP for a God which is a grotesque parody of any real God.
She is too kind and merciful to treat you with the same disrespect you show
HER by posing as a mouthpiece for a demented Gnostic parody of the Real
God!!!
Incidentally , I am afraid of your REAL agenda, which is the destruction of
the US Democracy and replacing it with a Theocracy unrivalled by the Taliban
or the Inquisition.
While you have accused me of having neither truth nor integrity, I respond
that you have no basis in either to make such a judgment.
You responded after a plunk, so that gives me this last shot.
If you respond, you are a moron, as well as the other things you accuse me
of.
Why don't you get a REAL job, instead of pretending to be a "Pastor"
This reply is about 5.2 on the Discordant scale. but decency forbids me to
raise the ante.
Bye now
Re=plonk
Pope Bobby II
69th clench of the Stark Fist of Removal
Reformed Church of the Subgenius.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/17/04
Richard Forrest
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 19:44:32 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) yodeled:
>
> >Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9dopo09q9b7e1eq6v...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:09:05 +0000 (UTC), while
> >> wondering if all people love cupcakes, Ernest Major
> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> yodeled:
> >>
> >> >In article <7d1oo0hjhr71rh16j...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
> >> ><pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> writes
> >> >>
> >> >>You cannot call Jesus a liar and then claim to be
> >> >>saved.
> >> >>
> >> >Firstly, not interpreting Genesis "literally" is not the same as calling
> >> >Jesus a liar.
> >>
> >> Sure it is and I provided Biblical support for that
> >> statement.
> >
> >So to be clear: you are accusing the Christian churches of Europe and
> >most of the rest of the world of calling Jesus a liar.
> >
> >Are you sure that this what you mean?
>
> I am not accusing "the world". Nice try. I am saying
> that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
> calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
> And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
> their Bible carefully. They are taking man's word,
> over God's.
>
You seem to have a problem with the meaning of words. A lie is a
statement made in the knowledge that it is false with the intent to
deceive. You can't lie without knowing that you are lying.
The Bible makes no internal claims about it's literal truth, and
neither did Jesus. Bearing in mind that the Bible as we know it was
cobbled together as a book long after New Testament times, it would
have been rather difficult for him to have done so. The concept of
Biblical literalism is a (relatively) recent phenomenon, and has no
basis in the traditons of the Christian church or Christian theology.
It is no more than the words of one particular sect within the
Christian church which you have chosen to believe. You have simply
decided that those particular words of men are true, and other words
of men are untrue.
Accusing people of being liars without foundation is called bearing
false witness. The Bible is quite specific in condeming such
behaviour.
RF
Harri Hirvelä
>
> I am not accusing "the world". Nice try. I am saying
> that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
> calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
> And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
> their Bible carefully. They are taking man's word,
> over God's.
>
And what is your problem with that?
Harri
Harri Hirvelä
>
> No sir, it is not. People like you accuse Christians
> of believing the world is flat, because they based
> their belief on the Bible (even though the Bible
> doesn't say that) and then, when it's convenient for
> you, you claim that Christians don't take the Bible
> literally. That makes people like you hypocrites.
>
Actually, fundamentalist tracts very conveniently claim any passage from
the Bible to be taken literally or just being a metaphor, according to
what best suits their causes in any given situation.
Often it happens, that the very passages that are quite easily mere
metaphors are taken literally, while the obvious metaphors are treated
as the infallible truths.
Harri
Matt Silberstein
(mclark) wrote:
Such is life. You asked why YEC think something then complain because
you got a YEC answer. Do your own work. Here is a hint: Bishop Ussher.
Matt Silberstein
(mclark) wrote:
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gmmzlu.f5myt8v0s2ryN%idont...@toemail.com>, mclark
>> <idont...@toemail.com> writes
>> >Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
>> >> (mclark) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Somebody show me the biblical basis upon which Christians(?) assert that
>> >> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>> >> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>> >> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>> >>
>> >> Assume that the Bible is intended as a descriptive history. Start with
>> >> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
>> >> like 6,000 years or so.
>> >
>> >This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
>> >age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
>> >your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
>> >even stated that I'm not a YEC.
>> >
>> >M. Clark
>> >
>> YECs interpret Genesis 1 as describing creation in 6 literal 24 hour
>> periods, i.e. with the earth scarcely older than the first man, and the
>> universe scarcely older than the earth.
>
>Thanks, but again, I'm not a YEC anyway.
Perhaps you don't remember, but you asked why YEC think the Earth is
young.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, Harri Hirvelä
<hir...@dlc.fi> yodeled:
When a metaphor is used, a serious Bible student who
lets the Bible speak for itself and understand the way
of life and customs and manner of speaking for the
people who lived at the time it was written, isn't
often confused. One thing the Bible is very clear
about and that it that it represents the Creation as a
literal six day event.
Pastor Dave
You speak of decency, after the language you just used?
Pastor Dave
>Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
>reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
>biological evolution?
You call it reality and the problem is that the two
cannot be reconciled.
>> But
>> the question really becomes, are they actually
>> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
>> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
>> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
>
>The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
>Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
>you must base that judgement on something?
The Bible. God's word.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
[]
> >> But
> >> the question really becomes, are they actually
> >> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
> >> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
> >> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
> >
> >The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
> >Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
> >you must base that judgement on something?
>
> The Bible. God's word.
I am a Christian and I also base my judgement on the Bible. However, I have
a very different understanding of it from yours. According to my
understanding, following Christ and following the Bible are quite compatable
with believing that God works through evolution. I do not see my position
as a claim not to believe God's word nor as a claim that Jesus was wrong.
When you represent my beliefs this way, you are making a straw man argument.
Jayne
Bob Pease
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:892cb437.04110...@posting.google.com...
DAVEinition of "Liar"
Anyone who utters an UNTROOTH
Daveinition of TROOTH:
Stuff GOD has revealed to me...
RJ P
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
John Harshman
mclark wrote:
Given that it's clearly stated that humans were created 5 days after the
earth (in fact "the heavens and the earth", presumably then the whole
universe) was created, what's the problem?
Pastor Dave
>> I am not accusing "the world". Nice try. I am saying
>> that whoever claims that Genesis is not literal, is
>> calling Jesus a liar, whether they realize it or not.
>> And if they don't realize it, then they aren't reading
>> their Bible carefully. They are taking man's word,
>> over God's.
>>
>
>You seem to have a problem with the meaning of words. A lie is a
>statement made in the knowledge that it is false with the intent to
>deceive. You can't lie without knowing that you are lying.
They are lying about it, because they claim one thing
and the Bible says another and they have seen it and do
not acknowledge it. Therefore, what they're saying is
not true One of the definitions is as you state.
Another is as follows...
"A false statement deliberately presented as being
true; a falsehood."
It is a false statement. It has been deliberately
presented as true.
I will however, for the purposes of common every day
discussion, use a different wording and avoid the whole
definition argument, which will only detract from the
main point of discussion.
>The Bible makes no internal claims about it's literal truth, and
>neither did Jesus.
That's not true at all.
"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
1) If it is by inspiration of God, then it is truth.
2) If it is profitable for correction, then this means
that it is suitable for correcting people. That means
it is truth and it is correct. And while you claim
that I have a problem with words, what is your problem
with this simple statement in Scripture?
Jesus said...
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
- Matthew 4:4
Notice that He didn't say, "but don't really believe it
happened that way" and notice that He said this while
quoting Scripture to Satan for all the temptations
Satan tried to put Him through.
>Bearing in mind that the Bible as we know it was
>cobbled together as a book long after New Testament times, it would
>have been rather difficult for him to have done so.
That is not correct. In fact, the Scriptures in the
Old Testament were considered Scripture and they were
in separate scrolls. The New Testament Scriptures were
considered such when they were written. One does not
have to gather them together, for them to be considered
Scripture. I may have just the Gospel of John in
booklet form. That does not mean it isn't Scripture.
>The concept of
>Biblical literalism is a (relatively) recent phenomenon, and has no
>basis in the traditons of the Christian church or Christian theology.
No, that is where you are wrong and you try to reverse
the situation. Reading the Bible, one can see that the
early church believed in a literal creation and a
literal death and resurrection of Jesus, for just two
examples. The recent phenomenon is that the approach
that many take today. Paul for example, did not just
preach that Christ rose, but that God created it all
and as a trained Pharisee, he knew what Genesis said.
He did not go around preaching evolution. Now while
you may claim that he didn't have the scientific
knowledge available today, you shoot yourself in the
foot twice by doing so.
1) Evolution was a belief that long ago, do Paul did
have a choice.
2) If Paul just didn't know any better, then that only
proves that the historic belief of the church was in a
literal creation, for an example.
No offense intended, but it is you who is ignorant of
history, not I.
>It is no more than the words of one particular sect within the
>Christian church which you have chosen to believe. You have simply
>decided that those particular words of men are true, and other words
>of men are untrue.
I believe what the original church believed and I back
that statement up with Scripture. You on the other
hand, cannot do that.
>Accusing people of being liars without foundation is called bearing
>false witness. The Bible is quite specific in condeming such
>behaviour.
You don't get to tell us how the Bible isn't true and
then call in the Bible to try to condemn me. That's
called "hypocrisy".
Now please tell me where the Scriptures present the
idea that the creation was NOT a literal event. I can
and have supported my statements Biblically. You have
done no such thing and if you cannot do that, then that
should tell you that it is YOUR beliefs that do not
line up with Scripture and are "the words of men".
Bob Pease
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2vc4n6F...@uni-berlin.de...
A strawman argument is to represent a position that is an easily debunked a
falsely belonging to the opponent.
In this case, Christianity is represented as a fiat which cannot be
debunked.
The argument present isn't even as sophisticated as a good strawman.
It is a sequence of moronic non sequiturs from a bogus definition.
It is a tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Pastor Dave
>In article <dp7vo0ha01dmqi3b5...@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
The reality is, humans wrote the theories in which you
believe, based on false assumptions.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes,
Accusations and claims that are false.
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Bob Pease" <robe...@askmeinapost.com> wrote in message
news:cmqsi2$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
He may do that as well. I was responding to his particular claim that
Christians such as myself who accept evolution are not really Christians. I
disagree with him on this point and thus am his opponent in the argument.
He attributes an absurd position to me (and others who hold similar ideas)
which I do not hold.
> The argument present isn't even as sophisticated as a good strawman.
> It is a sequence of moronic non sequiturs from a bogus definition.
>
> It is a tale told by an idiot,
> Full of sound and fury
> Signifying nothing.
From what I have seen of his arguments they are neither consistent nor
logical. However, I see no reason that the portion I identified as a straw
man argument should not be called this.
Jayne
AC
So if some chapters in Genesis are allegorical, can you give me a reason why
the entire book isn't allegorical?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
AC
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>
>
>>Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
>>reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
>>biological evolution?
>
> You call it reality and the problem is that the two
> cannot be reconciled.
You produce the problem by insisting upon a literalist reading of Genesis.
Those who are not bound by what is clearly an absurd way of reading the
Bible are not presented with the difficulty that their sacred book runs
counter to reality.
>
>
>>> But
>>> the question really becomes, are they actually
>>> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
>>> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
>>> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
>>
>>The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
>>Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
>>you must base that judgement on something?
>
> The Bible. God's word.
That's the answer they will give, as well. We're still where we started.
Double Felix
Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>
>
> >Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
> >reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
> >biological evolution?
>
> You call it reality and the problem is that the two
> cannot be reconciled.
>
>
> >> But
> >> the question really becomes, are they actually
> >> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
> >> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
> >> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
> >
> >The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
> >Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
> >you must base that judgement on something?
>
> The Bible. God's word.
You don't seem to trust man's word, but the problem remains that you
only have man's word that the bible is god's word. :-/
- Felix
Ernest Major
<idont...@toemail.com> writes
>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gmmzlu.f5myt8v0s2ryN%idont...@toemail.com>, mclark
>> <idont...@toemail.com> writes
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:20:16 +0000 (UTC), idont...@toemail.com
>> >> (mclark) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >the earth is only 6000(?) years old. Note that I am a Christian but not
>> >> >a YEC. This is because I cannot prove by anything that I've read in the
>> >> >Bible that the earth is only 6000 years old.
>> >>
>> >> Adam and Eve, add up the length of people's lives. You get something
>> >> like 6,000 years or so.
>> >
>> >This is the second reply to my post that answered my question about the
>> >age of the earth by addressing the age of modern man. Thank you for
>> >your effort but my question clearly asks for the age of the earth. I
>> >even stated that I'm not a YEC.
>> >
>> >M. Clark
>> >
>> YECs interpret Genesis 1 as describing creation in 6 literal 24 hour
>> periods, i.e. with the earth scarcely older than the first man, and the
>> universe scarcely older than the earth.
>
>Thanks, but again, I'm not a YEC anyway.
>
>
I don't understand how you not being a YEC is relevant. You asked what
is the biblical basis on which YECs assert that the Earth is ~6000 years
old. People have told you what it is. The fact the bible is either wrong
or misinterpreted in this case doesn't alter the fact that this is the
biblical basis of the assertion.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:54:47 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
> ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) yodeled:
[]
> >The Bible makes no internal claims about it's literal truth, and
> >neither did Jesus.
>
> That's not true at all.
>
> "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
>
> 1) If it is by inspiration of God, then it is truth.
Certainly that which is inspired by God is true, but this does not
nececarily mean literal truth. Do you believe that the person described in
the Song of Songs(5:11,12) literally had palm fronds for hair and doves for
eyes?
> 2) If it is profitable for correction, then this means
> that it is suitable for correcting people. That means
> it is truth and it is correct. And while you claim
> that I have a problem with words, what is your problem
> with this simple statement in Scripture?
Neither does "profitable for correction" mean literally true. The parable
of the good Samaritan is profitable for correcting those who do not love
their neighbours whether or not a man was literally set upon by bandits on
the road and rescued by a Samaritan.
> Jesus said...
>
> "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
> that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
> - Matthew 4:4
>
> Notice that He didn't say, "but don't really believe it
> happened that way" and notice that He said this while
> quoting Scripture to Satan for all the temptations
> Satan tried to put Him through.
Do you believe that Jesus literally is bread? A door? A shepherd?
Augustine of Hippo was writing around 400 AD that Genesis should not be
taken literally as a source for scientific information. In this context, I
do not consider that a recent phenomenon. (Of course, if we are discussing
matters on an evolutionary scale, that is different. <g>). It is possible
to believe as Paul did that God created the world without believing that it
took Him 6 days to do so.
> 1) Evolution was a belief that long ago, do Paul did
> have a choice.
>
> 2) If Paul just didn't know any better, then that only
> proves that the historic belief of the church was in a
> literal creation, for an example.
>
> No offense intended, but it is you who is ignorant of
> history, not I.
>
>
> >It is no more than the words of one particular sect within the
> >Christian church which you have chosen to believe. You have simply
> >decided that those particular words of men are true, and other words
> >of men are untrue.
>
> I believe what the original church believed and I back
> that statement up with Scripture. You on the other
> hand, cannot do that.
Do you believe that diseases are caused by germs or by evil spirits? If you
accept the existence of disease-causing micro-organisms then you do not
believe what the early church believed.
> >Accusing people of being liars without foundation is called bearing
> >false witness. The Bible is quite specific in condeming such
> >behaviour.
>
> You don't get to tell us how the Bible isn't true and
> then call in the Bible to try to condemn me. That's
> called "hypocrisy".
You seem to be missing the distinction between true and literally true.
Scripture consistently presents God as having control over forces of nature.
If one thinks of evolution as one of these forces then God creating the
world through evolution is not much different than God calming a storm.
> Now please tell me where the Scriptures present the
> idea that the creation was NOT a literal event. I can
> and have supported my statements Biblically. You have
> done no such thing and if you cannot do that, then that
> should tell you that it is YOUR beliefs that do not
> line up with Scripture and are "the words of men".
Genesis 1 describes animals and birds being created before humans and
Genesis 2 describing animals and birds being created after humans. This
seems to me to be the way that Scripture presents the idea that we are not
to take these accounts literally. Rather they present spiritual truths
about the relationship of God to creation and of creatures to each other.
Jayne
Matt Silberstein
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It took me a bit to have a clue here. Then I realized that he does not
comprehend the notion of fairly presenting the argument of your
opponent. Note that no YEC responded, only those who object to the
position. But all of us were able to give a reasonable non-distorted
presentation of the argument.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Jayne
Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> yodeled:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t1g1p0p6n3rik25f9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>
>[]
>> >> But
>> >> the question really becomes, are they actually
>> >> Christians? How does one claim not to believe God's
>> >> word and claim to be a Christian? How does one say
>> >> Jesus was wrong and claim to be a Christian?
>> >
>> >The real question is how do you claim that your interpretation of the
>> >Bible is correct and the majority of Christians incorrect? Certainly
>> >you must base that judgement on something?
>>
>> The Bible. God's word.
>
>I am a Christian and I also base my judgement on the Bible. However, I have
>a very different understanding of it from yours. According to my
>understanding, following Christ and following the Bible are quite compatable
>with believing that God works through evolution.
And what Scriptures support that conclusion?
Especially since the Bible is clear that God created in
six days and on day 6 man was here.
>I do not see my position
>as a claim not to believe God's word nor as a claim that Jesus was wrong.
>When you represent my beliefs this way, you are making a straw man argument.
No, you claim that I am making a straw man argument.
That does not make it so.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, AC
<mightym...@hotmail.com> yodeled:
>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:54:56 +0000 (UTC),
>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>>
>>
>>>Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
>>>reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
>>>biological evolution?
>>
>> You call it reality and the problem is that the two
>> cannot be reconciled.
>
>You produce the problem by insisting upon a literalist reading of Genesis.
I didn't produce a thing. The problem already exists.
I merely pointed it out. The Bible says six days. No
matter how hard you try to blame me and call it an
interpretation, the Bible says six days.
Pastor Dave
wondering if all people love cupcakes, "Jayne
Kulikauskas" <momk...@yahoo.ca> yodeled:
>"Pastor Dave" <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:kfs1p09cfaeb4kpja...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 07:54:47 +0000 (UTC), while
>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>> ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) yodeled:
>
>[]
>> >The Bible makes no internal claims about it's literal truth, and
>> >neither did Jesus.
>>
>> That's not true at all.
>>
>> "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
>>
>> 1) If it is by inspiration of God, then it is truth.
>
>Certainly that which is inspired by God is true, but this does not
>nececarily mean literal truth. Do you believe that the person described in
>the Song of Songs(5:11,12) literally had palm fronds for hair and doves for
>eyes?
No, it does not. However, it is not presented in such
a manner. It is used as a way of describing something,
just as if I said your eyes are like pools of
shimmering blue water. That does not mean that they
are actually water. However, that does not mean that
when the Bible says six days it means billions of
years. You can't just paint the Bible with a broad
brush like that and just take anything you want as
representing something else.
>> 2) If it is profitable for correction, then this means
>> that it is suitable for correcting people. That means
>> it is truth and it is correct. And while you claim
>> that I have a problem with words, what is your problem
>> with this simple statement in Scripture?
>
>Neither does "profitable for correction" mean literally true.
It does when it is presented as such.
>The parable
>of the good Samaritan is profitable for correcting those who do not love
>their neighbours whether or not a man was literally set upon by bandits on
>the road and rescued by a Samaritan.
And yet, Jesus presented it as a story. He never
stated that He was telling an actual event. You're
trying to claim now that anything you don't believe is
literal, is automatically a story, because Jesus told a
few stories.
> > Jesus said...
>>
>> "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
>> that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
>> - Matthew 4:4
>>
>> Notice that He didn't say, "but don't really believe it
>> happened that way" and notice that He said this while
>> quoting Scripture to Satan for all the temptations
>> Satan tried to put Him through.
>
>Do you believe that Jesus literally is bread? A door? A shepherd?
See above.
It is not possible, based on Paul's learning. He was
from a very strict sect of Pharisaical teaching.
As for Augustine, I never said no one thought it wasn't
literal. I said it was not the historical belief of
the church and it wasn't.
> > 1) Evolution was a belief that long ago, do Paul did
>> have a choice.
>>
>> 2) If Paul just didn't know any better, then that only
>> proves that the historic belief of the church was in a
>> literal creation, for an example.
>>
>> No offense intended, but it is you who is ignorant of
>> history, not I.
>>
>>
>> >It is no more than the words of one particular sect within the
>> >Christian church which you have chosen to believe. You have simply
>> >decided that those particular words of men are true, and other words
>> >of men are untrue.
>>
>> I believe what the original church believed and I back
>> that statement up with Scripture. You on the other
>> hand, cannot do that.
>
>Do you believe that diseases are caused by germs or by evil spirits? If you
>accept the existence of disease-causing micro-organisms then you do not
>believe what the early church believed.
I believe that when the Bible says that Jesus cast out
evil spirits that's exactly what He did. I do not
believe that all diseases are caused by evil spirits,
nor did Jesus teach that. He healed some without a
mention about evil spirits. And btw, you need to show
where Jesus said they were evil spirits.
> > >Accusing people of being liars without foundation is called bearing
>> >false witness. The Bible is quite specific in condeming such
>> >behaviour.
>>
>> You don't get to tell us how the Bible isn't true and
>> then call in the Bible to try to condemn me. That's
>> called "hypocrisy".
>
>You seem to be missing the distinction between true and literally true.
No, I am not.
>Scripture consistently presents God as having control over forces of nature.
>If one thinks of evolution as one of these forces then God creating the
>world through evolution is not much different than God calming a storm.
God did not use evolution.
>> Now please tell me where the Scriptures present the
>> idea that the creation was NOT a literal event. I can
>> and have supported my statements Biblically. You have
>> done no such thing and if you cannot do that, then that
>> should tell you that it is YOUR beliefs that do not
>> line up with Scripture and are "the words of men".
>
>Genesis 1 describes animals and birds being created before humans and
>Genesis 2 describing animals and birds being created after humans. This
>seems to me to be the way that Scripture presents the idea that we are not
>to take these accounts literally. Rather they present spiritual truths
>about the relationship of God to creation and of creatures to each other.
They are not contradictory in any way. You have not
studied your Bible carefully.
Jayne Kulikauskas
It is not clear to me. In the Genesis 1 account, God creates light and dark
on the first day but does not create the sun until the fourth day. What
light was shining before the sun was created? How long were the days before
the sun existed? Also, as I said in my other post, the details of creation
in Genesis 2 appear to contradict those in Genesis 1.
> >I do not see my position
> >as a claim not to believe God's word nor as a claim that Jesus was wrong.
> >When you represent my beliefs this way, you are making a straw man
argument.
>
> No, you claim that I am making a straw man argument.
> That does not make it so.
To falsely represent another's position in order to make it appear weak is
to make a straw man argument. You implied through your use of rhetorical
questions that I do not believe God's word and that I claim Jesus was wrong.
This is not, in fact, my position. Thus it is a straw man argument. Do you
wish to claim that you have correctly represented my position?
Jayne
Pastor Dave
The days were 24 hours. Has it occurred to you that
God Himself was the light, thereby showing the folly of
worshipping the Sun?
And Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1.
>> >I do not see my position
>> >as a claim not to believe God's word nor as a claim that Jesus was wrong.
>> >When you represent my beliefs this way, you are making a straw man
>> >argument.
>>
>> No, you claim that I am making a straw man argument.
>> That does not make it so.
>
>To falsely represent another's position in order to make it appear weak is
>to make a straw man argument. You implied through your use of rhetorical
>questions that I do not believe God's word and that I claim Jesus was wrong.
>This is not, in fact, my position. Thus it is a straw man argument. Do you
>wish to claim that you have correctly represented my position?
You do not believe God's word and you do claim Jesus
was wrong.
AC
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:27:42 +0000 (UTC), while
> wondering if all people love cupcakes, AC
><mightym...@hotmail.com> yodeled:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:54:56 +0000 (UTC),
>>Pastor Dave <pastor...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:48:53 +0000 (UTC), while
>>> wondering if all people love cupcakes,
>>> papa...@cybertown.com (VoiceOfReason) yodeled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why is it "sad" to you that most Christians have no problem
>>>>reconciling their faith with the realities of science, including
>>>>biological evolution?
>>>
>>> You call it reality and the problem is that the two
>>> cannot be reconciled.
>>
>>You produce the problem by insisting upon a literalist reading of Genesis.
>
> I didn't produce a thing. The problem already exists.
> I merely pointed it out. The Bible says six days. No
> matter how hard you try to blame me and call it an
> interpretation, the Bible says six days.
Then I'm afraid, if you wish to believe in a literal reading of Genesis,
then your holy book is wrong. It is you, not I, that creates this dilemna.
I can forgive the Bronze Age peoples who lifted their cosmology from the
Akkadians and Sumerians, they didn't know any better and did not have the
tools to properly test the claims. You, on the other hand, have no such
excuse.
It isn't a problem for those who aren't Christians, or for those Christians
who don't believe that salvation requires a literal reading of Genesis.
It's your problem. You are making your holy scriptures a laughing stock,
not the Catholic or the Anglican who doesn't feel his spiritual well being
requires that he buy into absurd interpretations of scripture.
Jayne Kulikauskas
Neither you nor I ought to be able to unilaterally decide which passsages
are literal and which figurative. The fair thing to do is agree upon
criteria by which we may judge. How do you suggest we recognize literal
passages?
> >> 2) If it is profitable for correction, then this means
> >> that it is suitable for correcting people. That means
> >> it is truth and it is correct. And while you claim
> >> that I have a problem with words, what is your problem
> >> with this simple statement in Scripture?
> >
> >Neither does "profitable for correction" mean literally true.
>
> It does when it is presented as such.
But we can't agree on when it is being presented this way.
> >The parable
> >of the good Samaritan is profitable for correcting those who do not love
> >their neighbours whether or not a man was literally set upon by bandits
on
> >the road and rescued by a Samaritan.
>
> And yet, Jesus presented it as a story. He never
> stated that He was telling an actual event. You're
> trying to claim now that anything you don't believe is
> literal, is automatically a story, because Jesus told a
> few stories.
I claim that we have agreed that some parts of the Bible are not literal.
How we establish which parts are literal and which not is another question.
I am open to suggestions. We can't simply say that it is obvious because
you and I find different things obvious.
[]
I think of beliefs of Christians that were held around 400 AD (especially
those of the most influential thinker of his era) as historical beliefs of
the Church. We seem to be using this term differently.
> > > 1) Evolution was a belief that long ago, do Paul did
> >> have a choice.
> >>
> >> 2) If Paul just didn't know any better, then that only
> >> proves that the historic belief of the church was in a
> >> literal creation, for an example.
> >>
> >> No offense intended, but it is you who is ignorant of
> >> history, not I.
> >>
> >>
> >> >It is no more than the words of one particular sect within the
> >> >Christian church which you have chosen to believe. You have simply
> >> >decided that those particular words of men are true, and other words
> >> >of men are untrue.
> >>
> >> I believe what the original church believed and I back
> >> that statement up with Scripture. You on the other
> >> hand, cannot do that.
> >
> >Do you believe that diseases are caused by germs or by evil spirits? If
you
> >accept the existence of disease-causing micro-organisms then you do not
> >believe what the early church believed.
>
> I believe that when the Bible says that Jesus cast out
> evil spirits that's exactly what He did. I do not
> believe that all diseases are caused by evil spirits,
> nor did Jesus teach that. He healed some without a
> mention about evil spirits. And btw, you need to show
> where Jesus said they were evil spirits.
I'm not sure what you are asking with that last sentence. Do you want
references for passages about Jesus casting out evil spirits? At any rate,
if you believe that even some diseases are caused by germs then you do not
believe what the early church believed. The only Scriptural explanation
ever given for diseases is evil spirits or curses. For many years this is
what everyone thought. Then germs were discovered and eventually people
were able to see how this was compatable with Scripture. Just as science
gave us tools to discover germs it gave us tools to discover evolution. I
have no more problem reconciling evolution with Scripture than you appear to
have with reconciling your belief in germs.
> > > >Accusing people of being liars without foundation is called bearing
> >> >false witness. The Bible is quite specific in condeming such
> >> >behaviour.
> >>
> >> You don't get to tell us how the Bible isn't true and
> >> then call in the Bible to try to condemn me. That's
> >> called "hypocrisy".
> >
> >You seem to be missing the distinction between true and literally true.
>
> No, I am not.
>
>
> >Scripture consistently presents God as having control over forces of
nature.
> >If one thinks of evolution as one of these forces then God creating the
> >world through evolution is not much different than God calming a storm.
>
> God did not use evolution.
How do you know that? It is not explicity stated in the Bible. Don't you
believe that God is capable of doing it?
> >> Now please tell me where the Scriptures present the
> >> idea that the creation was NOT a literal event. I can
> >> and have supported my statements Biblically. You have
> >> done no such thing and if you cannot do that, then that
> >> should tell you that it is YOUR beliefs that do not
> >> line up with Scripture and are "the words of men".
> >
> >Genesis 1 describes animals and birds being created before humans and
> >Genesis 2 describing animals and birds being created after humans. This
> >seems to me to be the way that Scripture presents the idea that we are
not
> >to take these accounts literally. Rather they present spiritual truths
> >about the relationship of God to creation and of creatures to each other.
>
> They are not contradictory in any way. You have not
> studied your Bible carefully.
I have indeed studied these passages in depth and even translated them from
the Hebrew. I see them as contradictory, although I am aware that some
people have attempted to reconcile them. Could you please explain how both
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 can be literally true?
Jayne