This didn't get through earlier, so I'm sending again...
Uncle Davey
wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> R.Schenck wrote:
>
> >
> > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
> > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
> > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
> > mind.
>
>
>
>
> He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
> only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
old.
>
>
> WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> probably won't tell us.
>
He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
functional things, like the lights in the sky.
The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
ensuing tectonics.
God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
the world.
Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one. This Universe is not
infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy and matter, time and space.
These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in Hawkings
'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation. When God drew
up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten thousand say
years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a Company's
opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more complex,
encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists. And since that
time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another in
this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
balances. His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
policies are the laws of thermodynamics, the cycle of respiration vs
photosynthesis, planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project which
is what this entire universe is all about.
Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually to
run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
action when Man starts on the scene. Nothing in the notional evolutionary
chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered home
here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given under
heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these days
any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the essential
reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of HIS
glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work for
righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they trust
their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves. Those
who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by faith
in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for ever,
in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are unequipped
to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
needs to have happened. It would have been a mere distraction from the main
event - what the humans were going to do. Evolutionism and natural selection
do not presuppose that Man is the object of the world arising by the
algorithm of DNA and so there is nothing special about us. We are no
'better' than fish or molluscs. Theistic evolution believed by Christians
somehow believes that we are the planned aim in mind for all this DNA
replication, and that's why God the Son came for us although he didn't come
for the earlier stages in evolution, such as the first mammals or the eryops
or whatever that half coelacanth half newt thing is called. Tom, if you're
reading, I'd be interested to know whether you think the coming of Christ
into the world was uniquely for man, and if so why, when the algorithm that
got us here according to evolutionary thought is so impersonal (referencing
Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea pages 42 through 60.)
So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident, a freak of
the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner being,
your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
your understandings? This that you have, and you see other man and women
have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great as
between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world view
goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve? WHY didn't any demonstrably come from
other planets, when you say there are so many planets and so much available
time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
discard the silly religions? You can't answer these questions, and
actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your world
view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
accept Christ on FAITH. That means no man, even if he has faith that simply
knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such a
way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer pressure,
and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office, and
was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
persuade one another by logic. The just shall live by faith. That means - no
proof. No science of Creation. Only if you hear the voice of God saying,
'maybe what he's saying is true, then ask God saying as one Man said to
Christ 'O Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!' and read the Bible,
especially about Christ and about faith. These things are absolutely
crucial. The Cross is crucial, that's why the word crucial exists, it refers
to the Cross. God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of Christ,
through which the world is crucified unto me, and I, unto the world.
I'm not asking you to join my Church, where I go is independent anyway and
all the services are in Polish. Or even any Church. One time I didn't go for
seven years. It's good to go, but sometimes we are more strengthened alone,
sometimes we go to the promised land via a wilderness. Nor do I want your
money. Give it to the poor or keep it for whatever you need it for, if
giving it away is a problem. I'm asking you to understand the most important
thing in life, and that is WHY we are here, and what Jesus did and why, and
to cleave to Him and obtain great blessings from Him, and be to the praise
of His glory.
Now unto Him that is the triune Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the
Creator of all, the Redeemer, the Good Shepherd of the sheep, the Almighty
Lord of Hosts who is One LORD worthy of the love of all our hearts and all
our minds and all that is in us, the only Wise God, to him be G L O R Y, H
O N O U R, D O M I N I O N and P O W E R unrivalled and unsurpassed in
everlasting eternity, and may he call from among you such as He Himself
would have with Him, for His own name's sake.
Amen.
Uncle Davey
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> Now I may not be a scientist
Ayup.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Douglas Berry
stranger called by some "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
>He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
>functional things, like the lights in the sky.
You mean stars. Which the authors of the Bible didn;t know where
actually suns like our own.
>The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
>ensuing tectonics.
Geological proof for the flood? And could you describe the geological
process that not only distributed fossils evenly according to
development, but artifically aged the strata they were found in.
>God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
>the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
>the world.
Two different stories there.
>Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
>happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
>
>Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
>say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one. This Universe is not
>infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy and matter, time and space.
>These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in Hawkings
>'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation. When God drew
>up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten thousand say
>years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
>proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
If you can prove that, got kick Hawking out of his chair, you deserve
it. You're right, you're not a scientist. You're a YEC nutter who
read a polulist book and didn't understand it.
Do you understand that we can look "back in time" at distanct galaxies
and see that the early universe was almost entirely hydrogen and
helium? Nothing heavier. It took billions of years and numerous
supernovas to get the elements we take for granted.
>Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a Company's
>opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more complex,
>encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists. And since that
>time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another in
>this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
>balances. His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
>policies are the laws of thermodynamics, the cycle of respiration vs
>photosynthesis, planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
>understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project which
>is what this entire universe is all about.
Wow, did you ever take a physics class? Being a planetary astronomer
by avocation, I wonder, where in Genesis are extrasolar planets
mentioned? I've just re-read the bloody thing, an I see nothing of
this sort.
>Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
>what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered home
>here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
>religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
>the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
>when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given under
>heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
>now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these days
>any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
Hello? There are still pagans in the world.. and 2/3rds of the
world's people are not Christian.
If your God is all knowing, wouldn;t he know already what the result
would be? And if the entire purpose is to test us, why a universe 34
billion light-years across? It makes no sense.
Accountancy is not cosmology. If you knew anything about the latter,
you'd know there are some serious inbalances.
>Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the essential
>reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of HIS
>glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work for
>righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
>of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they trust
>their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
>many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves. Those
>who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
>God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
>the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
>talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
>forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
>heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
>whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
>salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
>salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
Yadda yadda yadda.
So, I could go out and rape kids, murder at random, and basically be a
bigger monster than Stalin, but as long as I accept slavation in that
last moment, I get heaven?
And you demand a balanced universe? Sheesh!
>The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
>accept Christ on FAITH.
The reason I am on this planet is my parents got frisky in November,
1965. No other. Any purpose here I make for myself.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Bible Bob
Very well said Uncle Davey
BB
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>>R.Schenck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
>>>world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
>>>philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
>>>on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
>>>mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
>>only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
>
> old.
>
>>
>>WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
>>probably won't tell us.
>>
>
>
> He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
So God is a liar.
<snip lots of religious opinion whcih science doesn't care about>
Thanks for sharing your religious opinions with us. Your religious
opinions, of course, are only your religious opinions. They aren't any
more valid or authoritative than mine or anyone else's. You're not a
messenger of God, you don't walk any closer to God than I or anyone
else, and you don't know any more about what God did or didn't do than
anybody else does.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Tom McDonald
Davey,
Does this mean you are going to stop what you have manifestly
decided to be pointless discussions about science? You don't
really care about orogeny, lemurs, leap seconds, 10% of brain
used, and all the other stuff you've been desultorily waving your
hand at.
You've decided what's true for you, and you aren't going to
change your mind merely because the evidence dictates you, in
honesty, should. Is it so wretched-hard for you, or any
creationist, to just admit that that science stuff doesn't
matter? Or can you be man enough to say that out loud, and be
honest one time?
Tom McDonald
Clayton the Transitional Fossil Wannabe
"Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
Thanks...gives me a chance to <plonk> your moronic ass.
bye bye
R.Schenck
> Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > R.Schenck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
> > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
> > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
> > > mind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
> > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
> old.
> >
> >
> > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > probably won't tell us.
> >
>
> He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
>
you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
> The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> ensuing tectonics.
>
if they were there from a flood then they are definitly misleading, as
they contradict in everyway a flood account.
> God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
> the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
> the world.
>
so he just mislead everyone who hadnt been exposed to genesis and
everyone who has not yet been exposed to geneisis.
> Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
>
so you agree that evolution happens anyway, just that the earth is
young
(snip the fairy tale about acccounting, and why theren't arent aliens,
timetravelers, or alien time travelers, and oh yeah the anti-catholic
propaganda)
look, that was all very nice. you have faith. great. you agree that
logical empiricism cant answer questions about faith. good. so,
maybe there has been a misunderstanding here. do you or do you not
beleive that your faith should be taught in public high schools? do
you or do you not beleive that your faith should be researched with
public grants? do you or do you not believe that evolution should be
taught in a -science- class room? everything you've been talking
about seems to indicate that you agree that science should be taught
in a science class and the state should not enforce you religious
views. so lets just get a good, clear statement as to the veracity of
that.
Steve
>>>> talk about overkill.... billions upon billions of galaxies etc.etc all
so some ape like creatures on an obscure rock on the edge of an unimportant
galaxy can be >>>> saved..we must be *real* important
: Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually
to
: run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
: anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
: action when Man starts on the scene. Nothing in the notional evolutionary
: chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
: making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
: understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
>>>>> talk about arrogant...we are the pinnacle...all this is for us...we
are just so damn important to your god...(who needs lots of continual
confirmation of how >>>>> great he is)
: Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
: what Christ did. Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered
home
: here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
: religions had an unnamed christ figure, so they were not without hope, and
: the times of their ignorance God winked at, but all these have disappeared
: when the true Christ's name is known, as so now there is no name given
under
: heaven, by which we must be saved, but in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
: now no other God-men figures are taken seriously by the elect of these
days
: any more, and the Gospel is gone unto every tribe and nation.
>>>>> and world is just perfect now aint it...not more killing or moral
decay...yep...its just jim dandy now your book is around and about
: Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the
essential
: reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of
HIS
: glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work
for
: righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
: of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they
trust
: their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
: many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves.
Those
: who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
: God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
: the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
: talked about, is works, if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of
the
: forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
: heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
: whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
: salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
: salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
>>>>> your mtto seems to be believe everything and check nothing...
:
: When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by
>>>>> your assuming your christ actually came into the world and did all the
things you believe he did... ever notice there are no comtemporary accounts
of >>>>> him?? ..mm...all those miracles and masses of people...and everyone
forgot to write anything about it...curious
: So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
: point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident, a freak
of
: the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner
being,
: your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
: your understandings?
>>>>> yep...now what ?
This that you have, and you see other man and women
: have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
: and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
: between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great
as
: between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
: perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world
view
: goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve? WHY didn't any demonstrably come
from
: other planets,
>>>>> if they are there they are too far away...or havent you bothered to
check that....and besides..one planet has to be first with intelligence and
i guess it could >>>>> be ours (although this is not obvious upon close
scrutiny of the news broadcasts)
when you say there are so many planets and so much available
: time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
: discard the silly religions?
>>>>> time travel ?.. you seriously consider time travel as proof of your
beliefs ??...now that is a first
You can't answer these questions, and
: actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your
world
: view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
>>>>> your answer to all questions is "goddidit"...wow...what a challenge
: The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
: accept Christ on FAITH.
>>>>> your assumption..not a reason
That means no man, even if he has faith that simply
: knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
: dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such
a
: way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer
pressure,
: and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
: believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
: wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office,
and
: was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
: people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
: Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
: chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
: playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
:
: I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
: summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
: persuade one another by logic.
>>>>> the reason being you have used absolutely no logic...its all based on
your belief system
:
Well thanks for taking the effort to type all that and make it abundantly
clear how you have arrived at your position
In closing i can only say that your post actually made me feel ill - how can
a rational person have such a mind numbingly arrogant view of our place in
the universe.
Hope you have a pleasant day anyway
steve
:
Charles C.
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
>Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
>wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>> R.Schenck wrote:
>>
>> >
<SNIP>
>
>Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the essential
>reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of HIS
>glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own work for
>righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven, and
>of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they trust
>their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how the
>many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves. Those
>who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the righteousness of
>God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything beyond
>the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey has
>talked about, is works,
Wrong. I wasted so much time on this so I demand verses to back this
up. I demand that you show verses that state that you don't have to
obey Jesus. Obeying Jesus is not works and no where in the New
Testament does it say that it is works. NO WHERE. Paul was talking to
people that were led astray and taught that first they had to follow
the Old Testament laws. I'm sorry if you followed Calvin your whole
life, maybe you should have read the Bible instead. So put up or shut
up. Show the verses that state that you don't have to obey Jesus, and
that obeying Jesus is works.
> if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
>forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
>heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
>whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite for
>salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received unconditional
>salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
>
<SNIP>
I didn't think that you could give up that last piece of flesh and I
was right. So you go on thinking that obeying Jesus is works, which it
isn't and you can't justify it by any book accept by quote mining it.
So tell me, in your "I don't have to listen to Jesus" religion, how do
you account for this:
John 14: 15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
How do you reason away that verse? It is quite simple, Jesus said that
if you love him you will obey him. Now find me a verse that says Jesus
is wrong here.
John 14: 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
love him and show myself to him.
How do you reason away that verse? See that? Do you have his commands?
If you love him you will do what? Obey him? Is that what he said? If
he did I would like you to find me a verse that says that Jesus is
wrong here.
John 14: 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my
teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
our home with him.
How about that one? Was he just joking? Oh my oh my, another one!
Jesus says that if you love him you will obey him. Now, in your
version of Christianity please quote me a verse that states that Jesus
is wrong here.
2 John 1: 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his
commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that
you walk in love.
What do you do with that verse? Walk in obedience? They must be
joking, right? Certainly you must have a verse to back up your
doctrine that states that this is wrong, right?
Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told
to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our
duty.' "
How about this one? Oh my! This one says that obeying Jesus is your
DUTY doesn't it? That means that you will not receive any reward for
obeying Jesus, will you? Nope, and why is that? Because it is your
DUTY to obey him, not WORKS. Do you get it yet? It looks like Lenny
was right, you can't form the words "I WAS WRONG" can you?
I was going to post about 30 more verses but I think that you get the
point, don't you?
Now, tell me how you can ignore all those verses and say that you
don't have to obey Jesus. You are spouting off nifty doctrine that
Calvin dreamed up because no one could tell that fool what to do. Yet
now that you have believed it your whole life you are confused looking
at these verses because you have to now dream up a way to justify
ignoring them.
It is quite amusing how you claim to be a Christian yet you don't
follow Christ, you follow Calvin. Calvin twisted faith without works
to mean something it doesn't. And that's the downfall of
fundamentalism; everything has to be black and white bumper sticker
sayings as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
Now take all of those verses and all of the ones that I posted in the
other two threads and it looks like your brand of Christianity demands
that you ignore most of the New Testament. You ignored everything I
said in those threads. And I didn't just spew, I backed up everything
I said with IN CONTEXT verses.
Now tell me how that can be. How can a Christian ignore most of the
New Testament? Why did Jesus give those commands, because he liked to
hear himself talk? Because the Bible would have been too thin and he
needed filler? You never did answer any of these questions so why
don't you try answering them now?
And if you quote Paul you have to say exactly why you can pull verses
out of context. If you forgot that lesson already go back and read
those threads.
How do you ignore most of the New Testament as a Christian? How do you
ignore that obeying Christ is your DUTY and not just a nice nifty
thing to do if you happen to feel like it?
Let's see some verses from you. I have about 30 more sitting here and
about 60 or so more in another list I made. Lets see what you come up
with. I really want to see the verses that state that you don't have
to obey Jesus DESPITE all these verses that say you do. No blithering,
no nifty man made doctrines, just verses with an explanation as to why
you don't have to listen to Jesus.
I went through quite a bit to make my case and now it is your turn.
Show me the first verse that specifically states that you don't have
to obey Jesus.
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Ross Langerak
> wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > R.Schenck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel
of the
> > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got
a bit
> > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you
have in
> > > mind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
"really"
> > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of
years
> old.
> >
> >
> > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > probably won't tell us.
> >
>
> He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are
the
> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do you
mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of the
main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature? If
so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is young,
does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened, like
supernova and galactic collisions?
Last Thursdayism?
> The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
> ensuing tectonics.
Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
> God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
> the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
he made
> the world.
>
> Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
> Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
they
> say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were to
meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems with
accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
statements are.
How do you think your arguments regarding evolution sound to people
who are really familiar with the evidence? To paleontologists? To
geologists? To biochemists? I know enough about evolution to
recognize that the creationist argument are bad. How do you think
they look to the real experts?
> This Universe is not
> infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
> and matter, time
Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
> and space.
> These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
Hawkings
> 'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
What is that equation?
> When God drew
> up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
thousand say
> years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
> proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
required for balance??? What do they balance????
> Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
Company's
> opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
complex,
> encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
> And since that
> time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to
another in
> this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
> balances.
This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
evolution?
> His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
> policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
temperature with a thermometer.
The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
an imbalance.
The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
heat won't get out.
> the cycle of respiration vs
> photosynthesis,
Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes the
bad air and out goes the good?
> planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
> understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
project which
> is what this entire universe is all about.
According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
need for salvation?
> Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
actually to
> run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all
times
> anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the
real
> action when Man starts on the scene.
Or, he could start with a Big Bang: an expansion of pure energy that
produced all that exists.
> Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
capable of
> making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
My cat can make choices that man can make. My cat has a personality.
My cat has enough self understanding to wash his face after dinner.
My cat is curious and at least somewhat analytical.
On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
term "Duh" mean anything to you?
> Man has been set here
[snip religious sermon, which is what creationism is really about.]
Mike Dworetsky
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:3ff79867$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> > wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >
> >>R.Schenck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
> >>>world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> >>>philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
> >>>on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
> >>>mind.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
> >>only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
> >
> > old.
> >
> >>
> >>WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> >>probably won't tell us.
> >>
> >
> >
> > He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
>
>
>
>
> So God is a liar.
>
>
His God is more like a dodgy antiques dealer, with a warehouse full of
recently manufactured items carefully crafted and forged with all the
appearance of old age to fool the most careful and discerning buyer. His
ilk even have to specify that the light from distant stars and galaxies
(whose distance can be proven) had to be created en route, in order to be
seen on Earth now.
If I had to choose between a God presiding over a Universe only a few
hundred light years across, and only 6,000 years old, but faked to look as
if it was 13.7 billion years old, solely in order to test the faith of one
small sect of some ape-creatures on one lonely planet, or a God presiding
over a Universe that was exactly as old and as mind-bogglingly big and
complex as it looked, with the wonderful hidden symmetries gradually being
discovered by science, and with an Earth 4.6 billion years old, I suppose
you could guess which one I would prefer to praise--the God of true
grandeur, not the pipsqueak version these guys are trying to promote.
Creationism isn't just bogus science, it is pathetic theology.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:vvf98lo...@corp.supernews.com...
I thought I had;
quote from above
> > I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
> > summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going
to
> > persuade one another by logic. The just shall live by faith. That
means - no
> > proof. No science of Creation.
unquote.
That having been said you have no evidence that my omphological explanation
is wrong.
How about you answer the question I had for you in the middle of my post
above?
Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but random
products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
How come theistic evolutionists can't answer the tough theological
questions?
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
news:<bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> > wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > > R.Schenck wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of
the
> > > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a
bit
> > > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have
in
> > > > mind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
> > > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
> > old.
> > >
> > >
> > > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > > probably won't tell us.
> > >
> >
> > He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
> >
>
>
> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>
So that things would actually work.
When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
lying on his back and helpless?
But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the bits
prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we don't
see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good idea
for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have him
playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War and
Peas".)
Joking aside, if we see by common observance that we are the only
intelligent life, the only that can understand concepts such as freedom, and
seek to investigate the world, regardless of the time available in
evolutionary theory and the space for others to have got there first, then
is it so strange for this scene to have been set for us, rather than having
us as accidental by-products of a dumb algorithm?
> > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> > ensuing tectonics.
> >
>
> if they were there from a flood then they are definitly misleading, as
> they contradict in everyway a flood account.
>
The Flood is the first part of it, and since that time tremendous tectonic
activity took place.
> > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
> > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he
made
> > the world.
> >
>
> so he just mislead everyone who hadnt been exposed to genesis and
> everyone who has not yet been exposed to geneisis.
>
The genesis account has been known by all generations that have sought to
find a solution in evolution.
Other than that, the testimony of the world on minds untutored by humanist
sciences is that there is a God or gods.
> > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> >
>
> so you agree that evolution happens anyway, just that the earth is
> young
The earth was created mature, and the process of natural selection and
speciation continue apace, but generally speaking genomes devolve, entropy
enters their system, bacteria devolve out of human cells, animals that are
less vigourous from animals that were stronger. It's almost like a Microsoft
world, even upgrade seems to lose some functionality.
The kinds God put here at the creation moment are still discreet kinds, and
nothing has crossed kind. Some have been made extinct, mainly in the flood
and aftermath, and the activities of Nimrod's gang and later human activity
right up to today's date.
> (snip the fairy tale about acccounting, and why theren't arent aliens,
> timetravelers, or alien time travelers, and oh yeah the anti-catholic
> propaganda)
I don't take pleasure in criticising the RCs, and as I have said, a lot of
individuals in that Church are surely redeemed people.
>
> look, that was all very nice. you have faith. great. you agree that
> logical empiricism cant answer questions about faith. good. so,
> maybe there has been a misunderstanding here. do you or do you not
> beleive that your faith should be taught in public high schools?
I have never said it should be, or shouldn't be.
I believe teachers of whatever belief should be allowed to give an account
of what they believe, whether they are atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims,
as long as they don't go over the top and usurp the home's prior right to
give a philosophy and code to the children. In the main they should be
allowed to be people with a professional calling, and not given blinkered
guidelines by the state.
I don't want atheist teachers teaching my kids how to worship God. What
point would there be in that? What would be the point in me teaching Islam
in a scgool, when I don't believe that. Teachers should be hired according
to their ability, and then they should teach according to their competence
and their conscience.
I am all for a free market in ideas, even to kids, as long as things overtly
wicked, like the occult, drugs, denial of the holocaust and things which
could facilitate their sexual abuse are kept well away.
>do
> you or do you not beleive that your faith should be researched with
> public grants?
No. It is enough if some tax rebate on believers (of all faiths) donations
to their charities are given. Additional grants are not required. The
children of God should fund our own projects, and not go cap in hand to
atheists.
do you or do you not believe that evolution should be
> taught in a -science- class room? everything you've been talking
> about seems to indicate that you agree that science should be taught
> in a science class and the state should not enforce you religious
> views. so lets just get a good, clear statement as to the veracity of
> that.
>
I have no problem with teaching evolution in a science class, as long as it
is taught ethically, together with what we don't really know yet.
I was never taught anything but evolution in school. I don't believe the
subject has been anywhere near discussion in the UK, where there are hardly
any creationists, and still by looking into it as a little boy, with no
contact to Christians, I nevertheless started to believe that too much was
contrived and the real answer lay elsewhere.
So let them teach wordly wisdom in wordly schools. But let them do it in an
honest way, and also allow for the fact when teaching religious studies that
a mature creation could have been made with a mature looking earth soe ten
thousand years ago, and that wouldn't contradict any science.
Let the kids who wish to opt into alternative views of origins have the
chance to pick that option at A level. By then, they are able to understand
the arguments coming from either side. Under 16 I would not trouble them
with too much of the details.
The elect will believe the Truth anyway. And we should sometimes look to
keeping our dignity. Tussling over creationism in schools is not something I
would do, myself.
I'm not overly worried about D.H. Lawrence being in the Eng. Lit course,
either.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:3cbfvvg8qc3mjik0q...@4ax.com...
Several places place faith and works in apposition, including your no doubt
well perused Letter of James.
If obedience is not faith, it is works. If obedience were necessary for
salvation, then some room for boasting would be left. Only pure faith
salvation leaves no room for boasting. "Not of works, lest any man should
boast."
>
> > if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
> >forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
> >heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
> >whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite
for
> >salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received
unconditional
> >salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> I didn't think that you could give up that last piece of flesh and I
> was right. So you go on thinking that obeying Jesus is works, which it
> isn't and you can't justify it by any book accept by quote mining it.
>
> So tell me, in your "I don't have to listen to Jesus" religion, how do
> you account for this:
>
> John 14: 15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
>
It's absolutely true. If we love him, we will keep his commandments.
We might fail, and we will fail, but the answer is to repent again and get
back with the journey of sanctification.
> How do you reason away that verse? It is quite simple, Jesus said that
> if you love him you will obey him. Now find me a verse that says Jesus
> is wrong here.
>
> John 14: 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
> loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
> love him and show myself to him.
>
Absolutely true. If we love God we will seek to please Him, just as if we
love our wife we will seek to please her.
It's nonsense to say you love someone, but don't wanna be with them , and
please them.
> How do you reason away that verse? See that? Do you have his commands?
> If you love him you will do what? Obey him? Is that what he said? If
> he did I would like you to find me a verse that says that Jesus is
> wrong here.
>
> John 14: 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my
> teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
> our home with him.
>
> How about that one? Was he just joking? Oh my oh my, another one!
> Jesus says that if you love him you will obey him. Now, in your
> version of Christianity please quote me a verse that states that Jesus
> is wrong here.
He isn't wrong! He's absolutely right.
>
> 2 John 1: 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his
> commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that
> you walk in love.
>
> What do you do with that verse? Walk in obedience? They must be
> joking, right? Certainly you must have a verse to back up your
> doctrine that states that this is wrong, right?
>
No, I'd like to walk in obedience. That's what hauled me red-eyed out of bed
this morning to go to Church only four hours after finishing spiritually
battling in here.
> Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told
> to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our
> duty.' "
>
> How about this one? Oh my! This one says that obeying Jesus is your
> DUTY doesn't it? That means that you will not receive any reward for
> obeying Jesus, will you? Nope, and why is that? Because it is your
> DUTY to obey him, not WORKS. Do you get it yet? It looks like Lenny
> was right, you can't form the words "I WAS WRONG" can you?
>
There isn't the trichotomy works-duty-faith, there's the dichotomy faith vs
works. Doing duties is on the works side of that dichotomy, as we see in the
context of James 2. Where Abraham is commended for being willing to
sacrifice Isaac, was that a good deed or an act of duty required by God?
Obviously the latter, so obeying God is a duty and it is also a work. Devils
believe, and tremble, they do not obey, they do not submit to the will of
God, they do not do their duty, they have no works. Faith without works is
dead faith. It's the tree with no fruit. Dead faith. Dead faith isn't saving
faith. If we love God, we naturally want to please him, so carelessness in
this means we don't really love Him.
So we have a dead love, and a dead faith. Just as a woman ought to doubt the
love of a man who makes no effort for her, so we can doubt the love of the
complacent professor.
> I was going to post about 30 more verses but I think that you get the
> point, don't you?
Sure do. Now do you get this - it was said by Christ, who is forgiven much,
loves much.
So if the love gives rise to the obedience, and it must, when you hear 'who
is forgiven much, loves much' then what do you understand to be the driver
here, our obedience leading to forgiveness or forgiveness leading to
obedience?
>
> Now, tell me how you can ignore all those verses and say that you
> don't have to obey Jesus. You are spouting off nifty doctrine that
> Calvin dreamed up because no one could tell that fool what to do. Yet
> now that you have believed it your whole life you are confused looking
> at these verses because you have to now dream up a way to justify
> ignoring them.
>
I don't claim anitnomianism and I never have.
> It is quite amusing how you claim to be a Christian yet you don't
> follow Christ, you follow Calvin. Calvin twisted faith without works
> to mean something it doesn't. And that's the downfall of
> fundamentalism; everything has to be black and white bumper sticker
> sayings as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
>
> Now take all of those verses and all of the ones that I posted in the
> other two threads and it looks like your brand of Christianity demands
> that you ignore most of the New Testament. You ignored everything I
> said in those threads. And I didn't just spew, I backed up everything
> I said with IN CONTEXT verses.
You've misunderstood our brand of Christianity. Whatever Calvinists you knew
could have been out of order, or maybe you started to look for things to
criticise them with so as to excuse yourself, who knows? God certainly
knows. I would like to please God, myself, and keep to his Holy Laws. I
know that I've got a cat's chance, but I'm trying anyway.
>
> Now tell me how that can be. How can a Christian ignore most of the
> New Testament? Why did Jesus give those commands, because he liked to
> hear himself talk? Because the Bible would have been too thin and he
> needed filler? You never did answer any of these questions so why
> don't you try answering them now?
>
> And if you quote Paul you have to say exactly why you can pull verses
> out of context. If you forgot that lesson already go back and read
> those threads.
>
> How do you ignore most of the New Testament as a Christian? How do you
> ignore that obeying Christ is your DUTY and not just a nice nifty
> thing to do if you happen to feel like it?
>
> Let's see some verses from you. I have about 30 more sitting here and
> about 60 or so more in another list I made. Lets see what you come up
> with. I really want to see the verses that state that you don't have
> to obey Jesus DESPITE all these verses that say you do. No blithering,
> no nifty man made doctrines, just verses with an explanation as to why
> you don't have to listen to Jesus.
>
> I went through quite a bit to make my case and now it is your turn.
>
> Show me the first verse that specifically states that you don't have
> to obey Jesus.
>
I am trying to obey Jesus, because who is forgiven much, loves much, and if
you love me, he said, keep my commandments.
If you don't like the standards of my obedience, and think it is too flawed,
join the club.
Uncle Davey
r norman
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
<snip almost all except a few key principles of faith>
>
>Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the essential
>reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise of HIS
>glory, those whose first trust is in Christ.
....
>When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by faith
>in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for ever,
>in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are unequipped
>to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
>needs to have happened.
....
>The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
>accept Christ on FAITH.
You are welcome to believe all this. Just keep it out of my schools
and my government and my laws and all the public places where I live
and especially keep it out of the science courses my children take.
The problem comes about when some who believe this want to force
others to also accept Christ on faith. Not all. Perhaps not you.
But an awful lot do.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> How about you answer the question I had for you in the middle of my post
> above?
>
> Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but random
> products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
>
Because He works in mysterious ways. And maybe He wanted to teach us a
much-needed lesson (certainly by YOU) in humility.
Or do YOU think your opinion on what God should have done is better than
God's.
> How come theistic evolutionists can't answer the tough theological
> questions?
>
You call THAT A "tough theological question" . . . . . ?
I was right, you DO have a kindergarten theology to go with your
kindergarten science.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>>
>>you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>>
>
>
> So that things would actually work.
So now you are presuming to give God advice on how to make Creation work
better . . . .?
Does your prideful arrogant self-righteousness have No limit? None at all?
>
> When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
> lying on his back and helpless?
Maybe to teach us some humility (a concept that you have no awareness of)?
Did God by any chance ask you for advice before he incompetently cobbled
together the universe? Could He have done a much better job of it if He
had?
>
> But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the bits
> prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits.
May I ask who the hell YOU are to tell God what should or should not be
"the point" . . . . .?
>
> Joking aside, if we see by common observance that we are the only
> intelligent life, the only that can understand concepts such as freedom, and
> seek to investigate the world, regardless of the time available in
> evolutionary theory and the space for others to have got there first, then
> is it so strange for this scene to have been set for us, rather than having
> us as accidental by-products of a dumb algorithm?
>
So if we find intelligent life in outer space, that means there is no
God . . . . ?
>
> The Flood is the first part of it, and since that time tremendous tectonic
> activity took place.
>
>
How do you know.
Where can we see it.
>
> The genesis account has been known by all generations that have sought to
> find a solution in evolution.
>
> Other than that, the testimony of the world on minds untutored by humanist
> sciences is that there is a God or gods.
>
But not yours, right?
> The earth was created mature, and the process of natural selection and
> speciation continue apace, but generally speaking genomes devolve, entropy
> enters their system, bacteria devolve out of human cells, animals that are
> less vigourous from animals that were stronger. It's almost like a Microsoft
> world, even upgrade seems to lose some functionality.
Is this God's opinion, or yours.
Or don't you think there's any difference between God's opinion and yours.
>
> The kinds God put here at the creation moment are still discreet kinds, and
> nothing has crossed kind. Some have been made extinct, mainly in the flood
> and aftermath, and the activities of Nimrod's gang and later human activity
> right up to today's date.
>
Says you. <shrug> You are, of course, not a Messenger of God, and your
religious pronunciomentos are not, of course, any more valid than anyone
else's, and you, of course, do not know any more about God than anyone
else alive, and your religious authority, of course, is no greater than
that of the kid who delivers my pizzas.
>
> I don't take pleasure in criticising the RCs
Of COURSE you do. You are EXACTLY the sort of self-righteous prideful
arrogant prick who takes GREAT delight in criticizing anyone who isn't
as holy as you are (and that would be "everyone but you").
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
. Only pure faith
> salvation leaves no room for boasting.
You mean like "I am God's Messenger"? Is THAT the kind of "boasting"
you are referring to?
Bogdan
>Użytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
>> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>So that things would actually work.
Precious. God had to make things the way they should work. Of course
you do not realize that this implies a higher power than God which
actually prescribed how things had to be to work. This is just but one
of the about half a dozen holes in your position.
Eric Gill
@nemesis.news.tpi.pl:
> How come theistic evolutionists can't answer the tough theological
> questions?
How come raging fundamentalist idiots call non-issues "tough theological
questions?"
That's a rhetorical one, BTW. I'd love to see you try to defend the
proposition that Jesuits cannot answer "tough theological questions" any
better than idiots such as yourself.
Frank Reichenbacher
"Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
news:bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
> Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > R.Schenck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel of the
> > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got a bit
> > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you have in
> > > mind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is "really"
> > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of years
> old.
> >
> >
> > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > probably won't tell us.
> >
>
> He made it mature,
"Mature" is a euphemism for "fully formed as if it were actually billions of
years old." In other words, God was intentionally deceptive exactly as the
Reverend Dr. Lenny proposed.
but the things which needed to look mature are the
> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
These lights are called 'stars.' The evolution of stars is well-known and
throughly studied.
>
> The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> ensuing tectonics.
Please tell us how these "ensuing tectonics" you so casually refer to, did
not parboil Noah and his little band.
>
> God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions
of
> the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
> the world.
>
> Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
It did take billions of years, the evidence for billions of years is
overwhelming.
>
> Now I may not be a scientist,
Duh!
but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
> say.
So?
> And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
God is a bean counter?
How quaint.
> When we see that all the world revolves around people getting saved by
faith
> in Christ so that they can be resurrected and live with God as one for
ever,
> in a communion the like of which even glorious perfect angels are
unequipped
> to enjoy, then it is clear that there is no reason why factual evolution
> needs to have happened.
The logical connection between Point A and Point B in this little story does
not exist, except in the minds of the willfully ignorant.
It would have been a mere distraction from the main
> event - what the humans were going to do. Evolutionism and natural
selection
> do not presuppose that Man is the object of the world arising by the
> algorithm of DNA and so there is nothing special about us.
There isn't anything special.
We are no
> 'better' than fish or molluscs.
We're not.
Theistic evolution believed by Christians
> somehow believes that we are the planned aim in mind for all this DNA
> replication, and that's why God the Son came for us although he didn't
come
> for the earlier stages in evolution, such as the first mammals or the
eryops
> or whatever that half coelacanth half newt thing is called. Tom, if you're
> reading, I'd be interested to know whether you think the coming of Christ
> into the world was uniquely for man, and if so why, when the algorithm
that
> got us here according to evolutionary thought is so impersonal
(referencing
> Dennet's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea pages 42 through 60.)
>
> So if the gentle reader (I'm not addressing Tom specifically from this
> point) believes that man is not special, is a bit of an accident,
There is an element of chance in the history of everything.
a freak of
> the algorithm, can you really square this idea with your whole inner
being,
> your secret identity, your thoughts, your ideas, your hopes, your loves,
> your understandings?
Absolutely. I need to base my worldview on evidence, not wishful thinking.
This that you have, and you see other man and women
> have, it is so unlike anything that other animals have. We talk of chimps
> and dolphins being brighter than some other animals, but the difference
> between a chimp or a dolphin and an octopus is not probably not as great
as
> between a bonobo chimp, with its 95% or whatever DNA similarity and a
> perticipant in this discussion, as far as intelligent and sapient world
view
> goes. Why? Why didn't any more evolve?
They *are* evolving. It is possible that one of the species you mentioned
will be the ancestor of a fully sentient species sometime in the future.
That humans got there before them could simply be a matter of luck. Mammals
have been around for about 100 million years and modern humans for only a
few tens of thousands of years. If a descendant of dolphins becomes sentient
in, say, a hundred thousand years from now, so what?
WHY didn't any demonstrably come from
> other planets,
Maybe they did? Maybe it will turn out that interstellar space travel will
always be limited to speeds below the speed of light severely limiting
interstellar space travel?
when you say there are so many planets and so much available
> time? Why haven't we been visited by people from the future telling us to
> discard the silly religions?
Maybe we have?
You can't answer these questions, and
> actually you should be able to answer them, for you to be certain your
world
> view is correct. Mine certainly doesn't have such gaping holes in it.
No, your worldview has no such difficulty, does it?
>
> The reason you are here on this planet, whether you like it or not, is to
> accept Christ on FAITH. That means no man, even if he has faith that
simply
> knows Christ is Lord, and wholly trusts him very waking moment and in his
> dreams as well, is able to prove to you the truth about this world in such
a
> way that you will believe the truth by logical persuasion, by peer
pressure,
> and the like. There were times in the past when peer pressure existed to
> believe a form of Christianity, with the result that things went totally
> wrong and the Church became a power block, ran by a blasphemous office,
and
> was Antichrist for a thousand years. Soon the form of Christianity that
> people were to believe became a works religion, and that is the essence of
> Antichrist. And Roman catholicism is not out of the woods yet by a long
> chalk, although it has it's positive sides also. They are still mainly
> playing the works game, and that doesn't work.
>
> I have now probably given one of the most comprehensive, though highly
> summarised arguments as to what my position is and why we are not going to
> persuade one another by logic.
I was hoping that evidence would do the trick.
Tom McDonald
Davey,
I have no idea whether Christ's coming to humankind was unique
in the universe, or even on this planet. We know He came for us,
and the message to us is our gift, responsibility and grace.
If we are the product of evolution, and evolution was the way
God chose to do things, then of course He came for us just the same.
>
> How come theistic evolutionists can't answer the tough theological
> questions?
This is not tough. In my view, what we have is the record of
what God did for us; but I can't limit God to just that. If He
decided to engage other parts of His creation in a way similar to
what He did for us, then I think His work is all the more wondrous.
Tom McDonald
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
>
H,R.Gruemm
> Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w wiadomości
> news:3cbfvvg8qc3mjik0q...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:07:00 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> > <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> > >wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Several places place faith and works in apposition, including your no doubt
> well perused Letter of James.
>
> If obedience is not faith, it is works. If obedience were necessary for
> salvation, then some room for boasting would be left. Only pure faith
> salvation leaves no room for boasting. "Not of works, lest any man should
> boast."
Apparently you are a Paulist, and not a Christian. Jesus - if we are
to believe Matthew - set up a necessary and sufficient criterion for
entering heaven: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. Those are
obviously works; the passage says nothing about faith.
Regards,
HRG.
Charles C.
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
>Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w wiadomości
>news:3cbfvvg8qc3mjik0q...@4ax.com...
>Several places place faith and works in apposition, including your no doubt
>well perused Letter of James.
>
>If obedience is not faith, it is works. If obedience were necessary for
>salvation, then some room for boasting would be left. Only pure faith
>salvation leaves no room for boasting. "Not of works, lest any man should
>boast."
>
Luke 7 "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the
sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field,
'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8 Would he not rather say,
'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and
drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9 Would he thank the servant
because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have
done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy
servants; we have only done our duty.' "
Jesus is telling you here that when you obey him and follow everything
he has said you have only done your _DUTY_ and you deserve no praise.
So how can you boast when you have only done your duty? Duty is not
works. Obeying is not works, it is your duty to obey. The Bible is so
clear on this point you have to refuse to see it in order to miss it.
>>
>> > if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
>> >forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
>> >heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour. So
>> >whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite
>for
>> >salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received
>unconditional
>> >salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
>> >
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I didn't think that you could give up that last piece of flesh and I
>> was right. So you go on thinking that obeying Jesus is works, which it
>> isn't and you can't justify it by any book accept by quote mining it.
>>
>> So tell me, in your "I don't have to listen to Jesus" religion, how do
>> you account for this:
>>
>> John 14: 15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
>>
>
>It's absolutely true. If we love him, we will keep his commandments.
>
>We might fail, and we will fail, but the answer is to repent again and get
>back with the journey of sanctification.
>
Exactly, but if you _plan_ lies how is that _repenting_? Sounds like
the exact opposite to me.
>> How do you reason away that verse? It is quite simple, Jesus said that
>> if you love him you will obey him. Now find me a verse that says Jesus
>> is wrong here.
>>
>> John 14: 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
>> loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
>> love him and show myself to him.
>>
>
>Absolutely true. If we love God we will seek to please Him, just as if we
>love our wife we will seek to please her.
>
You don't obey God to please him, you obey him because you love him
and it is your duty. You don't obey him to please him, that would be
works. You obey him because it is your duty. You don't try and please
him like a wife or a girlfriend or even a father, you obey him because
you believe him to be God.
>It's nonsense to say you love someone, but don't wanna be with them , and
>please them.
>
>> How do you reason away that verse? See that? Do you have his commands?
>> If you love him you will do what? Obey him? Is that what he said? If
>> he did I would like you to find me a verse that says that Jesus is
>> wrong here.
>>
>> John 14: 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my
>> teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
>> our home with him.
>>
>> How about that one? Was he just joking? Oh my oh my, another one!
>> Jesus says that if you love him you will obey him. Now, in your
>> version of Christianity please quote me a verse that states that Jesus
>> is wrong here.
>
>He isn't wrong! He's absolutely right.
>
>>
>> 2 John 1: 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his
>> commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that
>> you walk in love.
>>
>> What do you do with that verse? Walk in obedience? They must be
>> joking, right? Certainly you must have a verse to back up your
>> doctrine that states that this is wrong, right?
>>
>
>No, I'd like to walk in obedience. That's what hauled me red-eyed out of bed
>this morning to go to Church only four hours after finishing spiritually
>battling in here.
>
Supporting a ministry of lies is not spiritual battling. Trying to
convince people that science is wrong and Last Tuesdayism is the way
to go is not spiritual battling. Who are you to tell God how he should
bring people to him? That's not spiritual battling, that's ego.
How many people in your church accept evolution as the best
explanation for the observed evidence? If there are any, why wouldn't
you be forcing your ideologies on them instead of marching as a
soldier for the Jason Lies Ministry?
>
>> Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told
>> to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our
>> duty.' "
>>
>> How about this one? Oh my! This one says that obeying Jesus is your
>> DUTY doesn't it? That means that you will not receive any reward for
>> obeying Jesus, will you? Nope, and why is that? Because it is your
>> DUTY to obey him, not WORKS. Do you get it yet? It looks like Lenny
>> was right, you can't form the words "I WAS WRONG" can you?
>>
>
>There isn't the trichotomy works-duty-faith, there's the dichotomy faith vs
>works. Doing duties is on the works side of that dichotomy, as we see in the
>context of James 2. Where Abraham is commended for being willing to
>sacrifice Isaac, was that a good deed or an act of duty required by God?
>Obviously the latter, so obeying God is a duty and it is also a work. Devils
>believe, and tremble, they do not obey, they do not submit to the will of
>God, they do not do their duty, they have no works. Faith without works is
>dead faith. It's the tree with no fruit. Dead faith. Dead faith isn't saving
>faith. If we love God, we naturally want to please him, so carelessness in
>this means we don't really love Him.
You don't obey God to please him, you obey him because you love him
and it is your duty. You can't do anything to please him, that would
be works. Obeying is your duty it is not part of works. Read Luke 17.
>
>So we have a dead love, and a dead faith. Just as a woman ought to doubt the
>love of a man who makes no effort for her, so we can doubt the love of the
>complacent professor.
>
>> I was going to post about 30 more verses but I think that you get the
>> point, don't you?
>
>Sure do. Now do you get this - it was said by Christ, who is forgiven much,
>loves much.
>
>So if the love gives rise to the obedience, and it must, when you hear 'who
>is forgiven much, loves much' then what do you understand to be the driver
>here, our obedience leading to forgiveness or forgiveness leading to
>obedience?
>
Love leads to obedience. If you love him you will obey him. If you sin
once you are saved you should be disgusted by it, ask for forgiveness
and then do your best not to sin again. It is your duty to obey him
and once you die having done your duty you deserve no praise because
you have only done that which is required of you.
Sin is the disobedience to God. Sin means you did something he told
you not to do or didn't do something that he told you to do. If you
love him you will obey him and do the things that he wants you to do
and not do the things he doesn't want you to do. You don't sin because
you love him and his spirit dwells in you making it that much easier
to obey him. It doesn't mean that you won't let your emotions get away
from you once in awhile and sin, but in those rare cases that you do
sin it should disgust you so you repent and do your best not to do it
again.
If you plan sins that doesn't show much love at all, does it?
>>
>> Now, tell me how you can ignore all those verses and say that you
>> don't have to obey Jesus. You are spouting off nifty doctrine that
>> Calvin dreamed up because no one could tell that fool what to do. Yet
>> now that you have believed it your whole life you are confused looking
>> at these verses because you have to now dream up a way to justify
>> ignoring them.
>>
>
>I don't claim anitnomianism and I never have.
Well it sure seems that way when you support a liar and then claim
that you don't have to obey Jesus. Or was that another lie to justify
your actions?
>
>> It is quite amusing how you claim to be a Christian yet you don't
>> follow Christ, you follow Calvin. Calvin twisted faith without works
>> to mean something it doesn't. And that's the downfall of
>> fundamentalism; everything has to be black and white bumper sticker
>> sayings as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
>>
>> Now take all of those verses and all of the ones that I posted in the
>> other two threads and it looks like your brand of Christianity demands
>> that you ignore most of the New Testament. You ignored everything I
>> said in those threads. And I didn't just spew, I backed up everything
>> I said with IN CONTEXT verses.
>
>You've misunderstood our brand of Christianity. Whatever Calvinists you knew
>could have been out of order, or maybe you started to look for things to
>criticise them with so as to excuse yourself, who knows? God certainly
>knows. I would like to please God, myself, and keep to his Holy Laws. I
>know that I've got a cat's chance, but I'm trying anyway.
>
I understand your brand of Christianity all too well, and I have
witnessed the negative results of it my entire life.
>>
>> Now tell me how that can be. How can a Christian ignore most of the
>> New Testament? Why did Jesus give those commands, because he liked to
>> hear himself talk? Because the Bible would have been too thin and he
>> needed filler? You never did answer any of these questions so why
>> don't you try answering them now?
>>
>> And if you quote Paul you have to say exactly why you can pull verses
>> out of context. If you forgot that lesson already go back and read
>> those threads.
>>
>> How do you ignore most of the New Testament as a Christian? How do you
>> ignore that obeying Christ is your DUTY and not just a nice nifty
>> thing to do if you happen to feel like it?
>>
>> Let's see some verses from you. I have about 30 more sitting here and
>> about 60 or so more in another list I made. Lets see what you come up
>> with. I really want to see the verses that state that you don't have
>> to obey Jesus DESPITE all these verses that say you do. No blithering,
>> no nifty man made doctrines, just verses with an explanation as to why
>> you don't have to listen to Jesus.
>>
>> I went through quite a bit to make my case and now it is your turn.
>>
>> Show me the first verse that specifically states that you don't have
>> to obey Jesus.
>>
>
>I am trying to obey Jesus, because who is forgiven much, loves much, and if
>you love me, he said, keep my commandments.
>
If you were really trying you wouldn't support a liar.
>If you don't like the standards of my obedience, and think it is too flawed,
>join the club.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
And that's exactly what the people here have been complaining about.
You came here to support your liar and deceiver in charge which makes
you just as guilty as him which led to the complaint of your brand of
Christianity, the "liars for Jesus" cult that you will see people
complain about over and over again.
Jason came in here to prove that evolution is faith so what not have
faith in Jesus instead but he is doing it with lies and deceptions.
Many of those lies may be due to ignorance, but some of them he went
out of his way to do. You are one of his soldiers, you came in here to
support him and you continually make pot shots at other people. If you
support a liar what does that make you?
So we danced around and around to reach the same point that we started
at. Jason is a liar. You support him so you are just as guilty of his
lies. What hold does he have on you? Why would you risk your soul in
support of a liar? Why would you go through so much trouble, time and
effort to disobey Jesus in order to support Jason? Do you love Jason
more than you love Jesus?
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Eric Gill" <eric...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xns946669FB95CE0...@24.93.44.119...
Jesuits always had a great answer to tough questions - the use of force.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Bogdan" <Bog...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:u8dgvv8ln5algdjiq...@4ax.com...
No it doesn't imply any such thing, so that they would work the way he
obviously had in Mind.
Your name means 'God-given' as you probably know. I hope you know the truth
of it as well as the etymology.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the algorithm
behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out evolved
by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other kind
again for them?
How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think that's
just a metaphor?
Uncle Davey
Therion Ware
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
[snip]
>So that things would actually work.
>
>When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
>lying on his back and helpless?
Which raises an interesting point.
As we know if children are not socialised into human society, they can
turn out with little or no capacity for empathy, posses few if any
social skills, and in extreme cases end up "wolf children".
This is to say that unless a child is taught that lying and
disobedience are wrong they will see nothing wrong with lying or being
disobedient.
Now Adam did not have the benefit of parents, and was not socialised
into human society. Presumably you would maintain that since he was
created "mature," his social and other psychological skills were
created along with him and as such expressly designed by God
presumably with rather more precision that the mere actuality of a
good, honest, moral upbringing could supply.
Which leads to the question as to why God thought it appropriate to
create a person whose internal reality was such that he had no problem
lying and being disobedient?
>But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the bits
>prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
>criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
>already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we don't
>see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good idea
>for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have him
>playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War and
>Peas".)
and men say there is no hell.....
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
eyelessgame
> He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
"Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
> The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> ensuing tectonics.
No, they're not; no flood and no tectonics would arrange them in the
way they are arranged. Fossils, like the rocks in which they're
embedded and the DNA in the cells of their apparent descendents, tell
a consistent *history* that does not include a global flood.
The age, and origin, and history of the Universe, the Earth, and life
on Earth are written in the spectra of light from the stars, in the
isotope ratios of the rocks beneath our feet, and in the DNA of the
cells within our bodies. If you believe God wrote this story instead
of letting it happen, then so be it; but don't pretend the story isn't
there, for you then show contempt for the Creation whose Creator you
say you worship.
>
> God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major religions of
> the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he made
> the world.
>
> Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
Not just a bit, but exactly. There need be no conflict between
omphalos creationists and mainstream science, and to the extent there
is it's because the omphalos creationist dishonestly shies away from
the implications of his claim-of-convenience. To the honest omphalos
creationist, the apparent history of the universe and earth and life
is not a "lie", it is a *fiction* -- but only if the universe was
created "mature" IN EVERY DETAIL.
An analogy. There is no conflict, for many religious people, in seeing
the fortuitous hand of God in many events for which there is *also* a
mundane explanation. A thunderstorm may postpone a trip and turn out
to have some fortuitous side effect, and this is attributed to God,
but few people would deny the science of meteorology. If God created
the universe as a creationist would say, he did so in a way that *also
presents a non-supernatural explanation*, whether you accept the
non-supernatural explanation or not.
> Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
> say.
I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
religiously based?
A distrust of science coupled with ignorance of science is simple
stupid arrogance.
> Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually to
> run its lengthy course?
Indeed. You may think so if you like. You may equivalently think
that all history up to your own birth was a fiction, as a solipsist
does. But to pretend the history *isn't there* is insanity and
willful disregard of reality -- it is a lie.
The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
> anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
> action when Man starts on the scene.
Perhaps god is more important than Man, and has other interests
besides Us. Does this enter into your equation, or do you insist that
god has no other interest in Our universe but Our position in it? Why
is your god so puny?
But also, equivalent to your claim, whatever Almighty is there might
also have started the real action on May 3, 1966, as there would have
been no point to anything before that moment either, from My
perspective. Doesn't it sound egocentric when put that way?
> Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
> making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
Nothing prior to me was what I am, and therefore nothing prior to me
was of any importance. If you think my claim is egocentric, yours is
too.
But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*, just as light
still shows warping around gravity fields hundreds of millions of
light-years away whether the light was post-created in transit or not.
> Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith on
> what Christ did.
... which happened many thousands of years *after* the supposed
creation event you describe. Why not be more fair and consistent, and
say everything *before Christ* was a fiction?
> Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered home
> here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
> religions had an unnamed christ figure,
Mithras was unnamed? What is 'Mithras', if not his name? And why not
provide the sacrifice up-front? Hardly seems fair.
You misrepresent, anyway. Dying/resurrecting gods started when
agriculture started, because they represent seeds and seasonal
renewal. Seeing everything through your own lens is one of the
hallmarks of egocentrism -- and lack of empathy.
[snip proselytizing]
eyelessgame
Seppo Pietikainen
Perhaps you got it all ass-backwards?
Perhaps your god was created in the image of man?
Seppo P.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Ross Langerak" <rlanger...@earthlink.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:5HQJb.36411$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
them at all.
>
> Last Thursdayism?
>
Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God, as we would have false
memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the whole.
> > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
> the
> > ensuing tectonics.
>
> Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
> it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
> ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>
> http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
>
> http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
>
I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on. I take it those faq's
aren't gonna go away.
> > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> religions of
> > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
> he made
> > the world.
> >
> > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
>
> Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it relates to
matter and energy.
>
> > Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
> they
> > say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
>
> And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were to
> meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems with
> accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
> they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
>
I would have several management letter points for the end of the audit ready
by the end of the conversation.
> I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
> the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
> know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
> have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
> statements are.
>
The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life. Even literature, see
Evgeniy Zamyatin's essays about Revolution and Entropy in literature.
> How do you think your arguments regarding evolution sound to people
> who are really familiar with the evidence? To paleontologists? To
> geologists? To biochemists? I know enough about evolution to
> recognize that the creationist argument are bad. How do you think
> they look to the real experts?
There is an authority in accounting that we can refer to, once we have
agreed what framework we are using. If we are using US GAAP, then we use one
set of statements, UK GAAP another, Polish GAAP another, German HB2 another,
IAS yet another. But each has a codex which bears authority. In evolution we
have about 14 different models for the ascent of man (some evolutionists
will even take exception to the phrase 'ascent' of man, but other
evolutionists coined it, as it is hardly the thing a Creationist will come
up with. So I wonder whether there are experts available really, in that
field, everyone seems to be groping in the dark.
Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
sign up to?
>
> > This Universe is not
> > infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
>
> Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the elctromagnetic
spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of light, not
the speed of energy.
>
> > and matter, time
>
> Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
Yes.
>
> > and space.
> > These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in
> Hawkings
> > 'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
>
> What is that equation?
>
E = MC^2.
You gonna tell me that's overruled now?
> > When God drew
> > up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
> thousand say
> > years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the right
> > proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
>
> Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
> in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
> not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
> events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
> required for balance??? What do they balance????
>
They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
> > Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
> Company's
> > opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
> complex,
> > encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
>
> Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
>
You should have seen the accounting for exchange rate differences!
> > And since that
> > time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to
> another in
> > this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always
> > balances.
>
> This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
> evolution?
Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came from in
the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
>
> > His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
> > policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
>
> The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
> temperature with a thermometer.
>
> The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
>
> The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
> an imbalance.
>
> The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
>
> The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
> heat won't get out.
Those are simplifications.
>
> > the cycle of respiration vs
> > photosynthesis,
>
> Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes the
> bad air and out goes the good?
Plants respire as well as photosynthesise. And it is all about taking the
sun's energy, and transferring it to carbohydrates, which are then burned in
all lioving cells to release that energy where it is needed. Photosynthesis
and respiration are opposites. And I don't employ economics graduates as
auditors who can't recite the basic chemical equations for both from their
memory.
>
> > planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
> > understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
> project which
> > is what this entire universe is all about.
>
> According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
> need for salvation?
Not all truth is in Genesis.
The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and predestinated to be
redeemed.
This is a tough doctrine, but if you can get your head around the doctrine
of predestination it will help at this point.
> > Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
> actually to
> > run its lengthy course? The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all
> times
> > anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the
> real
> > action when Man starts on the scene.
>
> Or, he could start with a Big Bang: an expansion of pure energy that
> produced all that exists.
Could have.
In which case he probably would have told us so.
>
> > Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> > chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
> capable of
> > making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> > understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
>
> My cat can make choices that man can make. My cat has a personality.
> My cat has enough self understanding to wash his face after dinner.
> My cat is curious and at least somewhat analytical.
>
> On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
> were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
> term "Duh" mean anything to you?
>
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Obviously you know the
difference between the mind of a human and of a cat. I have fish in my tank
whose intelligence differential with your cat is less than between your cat
and you. My female Pseudorinelepis genibarbus tells me what the weather's
gonna be like. I don't know if your cat can do that.
> > Man has been set here
>
> [snip religious sermon, which is what creationism is really about.]
>
It's what life's really about.
Uncle Davey
Mujin
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
[snip dross]
>
>Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the algorithm
>behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
>specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out evolved
>by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other kind
>again for them?
>
>How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think that's
>just a metaphor?
Do you honestly think that God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, a
bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
uninspiring faith.
If on the other hand, like most people who believe in God, you believe
that he's a spiritual being, you will undoubtedly have considered the
possibility that Adam was created in the *spiritual* image of God and
that our physical form is irrelevant.
--
K
Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:2nagvvcl3f3q8e9rj...@4ax.com...
Then I'm afraid their conversions could well be valueless.
We wanna bring forth fruit so badly, we don't always check it's not plastic.
Uncle Davey
R.Schenck
if the creation is perfect, why would it matter? a newborn in the
garden is no more helpless than an adult in the garden. a three week
old zygote would be no more helpless in the garden either.
> But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the bits
> prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
> criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
> already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we don't
> see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good idea
> for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have him
> playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War and
> Peas".)
>
> Joking aside, if we see by common observance that we are the only
> intelligent life, the only that can understand concepts such as freedom, and
> seek to investigate the world, regardless of the time available in
> evolutionary theory and the space for others to have got there first, then
> is it so strange for this scene to have been set for us, rather than having
> us as accidental by-products of a dumb algorithm?
>
yes it would be strange to use evidence (there are no other
intelligent lifeforms) to conclude anything about a metaphysical
realm. perhaps it can reinforce you faith, but anything can do that.
if anything it all falls apart if/when we do find life on other
planets, so your faith seems to fall on evidence? why shoudl any
evidence make you drop your faith? look at it this way, if a man had
never met anyone outside of his tribe, he would assume everything
existed for his tribe. so when he sees something made by antoher
tribe, unfamiliar to him, he will make of it what he pleases. and not
matter how much evidence of other tribes he is shown, he will never
accept them, until he comes running into them oneday. meanwhile,
someone who acts in a logical scientific matter will be able to
conclude that there are other tribes out there, and make contact with
them. i don't mean this necessarily in the sense that the other
tribes are "aliens" are anything like that, but rather that teh other
tribes represent the scientific world and our ability to study it.
>
> > > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> > > ensuing tectonics.
> > >
> >
> > if they were there from a flood then they are definitly misleading, as
> > they contradict in everyway a flood account.
> >
>
> The Flood is the first part of it, and since that time tremendous tectonic
> activity took place.
>
so i gather you are saying that every fossil (more or less) was
deposited during the flood, and then afterwards it some how got sorted
into the order we see it in now, and order that just so happens to
conform to the predication of a theory of evolution, and an order that
if we study it can lead us to conclude (falsely here) that this
evolution occured via natural selection?
>
> > > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> religions of
> > > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he
> made
> > > the world.
> > >
> >
> > so he just mislead everyone who hadnt been exposed to genesis and
> > everyone who has not yet been exposed to geneisis.
> >
>
> The genesis account has been known by all generations that have sought to
> find a solution in evolution.
>
what? no it hasn't. there are people who know about evolution but
have never read genesis or the bible. you think every university
student in china is reading the bible? and what, if you have heard
the slightest murmur of the bible or christ, even a garbled (due to
cross cultural transmission) account of christ? or do you aslso assue
that everytime someone talks about christ orthe bible the holy ghost
intervenes to make sure the message gets across? why not just put a
bible in every house, since you're asking for miracles anyway? oh,
and which genesis account, not that it matters.
> Other than that, the testimony of the world on minds untutored by humanist
> sciences is that there is a God or gods.
>
but your saying that the 'world' is created in such a way as to lead
people to conclude that evolution by natural selection and commyn
descent is what happens/happened. and the theory of natural selection
is not a part of humanism. humanists might look to it, but its simply
isn't. darwin explicitly said that there is nothign in nature or his
theory that can tell us anything about ethics and morality. he left
that up to religion and faith, you know, metaphysics.
> > > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> > >
> >
> > so you agree that evolution happens anyway, just that the earth is
> > young
>
> The earth was created mature, and the process of natural selection and
> speciation continue apace, but generally speaking genomes devolve, entropy
> enters their system,
i am sorry but this is simply not what happens, new species are
observed to evolve, entropy has no effect on the maintenance of living
systems, at least not in the way you are talking about, if for no
other reason than that living systems are not closed systems.
> bacteria devolve out of human cells,
so now you are rejecting germ theory? there is nothing about bacteria
that can lead us to conclude that they are devolved bits of human
cells, certainly no more than we can conclude that maggots arise from
putrifaction.
> animals that are
> less vigourous from animals that were stronger.
thats really subjective and not really correct either. are you saying
that as lions hunt their prey, over time, those prey populations are
becoming, on average at least, weaker and weaker? and this is
happening because the predator is culling out the weak and letting the
strong continue to breed? Your're saying tht animals, who have
inheritable characteristics which you would class as 'strong' are
producing offspring that, because of the fall, have not inherited
their paternal 'strong' adaptations but instead 'weak' ones?
>It's almost like a Microsoft
> world, even upgrade seems to lose some functionality.
>
no no no, microsoft is a more accurate description of hell then earth
after the fall. at least purgatory.
> The kinds God put here at the creation moment are still discreet kinds, and
> nothing has crossed kind.
so got created, say, cat kind, and dog kind. and he also created an
intermidiate kind, one that if we look at scientifically we will
conclude that it is the last commyn ancestor of cats and dogs. and he
also created all those kinds between that last commyn ancestor of cats
and dogs and the cat and dog kinds. and all the kinds before that.
and then he killed them all, either by not putting them on the ark or
in some other way, leaving us with just cat kind and just dog kind.
>Some have been made extinct, mainly in the flood
> and aftermath,
i thougth all animals were on the ark. some in pairs, some in sets of
seven. why didnt the 'clean' ie kosher kinds that are now extinct not
get saved? why did the non-kosher animals get saved at all by the
way?
> and the activities of Nimrod's gang and later human activity
> right up to today's date.
>
> > (snip the fairy tale about acccounting, and why theren't arent aliens,
> > timetravelers, or alien time travelers, and oh yeah the anti-catholic
> > propaganda)
>
> I don't take pleasure in criticising the RCs, and as I have said, a lot of
> individuals in that Church are surely redeemed people.
>
ah yes, but you think that the pope is the anti-christ. hopefully
that kind of talk won't lead to anti-catholic purgers like it has
before.
> >
> > look, that was all very nice. you have faith. great. you agree that
> > logical empiricism cant answer questions about faith. good. so,
> > maybe there has been a misunderstanding here. do you or do you not
> > beleive that your faith should be taught in public high schools?
>
> I have never said it should be, or shouldn't be.
>
you indicate below that it should be, in so far as teachers, if they
want, should be allowed to teach it.
> I believe teachers of whatever belief should be allowed to give an account
> of what they believe, whether they are atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims,
> as long as they don't go over the top and usurp the home's prior right to
> give a philosophy and code to the children.
so then you have no problem with yer children, (or your neices and
nephews, right ) from having to study the creation account of the
koran in order to pass high school biology. or studying the ilead so
they can see how the gods need eat ambrosia and drink nectar. infact,
they can teach whatever they want, no matter how unscientific it is,
and will be paid out of tax money in order to do it.
> In the main they should be
> allowed to be people with a professional calling, and not given blinkered
> guidelines by the state.
>
teaching religion in schools would be blinkering teachers.
> I don't want atheist teachers teaching my kids how to worship God.
well, according to you, atheists can fail a child for beleif in god,
because people are allowed to make their beleifs part of a class
curiculum.
> What
> point would there be in that? What would be the point in me teaching Islam
> in a scgool, when I don't believe that. Teachers should be hired according
> to their ability,
ability to what, tho? ability to teach? to teach what? their own
personal views? or science?
>and then they should teach according to their competence
> and their conscience.
>
so should we have a state regulation for conscience then? any person
who claims to be a science teacher and yet tries to include his/her
personal view on faith in the curiculum has a pretty low conscience.
> I am all for a free market in ideas, even to kids, as long as things overtly
> wicked, like the occult, drugs, denial of the holocaust and things which
> could facilitate their sexual abuse are kept well away.
>
>
why exclude the occult? if the teacher is a pagan, then why should'nt
they teach the pagan stories of creation?
> >do
> > you or do you not beleive that your faith should be researched with
> > public grants?
>
> No. It is enough if some tax rebate on believers (of all faiths) donations
> to their charities are given. Additional grants are not required. The
> children of God should fund our own projects, and not go cap in hand to
> atheists.
>
>
then you agree that aig and icr and id institutes should never receive
government funding either. excellent we are in agreeance on that.
> do you or do you not believe that evolution should be
> > taught in a -science- class room? everything you've been talking
> > about seems to indicate that you agree that science should be taught
> > in a science class and the state should not enforce you religious
> > views. so lets just get a good, clear statement as to the veracity of
> > that.
> >
>
> I have no problem with teaching evolution in a science class, as long as it
> is taught ethically, together with what we don't really know yet.
>
how can we teach what we dont know? and if we could teach it, why
would we?
> I was never taught anything but evolution in school. I don't believe the
> subject has been anywhere near discussion in the UK, where there are hardly
> any creationists, and still by looking into it as a little boy, with no
> contact to Christians, I nevertheless started to believe that too much was
> contrived and the real answer lay elsewhere.
>
what was contrived? aren't you the one with the belief that
everything was made to look in such a way so as to conform with your
own beleifs? that sounds a bit contrived.
> So let them teach wordly wisdom in wordly schools.
yeah, science in science class rooms. not feelings, not opinions, not
religion.
> But let them do it in an
> honest way, and also allow for the fact when teaching religious studies
religious studies are not nor should they be taught in schools. i
understand you aer posting from poland, so things might be different
there.
>that
> a mature creation could have been made with a mature looking earth soe ten
> thousand years ago, and that wouldn't contradict any science.
>
if it doesn't contradict science, they why are you teaching it? how
is your theory any different from saying everything started after i
sent the original post, with the appearnce of great age and what not?
the only reason you have that "omphalos" idea is because you feel you
need it in order to literally interpret the bible. what about people
who dont want to do that? are you going to have them learn that
theory?
> Let the kids who wish to opt into alternative views of origins have the
> chance to pick that option at A level.
ah, here we have the problem of cultural differences. we dont have A
level and what not here. if A level students are wise enough to make
their own decisions, then let them do it on their own time. if its
not worth their time to study thier own beleifs, why is it worth the
states and -everyones- time?
> By then, they are able to understand
> the arguments coming from either side. Under 16 I would not trouble them
> with too much of the details.
>
> The elect will believe the Truth anyway.
then why bother.
> And we should sometimes look to
> keeping our dignity.
the concept of dignitas has nothing to do you judeo-christianity.
>Tussling over creationism in schools is not something I
> would do, myself.
>
if by this you now mean science teachers are only allowed to teach
science in science classrooms, then i have no arguement with you what
so ever.
a person's beleifs are just that. i wouldn't dream of trying to
persuade someone out of their own faith or beliefs. but if you or
anyone else think for a moment that the public is going to allow
radical fundamentalists to invade our school systems, uproot our
constitution and even begin to allow fundies to teach creation in
mandatory classrooms then you can forget it. before long its obvious
they will be teaching that the pope is anti-christ in history class,
and that its alright to stuff adders down the throats of
non-converters in ethics. what the creationsists,who amount to little
more than pan-theists, not true beleivers but primitives fearful of
the thunder and storm and the god that runs it, are trying to do in
this country, and apparently australia too, is bring us back into the
dark ages and completely undermine the enlightenment and renaissance
the gave birth to this country.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Modern fundies have a similar answer --- they pass laws.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the algorithm
> behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
> specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out evolved
> by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other kind
> again for them?
Maybe. Who are YOU to tell Christ what to do or not do?
>
> How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think that's
> just a metaphor?
>
You think it's NOT a metaphor . . . .? You're kidding, right . . . even
YOU cannot be THAT goddamn stupid . . . . .
Please tell me what the image of God is, Davey. Is God white or black
or Asian. Male or female. Blonde or brunette. Brown eyes, green or
blue. Tall or short. Fat or skinny. Left handed or right handed.
Do tell, Davey.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> No it doesn't imply any such thing, so that they would work the way he
> obviously had in Mind.
>
> Your name means 'God-given' as you probably know. I hope you know the truth
> of it as well as the etymology.
>
Are you here to tell him, O Messenger of God?
Do we need to estbalish YET AGAIN for everyone that your religious
opinions are just your religious opinions, and aren't any more valid
then my pizza delivery boy's?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Uh, what about the ones that are so far away they cannot be seen from
earth . . . . .
>
> Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
> them at all.
>
>
Really. Which ones. How can you tell.
Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
>>Last Thursdayism?
>>
>
>
> Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God
Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
not"?
, as we would have false
> memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
> preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the whole.
>
Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
messenger of God . . . ?
>
>>>The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
>>
>>the
>>
>>>ensuing tectonics.
>>
>>Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
>>it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
>>ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
>>
>>http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
>>
>>http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
>>
>
>
> I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on.
Maybe, just maybe you should have dealt with them BEFORE you decided to
yammer stupidly about yet another topic that you don't know anything
about . . . .?
>>
>>Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
>
>
> First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it relates to
> matter and energy.
>
Are you a cosmologist now, in addition to your other many talents, Davey?
> The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
> thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
What the fuck are you blithering about.
>
> Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
> hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
> sign up to?
>
No, we can't. Not until all the data is in (and all the data is never
in). >shrug>
But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
simple thing to all of His followers?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> Then I'm afraid their conversions could well be valueless.
>
> We wanna bring forth fruit so badly, we don't always check it's not plastic.
>
Who is this "we", Davey . . . . .
Nantko Schanssema
newsgroups]
Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>:
>Do you honestly think that God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, a
>bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
>toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
>uninspiring faith.
It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
to be a Mrs. God.
Is God a wanker?
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
John Wilkins
> [newszilla.xs4all.nl doesn't know free.christians, so removed from
> newsgroups]
>
> Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>:
>
> >Do you honestly think that God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, a
> >bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
> >toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
> >uninspiring faith.
>
> It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
> the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
> genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
> to be a Mrs. God.
>
> Is God a wanker?
>
> regards,
> Nantko
There used to be a Mrs God, but they got divorced around 600BCE. He's
been frustrated as hell (umm...) ever since.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> [newszilla.xs4all.nl doesn't know free.christians, so removed from
> newsgroups]
>
> Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>:
>
>
>>Do you honestly think that God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, a
>>bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
>>toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
>>uninspiring faith.
>
>
> It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
> the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
> genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
> to be a Mrs. God.
>
> Is God a wanker?
>
Maybe that whole God-Satan fight is just a lover's spat . . . .?
Tom McDonald
Davey,
Why do you seek to limit God?
Tom McDonald
Ross Langerak
No more deceptive than producing light with no star behind it. BTW,
could you point out which of those lights has no star behind it?
You implied that billions of years wasn't "actual time". You need to
defend your statement. I'm not required to define your terms for you.
That's your responsibility. What do you think time is and how do you
think it relates to matter and energy?
> >
> > > Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good
one, so
> > they
> > > say. And I know a Balance Sheet when I see one.
> >
> > And I know a really bad analogy when I see one. Suppose you were
to
> > meet someone and they decided to tell you all about the problems
with
> > accounting. It would quickly become pretty obvious whether or not
> > they knew anything about accounting, wouldn't it?
> >
>
> I would have several management letter points for the end of the
audit ready
> by the end of the conversation.
>
>
> > I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking
about
> > the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they
don't
> > know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think
they
> > have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
> > statements are.
> >
>
> The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
> thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
And an accountant does? "Other fields of life"? What are these
"other fields of life"? What are the errors that physicists make?
Please explain.
These experts are the ones who are familiar with the evidence, not the
ones who developed the models. The evidence is the ultimate authority
in science, not the developers. My analogy was presented to give you
a perspective on how your arguments appear to people who are actually
familiar with the evidence. Your paragraph above only reinforces that
appearance.
> Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
> hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is
happy to
> sign up to?
We sign up to the evidence, in science, not to any particular family
tree. As new evidence becomes available, our views on how humans
evolved may need to be modified. There is no authority, other than
the evidence, that tells us how to look at human evolution. To look
at that authority, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> >
> > > This Universe is not
> > > infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
> >
> > Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
>
> It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the
elctromagnetic
> spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of
light, not
> the speed of energy.
What does this have to do with anything other than trying to cover
your forepaw? Isn't the speed of light the same, whether or not the
Universe is finite? And why is the letter we use for the speed of
light significant? Would you want to emphasize it, if we used the
constant "g" for the speed of light? (Other than that it would cause
a lot of confusion with the acceleration due to gravity at the surface
of the Earth.)
> >
> > > and matter, time
> >
> > Isn't 13.6 billion years finite?
>
> Yes.
Good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't suggesting that
evolution proposed an infinite amount of time.
> >
> > > and space.
> > > These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown
in
> > Hawkings
> > > 'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
> >
> > What is that equation?
> >
>
> E = MC^2.
> You gonna tell me that's overruled now?
How is time and space linked with (the speed of) light, energy, and
matter with this equation? (Other than that velocity and energy use
the units of time and distance?) It seems that you are trying to
attribute far more to this equation than is actually there.
> > > When God drew
> > > up an opening balance sheet at the time of creation some ten
> > thousand say
> > > years ago, some of each of these things was there, exactly the
right
> > > proportions so that everything else would be held in balance.
> >
> > Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main
sequence
> > in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why
are
> > not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence
of
> > events that never happened, like supernova and galactic
collisions,
> > required for balance??? What do they balance????
> >
>
> They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
Why couldn't this be done by having all of the stars on the main
sequence? Why couldn't some stars of all sizes be off of the main
sequence? Do you even understand the significance of massive, bright
stars moving off of the main sequence?
> > > Instead of just having 'debit cash, credit shares', as in a
> > Company's
> > > opening balance sheet, this opening balance sheet was far more
> > complex,
> > > encompassing every unit of energy and matter than exists.
> >
> > Both Metric and English units? That really is complex!!!
> >
>
> You should have seen the accounting for exchange rate differences!
>
>
> > > And since that
> > > time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type
to
> > another in
> > > this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet
always
> > > balances.
> >
> > This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
> > evolution?
>
> Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came
from in
> the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
The question was, why is conservation of energy a problem for
evolution? I assume, by your response, that it isn't.
The Universe is expanding. This is something we are reasonably
certain about. If we follow that expansion back in time, there comes
a point where the Universe is so small that quantum effects become
significant. It is possible that the entire Universe is the result of
a quantum fluctuation. Or maybe not. The origin of the Universe is a
difficult subject to study. Our current understanding of physics
takes us to within a tiny fraction of a second of the Big Bang, but it
doesn't take us all the way. The energy densities involved are far
too high to be reproduced in the laboratory. So we are left with
trying to figure out how something happened based upon almost no
information. It isn't surprising that we don't have an answer. We
have some ideas, but no definite answer. Does that mean that the Big
Bang didn't happen, or does it just mean that we don't know how it
happened?
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
> >
> > > His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his
accounting
> > > policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
> >
> > The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
> > temperature with a thermometer.
> >
> > The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a
boundary.
> >
> > The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it
requires
> > an imbalance.
> >
> > The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
> >
> > The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
> > heat won't get out.
>
> Those are simplifications.
Of course they are. That doesn't change the fact that most of them
have nothing to do with conservation of energy, and none of them take
into account mass-energy equivalence.
> >
> > > the cycle of respiration vs
> > > photosynthesis,
> >
> > Isn't photosynthesis part of the respiration of plants? In goes
the
> > bad air and out goes the good?
>
> Plants respire as well as photosynthesise. And it is all about
taking the
> sun's energy, and transferring it to carbohydrates, which are then
burned in
> all lioving cells to release that energy where it is needed.
Photosynthesis
> and respiration are opposites. And I don't employ economics
graduates as
> auditors who can't recite the basic chemical equations for both from
their
> memory.
And how does this put respiration in competition with photosynthesis?
> >
> > > planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
> > > understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation
> > project which
> > > is what this entire universe is all about.
> >
> > According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate
the
> > need for salvation?
>
> Not all truth is in Genesis.
>
> The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and
predestinated to be
> redeemed.
Did that apply to Adam and Eve as well? Or was it just the people
living at the time the New Testament was written? Adam and Eve were
created to live perfect lives forever. There was no need for
salvation. How could the Universe have been created as a backdrop for
salvation, when there was not yet a need for salvation? There had to
be some other purpose for the Universe other than as a backdrop for
salvation.
What about chimpanzees? Where do they fall on the intelligence scale?
What about Australopithecus afarensis? Where does it fall on the
intelligence scale? What about Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo
heidelbergensis? See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
This series of species, except for chimpanzees, provides an excellent
series of fossils documenting the recent evolution of humans. Since
each of these species is essentially a waypoint on the journey to
become human, why would you expect any of them to actually have all of
the characteristics of humans? Each species gets a little closer.
Isn't that all that is required?
AC
>
> Użytkownik "Bogdan" <Bog...@hotmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:u8dgvv8ln5algdjiq...@4ax.com...
>> "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>> >Użytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
>>
>> >> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>>
>> >So that things would actually work.
>>
>> Precious. God had to make things the way they should work. Of course
>> you do not realize that this implies a higher power than God which
>> actually prescribed how things had to be to work. This is just but one
>> of the about half a dozen holes in your position.
>>
>>
>
> No it doesn't imply any such thing, so that they would work the way he
> obviously had in Mind.
So why did your deity need to create the light from stars in transit?
>
> Your name means 'God-given' as you probably know. I hope you know the truth
> of it as well as the etymology.
Arguments from etymology are among the most pathetic arguments.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Al Klein
<no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>That having been said you have no evidence that my omphological explanation
>is wrong.
That's shifting the burden.
>Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but random
>products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
First - was there really a Christ? Objective evidence?
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<lflank...@ij.net> posted to alt.atheism:
>Uncle Davey wrote:
>> Jesuits always had a great answer to tough questions - the use of force.
>Modern fundies have a similar answer --- they pass laws.
Which is just another use of force.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
Al Klein
<nan...@xs4all.nl> posted to alt.atheism:
>It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
>the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
>genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
>to be a Mrs. God.
Sure there is. Christianity just removed her from its bible.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Al Klein
<lflank...@ij.net> posted to alt.atheism:
>Maybe that whole God-Satan fight is just a lover's spat . . . .?
Which is why God considers homosexuality an abomination? He prefers
to stay in the closet?
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
Al Klein
<no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>U?ytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...
>> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>So that things would actually work.
>When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
>lying on his back and helpless?
That doesn't explain why we need "fossils" of "dinosaurs" that "died"
"millions of years ago". Or why we need to see a universe 37 billion
light years in diameter, rather than one 12,000 light years in
diameter.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:36:53 +0000 (UTC), Nantko Schanssema
> <nan...@xs4all.nl> posted to alt.atheism:
>
> >It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
> >the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
> >genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
> >to be a Mrs. God.
>
> Sure there is. Christianity just removed her from its bible.
Strictly speaking, Jewish priests did that...
Bogdan
>> >> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>> >So that things would actually work.
>> Precious. God had to make things the way they should work. Of course
>> you do not realize that this implies a higher power than God which
>> actually prescribed how things had to be to work. This is just but one
>> of the about half a dozen holes in your position.
>No it doesn't imply any such thing, so that they would work the way he
>obviously had in Mind.
And it's obvious to you, why? And you obviously seem to have access to
God's mind, which is nice.
Whether you obviously know what God has in mind or not, the question
remains: Why did God need to create things in already motion and
mature? More importantly, how is *THAT* (ie Last Tuesdayism) any
different from assuming things came to being by themselves via the
natural processes which seem to carry them forward anyway?
>Your name means 'God-given' as you probably know. I hope you know the truth
>of it as well as the etymology.
LOL
Richard Uhrich
> [newszilla.xs4all.nl doesn't know free.christians, so removed from
> newsgroups]
>
> Mujin <ba...@hornedking.com>:
>
>
>>Do you honestly think that God has two arms, two legs, two eyes, a
>>bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
>>toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
>>uninspiring faith.
>
>
> It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
> the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
> genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
> to be a Mrs. God.
Joseph Heller "Portrait of the Artist of an Old Man" has a writer
working on this theme. From memory, it started something like:
Mrs. God didn't like the idea from the start. "Why do want to build a
universe?"
"Because I've nothing else to do."
"Why don't you just do what you did before?"
"I didn't do anything before."
Etc.
>
> Is God a wanker?
>
> regards,
> Nantko
--
Richard Uhrich
--
"The creation versus evolution controversy is not just about biological
evolution. It also includes Chemistry, Physics, Geology, real History,
Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Astronomy,
Geophysics, etc."
ICR Web page http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
Al Klein
<no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>U?ytkownik "Ross Langerak" <rlanger...@earthlink.net> napisa? w
>wiadomo?ci news:5HQJb.36411$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Why would the "lights in the sky" need to look mature? What do you
>> mean by "mature". Is the movement of massive, hot stars off of the
>> main sequence in globular clusters done to make them look mature? If
>> so, why aren't they all the same maturity? If the Universe is young,
>> does "maturity" include evidence of events that never happened, like
>> supernova and galactic collisions?
>They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
Wrong - they're stars, pretty much like the sun. We've even found
some that have planets circling them.
>Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
>them at all.
Wrong - they're stars, pretty much like the sun.
>> I have a degree in physics. When I hear creationists talking about
>> the second law of thermodynamics, it's obvious to me that they don't
>> know what they are talking about. They know just enough to think they
>> have an argument, but not enough to realize how meaningless their
>> statements are.
>The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
>thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
Claiming that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution
isn't "how the laws of thermodynamics carry over into other fields of
life", it's showing that you don't understand the second law of
thermodynamics.
Would you accept a claim that a credit never creates an equivalent
debit?
>There is an authority in accounting that we can refer to
There are authorities in physics that we can refer to also.
>Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
>hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy to
>sign up to?
Since not all Christians agree on everything, Christianity is a crock?
That's what you're saying. All paleontologists agree on the important
points, like the fact that evolution occurs. And that speciation
occurs.
>> > This Universe is not
>> > infinite, it is a finite amount of light, energy
>> Isn't "light" energy? Electromagnetic energy?
>It is, but I just wanted to emphasise that part of the elctromagnetic
>spectrum, because the constant C is referred to as the speed of light, not
>the speed of energy.
As childish as saying that you specified that 1 dollar + 1dollar = 2
dollars, instead of 1 + 1 = 2, because most of us aren't in Germany.
>> > and space.
>> > These things are all linked together into one equation, as shown in Hawkings
>> > 'Brief History of Time and in Einstein's relativity equation.
>> What is that equation?
>E = MC^2.
Special or general? Or don't you know the difference?
>> Why would massive, hot stars have to be moved off of the main sequence
>> in globular clusters in order for things to be in balance? Why are
>> not all globular clusters in the same balance?? Why is evidence of
>> events that never happened, like supernova and galactic collisions,
>> required for balance??? What do they balance????
>They balance the amount of matter and energy there is.
Nope. As silly as claiming that there's no difference between a debit
and a credit.
>> > And since that
>> > time, no energy has been lost, it is transferred from one type to another in
>> > this finite system that is Creation so that the balance sheet always balances.
>> This is called conservation of energy. Why is this a problem for
>> evolution?
>Let evolution answer where this fixed sum of conserved energy came from in
>the first place, prior to the putative Big Bang.
The total amount of matter/energy before there was a universe was 0.
The total amount of matter/energy now is 0. Where did /what/ come
from? Last time I looked you didn't have to add anything to 0 to get
0. (Oh, the big bang was just a phase change, not the "creation" of
anything. "The" universe existed before the big bang, it just wasn't
"this" universe.)
>> > His plan of accounts are all the planets and kinds, his accounting
>> > policies are the laws of thermodynamics,
>>
>> The zeroth law of thermodynamics is the basis for measuring
>> temperature with a thermometer.
>>
>> The first law of thermodynamics deals with energy crossing a boundary.
>>
>> The second law of thermodynamics doesn't require balance; it requires
>> an imbalance.
>>
>> The third law of thermodynamics defines entropy at absolute zero.
>>
>> The fourth law of thermodynamics tells us to close the door so the
>> heat won't get out.
>
>Those are simplifications.
But accurate enough to work.
>> > planck's quantum theory, and others that we haven't even
>> > understood yet, and this is all the backdrop for the salvation project which
>> > is what this entire universe is all about.
>> According to Genesis, didn't the creation of the Universe predate the
>> need for salvation?
>Not all truth is in Genesis.
But Genesis isn't all true? All of Genesis isn't true?
>The new Testament also shows that we were foreknown and predestinated to be
>redeemed.
The Old Testament says that nothing shall be changed or added to, so
the New Testament is a violation of your god's orders.
>> On the other hand, your statement was that before man evolved, there
>> were no creatures with all of the characteristics of man. Does the
>> term "Duh" mean anything to you?
>I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Obviously you know the
>difference between the mind of a human and of a cat.
But what of the difference between the mind of man and the mind of
gorilla. There's a gorilla who would tell you that your religious
beliefs are nonsense. And she can create a much better logical
argument than you can.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
Charles C.
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:36:53 +0000 (UTC), Nantko Schanssema
>> <nan...@xs4all.nl> posted to alt.atheism:
>>
>> >It occurs to me that this image may well explain (at least partly) why
>> >the Christian god is so obsessed with human sex. Such a god has
>> >genitalia and the hormones that come with it. Yet there isn't supposed
>> >to be a Mrs. God.
>>
>> Sure there is. Christianity just removed her from its bible.
>
>Strictly speaking, Jewish priests did that...
I think they got divorced; God didn't like people talking to Mrs. God
because people only burned animals for him while she got cakes of
bread:
Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire,
and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread
for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods
to provoke me to anger.
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Al Klein
posted to alt.atheism:
>"Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message news:<bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
>> He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
>> functional things, like the lights in the sky.
>"Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
Sounds like a Motorola part number. That would make it pretty
non-functional. (j/k - I know what the number refers to.)
>> Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so they
>> say.
>I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
>one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
>of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
>religiously based?
If your religion is based on having written a good tax program. :)
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the
algorithm
> > behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
> > specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out
evolved
> > by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other
kind
> > again for them?
> >
> > How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think
that's
> > just a metaphor?
> >
> > Uncle Davey
> >
> >
> Davey,
>
> Why do you seek to limit God?
>
> Tom McDonald
>
I don't. I just think that what is written in the Word of God was put there
by Him for us to be guided by.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
wiadomości news:3ff8a0e7$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the
algorithm
> > behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
> > specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out
evolved
> > by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other
kind
> > again for them?
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe. Who are YOU to tell Christ what to do or not do?
>
I'm not telling him anything. That much is clear from the Bible account,
although Christ does mention He has 'other sheep'. The Mormons think that
verse applies to a group of people from the Levant who sailed to America,
but as far as I can tell, that's just a fairy story.
>
>
> >
> > How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think
that's
> > just a metaphor?
> >
>
>
> You think it's NOT a metaphor . . . .? You're kidding, right . . . even
> YOU cannot be THAT goddamn stupid . . . . .
>
>
> Please tell me what the image of God is, Davey. Is God white or black
> or Asian. Male or female. Blonde or brunette. Brown eyes, green or
> blue. Tall or short. Fat or skinny. Left handed or right handed.
>
> Do tell, Davey.
>
As the tamed wolf is to the races of dog, so Adam to all the races of
mankind.
Make of that what you will.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Mujin" <ba...@hornedking.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:mhsgvv06dg9tv31t4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:36:46 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> [snip dross]
> >
> >Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the algorithm
> >behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
> >specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out
evolved
> >by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other
kind
> >again for them?
> >
that's
> >just a metaphor?
>
> bladder to fill, a stomach to get queasy, and a liver to filter
> toxins? If so, I am truly sorry for you because you have a truly
> uninspiring faith.
In Christ, God did indeed have two arms, two legs, two eyes, and the other
things and if that doesn't inspire you then I'm sorry for you, because
that's how God himself achieved our salvation - by dying in that body.
What the functions of the organs of the resurrection body are like I
wouldn't want to comment on.
>
> If on the other hand, like most people who believe in God, you believe
> that he's a spiritual being, you will undoubtedly have considered the
> possibility that Adam was created in the *spiritual* image of God and
> that our physical form is irrelevant.
> --
> K
>
As far as I am aware, Jesus Christ is not a shape shifter.
So I wouldn't call it irrelevant.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:sm3gvv4070sm0ubf0...@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
> Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
> free.christians
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >So that things would actually work.
> >
baby,
> >lying on his back and helpless?
>
>
> As we know if children are not socialised into human society, they can
> turn out with little or no capacity for empathy, posses few if any
> social skills, and in extreme cases end up "wolf children".
>
> This is to say that unless a child is taught that lying and
> disobedience are wrong they will see nothing wrong with lying or being
> disobedient.
True. Kids don't need to be taught to behave badly. It's natural for them.
Any parent can have a practical lesson in original sin.
>
> Now Adam did not have the benefit of parents, and was not socialised
> into human society. Presumably you would maintain that since he was
> created "mature," his social and other psychological skills were
> created along with him and as such expressly designed by God
> presumably with rather more precision that the mere actuality of a
> good, honest, moral upbringing could supply.
>
> Which leads to the question as to why God thought it appropriate to
> create a person whose internal reality was such that he had no problem
> lying and being disobedient?
That was the result of the Fall, and it was allowed so that the Redemption
could also happen.
>
> >But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the
bits
> >prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
> >criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
> >already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we
don't
> >see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good
idea
> >for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have
him
> >playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War
and
> >Peas".)
>
> and men say there is no hell.....
>
> [snip]
>
Heh.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> napisał w wiadomości
news:0rjhvv0t3dg5sme9f...@Pern.rk...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:59:07 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>
> >That having been said you have no evidence that my omphological
explanation
> >is wrong.
>
> That's shifting the burden.
>
> >Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but
random
> >products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
>
> First - was there really a Christ? Objective evidence?
"My sheep hear my voice".
Uncle Davey
Therion Ware
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:08:27 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
>
>Użytkownik "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> napisał w wiadomości
>news:sm3gvv4070sm0ubf0...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
>> Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
>> free.christians
>>
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >So that things would actually work.
>> >
>> >When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
>> >lying on his back and helpless?
>>
>> Which raises an interesting point.
>>
>> As we know if children are not socialised into human society, they can
>> turn out with little or no capacity for empathy, posses few if any
>> social skills, and in extreme cases end up "wolf children".
>>
>> This is to say that unless a child is taught that lying and
>> disobedience are wrong they will see nothing wrong with lying or being
>> disobedient.
>
>True. Kids don't need to be taught to behave badly. It's natural for them.
>Any parent can have a practical lesson in original sin.
I'd be more inclined to say that it's not so much that they behave
badly, but that they have not been taught to behave well.
>> Now Adam did not have the benefit of parents, and was not socialised
>> into human society. Presumably you would maintain that since he was
>> created "mature," his social and other psychological skills were
>> created along with him and as such expressly designed by God
>> presumably with rather more precision that the mere actuality of a
>> good, honest, moral upbringing could supply.
>>
>> Which leads to the question as to why God thought it appropriate to
>> create a person whose internal reality was such that he had no problem
>> lying and being disobedient?
>
>That was the result of the Fall, and it was allowed so that the Redemption
>could also happen.
But hang on a minute - the initial act of disobedience was pre-fall!
>> >But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the bits
>> >prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
>> >criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
>> >already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we don't
>> >see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good idea
>> >for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have him
>> >playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War and
>> >Peas".)
>>
>> and men say there is no hell.....
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>Heh.
>
>Uncle Davey
>
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Therion Ware
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:26:04 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
>
Sure. But sheep hear all kinds of voices, mostly on a mutually
contradictory basis. How is the interested onlooker to differentiate
between mutually contradictory "God told me" claims?
Uncle Davey
> > > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > > > R.Schenck wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel
of
> > the
> > > > > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > > > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got
a
> > bit
> > > > > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you
have
> > in
> > > > > > mind.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
"really"
> > > > > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of
years
> > old.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > > > > probably won't tell us.
> > > > >
> > > >
the
> > > > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born
baby,
> > lying on his back and helpless?
> >
>
> garden is no more helpless than an adult in the garden. a three week
> old zygote would be no more helpless in the garden either.
Zygotes are clearly not designed for gardening prior to a lot of other
things happening to them.
I think you have a taste for surrealism.
>
> > But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the
bits
> > prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
> > criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
> > already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we
don't
> > see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good
idea
> > for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have
him
> > playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War
and
> > Peas".)
> >
> > Joking aside, if we see by common observance that we are the only
> > intelligent life, the only that can understand concepts such as freedom,
and
> > seek to investigate the world, regardless of the time available in
> > evolutionary theory and the space for others to have got there first,
then
> > is it so strange for this scene to have been set for us, rather than
having
> > us as accidental by-products of a dumb algorithm?
> >
>
> yes it would be strange to use evidence (there are no other
> intelligent lifeforms) to conclude anything about a metaphysical
> realm. perhaps it can reinforce you faith, but anything can do that.
> if anything it all falls apart if/when we do find life on other
> planets, so your faith seems to fall on evidence? why shoudl any
> evidence make you drop your faith? look at it this way, if a man had
> never met anyone outside of his tribe, he would assume everything
> existed for his tribe. so when he sees something made by antoher
> tribe, unfamiliar to him, he will make of it what he pleases. and not
> matter how much evidence of other tribes he is shown, he will never
> accept them, until he comes running into them oneday. meanwhile,
> someone who acts in a logical scientific matter will be able to
> conclude that there are other tribes out there, and make contact with
> them. i don't mean this necessarily in the sense that the other
> tribes are "aliens" are anything like that, but rather that teh other
> tribes represent the scientific world and our ability to study it.
> >
> > > > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
the
> > > > ensuing tectonics.
> > > >
> > >
> > > if they were there from a flood then they are definitly misleading, as
> > > they contradict in everyway a flood account.
> > >
> >
> > The Flood is the first part of it, and since that time tremendous
tectonic
> > activity took place.
> >
>
> so i gather you are saying that every fossil (more or less) was
> deposited during the flood, and then afterwards it some how got sorted
> into the order we see it in now, and order that just so happens to
> conform to the predication of a theory of evolution, and an order that
> if we study it can lead us to conclude (falsely here) that this
> evolution occured via natural selection?
>
The thing is it isn't always in order.
People are seeing what they expect.
> >
> > > > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> > religions of
> > > > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
he
> > made
> > > > the world.
> > > >
> > >
> > > so he just mislead everyone who hadnt been exposed to genesis and
> > > everyone who has not yet been exposed to geneisis.
> > >
> >
> > The genesis account has been known by all generations that have sought
to
> > find a solution in evolution.
> >
>
> what? no it hasn't. there are people who know about evolution but
> have never read genesis or the bible. you think every university
> student in china is reading the bible? and what, if you have heard
> the slightest murmur of the bible or christ, even a garbled (due to
> cross cultural transmission) account of christ? or do you aslso assue
> that everytime someone talks about christ orthe bible the holy ghost
> intervenes to make sure the message gets across? why not just put a
> bible in every house, since you're asking for miracles anyway? oh,
> and which genesis account, not that it matters.
They are the same account from two different styles of telling.
And obviously the Chinese still don't all have access to the Bible, even
though in fact the Word went to China very early on and there was a Church
there before there was one in Britain.
>
> > Other than that, the testimony of the world on minds untutored by
humanist
> > sciences is that there is a God or gods.
> >
>
> but your saying that the 'world' is created in such a way as to lead
> people to conclude that evolution by natural selection and commyn
> descent is what happens/happened. and the theory of natural selection
> is not a part of humanism. humanists might look to it, but its simply
> isn't. darwin explicitly said that there is nothign in nature or his
> theory that can tell us anything about ethics and morality. he left
> that up to religion and faith, you know, metaphysics.
>
And my metaphysics says that the algorithm was only notional prior to ten
thousand years or so ago.
> > > > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > > > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> > > >
> > >
> > > so you agree that evolution happens anyway, just that the earth is
> > > young
> >
> > The earth was created mature, and the process of natural selection and
> > speciation continue apace, but generally speaking genomes devolve,
entropy
> > enters their system,
>
> i am sorry but this is simply not what happens, new species are
> observed to evolve, entropy has no effect on the maintenance of living
> systems, at least not in the way you are talking about, if for no
> other reason than that living systems are not closed systems.
>
Give an example of speciation that has been observed which has made the new
species more vigourous than their common ancestor.
> > bacteria devolve out of human cells,
>
> so now you are rejecting germ theory? there is nothing about bacteria
> that can lead us to conclude that they are devolved bits of human
> cells, certainly no more than we can conclude that maggots arise from
> putrifaction.
Hmmmn. What about that woman whose cells gave rise to a new species of
bacteria under lab conditions. She's in your FAQs somewhere, as proof that
one species can turn to another, but that is devolution of human DNA into
germ DNA.
>
> > animals that are
> > less vigourous from animals that were stronger.
>
> thats really subjective and not really correct either. are you saying
> that as lions hunt their prey, over time, those prey populations are
> becoming, on average at least, weaker and weaker? and this is
> happening because the predator is culling out the weak and letting the
> strong continue to breed? Your're saying tht animals, who have
> inheritable characteristics which you would class as 'strong' are
> producing offspring that, because of the fall, have not inherited
> their paternal 'strong' adaptations but instead 'weak' ones?
Why has nothing that big existed since the dinosaurs? Why's there nothing
that big today?
>
> >It's almost like a Microsoft
> > world, even upgrade seems to lose some functionality.
> >
>
> no no no, microsoft is a more accurate description of hell then earth
> after the fall. at least purgatory.
>
> > The kinds God put here at the creation moment are still discreet kinds,
and
> > nothing has crossed kind.
>
> so got created, say, cat kind, and dog kind. and he also created an
> intermidiate kind, one that if we look at scientifically we will
> conclude that it is the last commyn ancestor of cats and dogs. and he
> also created all those kinds between that last commyn ancestor of cats
> and dogs and the cat and dog kinds. and all the kinds before that.
> and then he killed them all, either by not putting them on the ark or
> in some other way, leaving us with just cat kind and just dog kind.
I don't think there was ever an actual common ancestor to both cats and dogs
actually walking the earth.
There may have been, but I see no reason for it.
Notionally, you could posit a common ancestor.
Notionally you can posit a first human language differentiating from the
simple grunts of apes, but such a language never existed.
When babies start to talk, they make consonant sounds which cannot even be
transcribed by the letters of most languages. Yesterday, my little boy was
making a noise with his tongue a bit like the clopping of horses hooves. I
think the sound exists in bushpeople's languages, but since kids everywhere
naturally make this sound and then have to unlearn it to make way for the
consonants that exist in language almost universally, wouldn't language, if
it evolved have had consonants like those noises babies make which we cannot
even transcribe in Indo European languages, although we can imitate them
perfectly well?
>
> >Some have been made extinct, mainly in the flood
> > and aftermath,
>
> i thougth all animals were on the ark. some in pairs, some in sets of
> seven. why didnt the 'clean' ie kosher kinds that are now extinct not
> get saved? why did the non-kosher animals get saved at all by the
> way?
There is more to getting saved than being kosher.
Being kosher gives you a prior right, but salvation has been offered to
non-Jews also.
>
> > and the activities of Nimrod's gang and later human activity
> > right up to today's date.
> >
> > > (snip the fairy tale about acccounting, and why theren't arent aliens,
> > > timetravelers, or alien time travelers, and oh yeah the anti-catholic
> > > propaganda)
> >
> > I don't take pleasure in criticising the RCs, and as I have said, a lot
of
> > individuals in that Church are surely redeemed people.
> >
> ah yes, but you think that the pope is the anti-christ. hopefully
> that kind of talk won't lead to anti-catholic purgers like it has
> before.
>
I certainly think the office of Pope is very antichristian. Christ is head
of his own Church and usurpal by a man is not necessary.
Or by a woman, in the case of Anglicanism.
> > >
> > > look, that was all very nice. you have faith. great. you agree that
> > > logical empiricism cant answer questions about faith. good. so,
> > > maybe there has been a misunderstanding here. do you or do you not
> > > beleive that your faith should be taught in public high schools?
> >
> > I have never said it should be, or shouldn't be.
> >
>
> you indicate below that it should be, in so far as teachers, if they
> want, should be allowed to teach it.
>
> > I believe teachers of whatever belief should be allowed to give an
account
> > of what they believe, whether they are atheists, Christians, Jews,
Muslims,
> > as long as they don't go over the top and usurp the home's prior right
to
> > give a philosophy and code to the children.
>
> so then you have no problem with yer children, (or your neices and
> nephews, right ) from having to study the creation account of the
> koran in order to pass high school biology. or studying the ilead so
> they can see how the gods need eat ambrosia and drink nectar. infact,
> they can teach whatever they want, no matter how unscientific it is,
> and will be paid out of tax money in order to do it.
>
> > In the main they should be
> > allowed to be people with a professional calling, and not given
blinkered
> > guidelines by the state.
> >
>
> teaching religion in schools would be blinkering teachers.
>
> > I don't want atheist teachers teaching my kids how to worship God.
>
> well, according to you, atheists can fail a child for beleif in god,
> because people are allowed to make their beleifs part of a class
> curiculum.
>
> > What
> > point would there be in that? What would be the point in me teaching
Islam
> > in a scgool, when I don't believe that. Teachers should be hired
according
> > to their ability,
>
> ability to what, tho? ability to teach? to teach what? their own
> personal views? or science?
To teach.
That's why they are called 'teachers'.
Many of them my have perfectly acceptable and fantastic personal views about
what they teach. Maybe my history teacher did, but I don't know, as I
couldn't be kept interested by his droning for more than two minutes out of
every lesson.
>
> >and then they should teach according to their competence
> > and their conscience.
> >
>
> so should we have a state regulation for conscience then? any person
> who claims to be a science teacher and yet tries to include his/her
> personal view on faith in the curiculum has a pretty low conscience.
>
We've seen quite enough state interference in the teaching profession as it
is.
Just pay them decent money, then you'll get decent teachers.
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
> > I am all for a free market in ideas, even to kids, as long as things
overtly
> > wicked, like the occult, drugs, denial of the holocaust and things which
> > could facilitate their sexual abuse are kept well away.
> >
> >
>
> why exclude the occult? if the teacher is a pagan, then why should'nt
> they teach the pagan stories of creation?
I'm not sure anybody believes them literally. I think most wiccans and
pagans are adherents of darwinism, but if you like we can ask them.
Free.christians has an ongoing dialogue, at varying degrees of courtesy,
with their Usenet groups.
>
> > >do
> > > you or do you not beleive that your faith should be researched with
> > > public grants?
> >
> > No. It is enough if some tax rebate on believers (of all faiths)
donations
> > to their charities are given. Additional grants are not required. The
> > children of God should fund our own projects, and not go cap in hand to
> > atheists.
> >
> >
>
> then you agree that aig and icr and id institutes should never receive
> government funding either. excellent we are in agreeance on that.
>
All these organisations ought to receive is the donations of believers and
those donations should have the same tax breaks as other charitable
donations. I believe that should be the same for all.
In the UK, we had an organisation called Keston College which was a
government funded organisation for tracking religious persecution in the
USSR and other places. Not sure what they do now. They did produce a lot of
data which could be used but of course they were unable to distinguish
between JWs, Mormons and other cults on the one hand and the baptists,
pentecostalists and other evangelicals on the other. It was like
co-operating with the world sometimes working with them.
On the other hand the Soviet Baptists had their own Mission, which was far
more effective. It's safe now to say that this mission gave us most of the
live info, and when the Soviets found out we knew more than we should, they
automatically blamed Keston. The upside of this was, I didn't need to get
pressured to reveal anything about the actual source, since they thought
they had the source, but the downside was, they thought I was working for MI
5, as they had the idea that Keston was controlled by MI 5, and that only
that way they could know the things they knew. I thought at one point I
would not get out of Russia in 1985, but they ejected me and just took it
all out on my then girlfriend.
I am all for believers standing on their own feet without their cap in hand
to the government or to the world.
> > do you or do you not believe that evolution should be
> > > taught in a -science- class room? everything you've been talking
> > > about seems to indicate that you agree that science should be taught
> > > in a science class and the state should not enforce you religious
> > > views. so lets just get a good, clear statement as to the veracity of
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > I have no problem with teaching evolution in a science class, as long as
it
> > is taught ethically, together with what we don't really know yet.
> >
>
> how can we teach what we dont know? and if we could teach it, why
> would we?
>
We should teach that certain things are not certain. Instead of saying to
kids 'here's a dinosaurs skeleton' we should let them know how many of the
bones are real, how many are plastic, and what the margin for error is in
the reconstruction. Things like that. And things like the fact that we
cannot get DNA out of dinosaur fossil bones, so we can't check everything
genetically that we've assumed from morphology. Things like that.
> > I was never taught anything but evolution in school. I don't believe the
> > subject has been anywhere near discussion in the UK, where there are
hardly
> > any creationists, and still by looking into it as a little boy, with no
> > contact to Christians, I nevertheless started to believe that too much
was
> > contrived and the real answer lay elsewhere.
> >
>
> what was contrived? aren't you the one with the belief that
> everything was made to look in such a way so as to conform with your
> own beleifs? that sounds a bit contrived.
No more than those who fill in the gaps in evolution to accord with their
beliefs. When I first came on here, I asked about chlorophyll, and never got
a straight answer.
>
> > So let them teach wordly wisdom in wordly schools.
>
> yeah, science in science class rooms. not feelings, not opinions, not
> religion.
>
> > But let them do it in an
> > honest way, and also allow for the fact when teaching religious studies
>
> religious studies are not nor should they be taught in schools. i
> understand you aer posting from poland, so things might be different
> there.
Religious studies are on the curriculum all over Europe.
In my school it was part of so-called "EPR" or 'Education on Personal
Relationships'. We were supposed to be taught the basic facts concerning all
the world religions.
>
> >that
> > a mature creation could have been made with a mature looking earth soe
ten
> > thousand years ago, and that wouldn't contradict any science.
> >
>
> if it doesn't contradict science, they why are you teaching it? how
> is your theory any different from saying everything started after i
> sent the original post, with the appearnce of great age and what not?
> the only reason you have that "omphalos" idea is because you feel you
> need it in order to literally interpret the bible. what about people
> who dont want to do that? are you going to have them learn that
> theory?
>
All they need is to be aware of it.
> > Let the kids who wish to opt into alternative views of origins have the
> > chance to pick that option at A level.
>
> ah, here we have the problem of cultural differences. we dont have A
> level and what not here. if A level students are wise enough to make
> their own decisions, then let them do it on their own time. if its
> not worth their time to study thier own beleifs, why is it worth the
> states and -everyones- time?
The time they spend at education after _16_ is their own time. Education at
that age is not obligatory in the UK.
We are giving people the option at A level to study the areas they wish.
This is not the case so much at O level, or GCSE as it is now called, where
there are minimum requirements for Maths, English, foreign languages and
Science.
> > By then, they are able to understand
> > the arguments coming from either side. Under 16 I would not trouble them
> > with too much of the details.
> >
> > The elect will believe the Truth anyway.
>
> then why bother.
>
It's called giving people the information that there are choices available.
> > And we should sometimes look to
> > keeping our dignity.
>
> the concept of dignitas has nothing to do you judeo-christianity.
Of course it does.
>
> >Tussling over creationism in schools is not something I
> > would do, myself.
> >
>
> if by this you now mean science teachers are only allowed to teach
> science in science classrooms, then i have no arguement with you what
> so ever.
>
> a person's beleifs are just that. i wouldn't dream of trying to
> persuade someone out of their own faith or beliefs. but if you or
> anyone else think for a moment that the public is going to allow
> radical fundamentalists to invade our school systems, uproot our
> constitution and even begin to allow fundies to teach creation in
> mandatory classrooms then you can forget it. before long its obvious
> they will be teaching that the pope is anti-christ in history class,
> and that its alright to stuff adders down the throats of
> non-converters in ethics. what the creationsists,who amount to little
> more than pan-theists, not true beleivers but primitives fearful of
> the thunder and storm and the god that runs it, are trying to do in
> this country, and apparently australia too, is bring us back into the
> dark ages and completely undermine the enlightenment and renaissance
> the gave birth to this country.
>
You set up an independent America to be free.
Freedom means, freedom of choices.
Salvation means, having faith in Christ as a free choice, and not because
the faith is forced on us. That doesn't make for any saving faith. We don't
create Christians by passing laws, we don't create Christians by carnal
means of indoctrination, such as the psychological methods cults use,
love-bombing, questionnaires, hypnotism, all that shit. We don't create
Christians by proving that what we believe is true and winning arguments
about science either.
Each of these methods produces false conversions. Instead of real fruit we
have clockwork oranges, people who have done the right thing not freely, and
therefore not meaningfully.
The freedom which you won is the ideal environment for people to attain to
true salvation. Once people have that, they sometimes misguidedly seek to
bring others in by force, but it doesn't work.
We have to give our views, exchange our opinions, love the lost and pray.
We can't bully you into the fold of God.
Any Christian wishing to do that has misunderstood something.
But God clearly is calling people, and swelling the ranks of his Church,
both in places of freedom, and in places where there is massive opposition.
The worst environment of all is when we try and use force to get people onto
God's side. This was done in catholic history, and the fundamentalists who
want to repeat the experience will find that if it could happen to the early
church fathers that it all went pear shaped after Christianity became an
imposed state religion, then it will not fare any better with them.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:e707421e.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
>
>
Possibly to put us in mind of the end of time.
Supernovas and other phases in the life of a star lead men to understand
black holes, the medium God will possibly use to reel in the universe quite
shortly.
Uncle Davey
> > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> > ensuing tectonics.
>
> No, they're not; no flood and no tectonics would arrange them in the
> way they are arranged. Fossils, like the rocks in which they're
> embedded and the DNA in the cells of their apparent descendents, tell
> a consistent *history* that does not include a global flood.
>
> The age, and origin, and history of the Universe, the Earth, and life
> on Earth are written in the spectra of light from the stars, in the
> isotope ratios of the rocks beneath our feet, and in the DNA of the
> cells within our bodies. If you believe God wrote this story instead
> of letting it happen, then so be it; but don't pretend the story isn't
> there, for you then show contempt for the Creation whose Creator you
> say you worship.
Are you claiming the fossil record is complete?
Where are all the internmediate forms?
>
> >
> > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
religions of
> > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he
made
> > the world.
> >
> > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
>
> Not just a bit, but exactly. There need be no conflict between
> omphalos creationists and mainstream science, and to the extent there
> is it's because the omphalos creationist dishonestly shies away from
> the implications of his claim-of-convenience. To the honest omphalos
> creationist, the apparent history of the universe and earth and life
> is not a "lie", it is a *fiction* -- but only if the universe was
> created "mature" IN EVERY DETAIL.
>
That's an interesting argument for full Gosse flavoured Omphalism, rather
than my Omphalism-Lite.
I do feel sorry for Gosse. He meant well, and he hoped to build a bridge
between faith and science, but both sides got upset with him in the end.
Probably quite consistent with his ideas being true, though.
> An analogy. There is no conflict, for many religious people, in seeing
> the fortuitous hand of God in many events for which there is *also* a
> mundane explanation. A thunderstorm may postpone a trip and turn out
> to have some fortuitous side effect, and this is attributed to God,
> but few people would deny the science of meteorology. If God created
> the universe as a creationist would say, he did so in a way that *also
> presents a non-supernatural explanation*, whether you accept the
> non-supernatural explanation or not.
>
Fair comment, but where's your non-supernatural explanation for the new
creation, preferably one that doesn't involve us waiting another several
trillion years for the resurrection bodies and the new heavens and earth?
'For me to live is Christ, for me to die is gain.' I don't read anything
about gain this much postponed.
>
> > Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
they
> > say.
>
> I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
> one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
> of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
> religiously based?
>
> A distrust of science coupled with ignorance of science is simple
> stupid arrogance.
>
What you don't know you shouldn't trust. That's not arrogance, that IS
science.
>
> > Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually
to
> > run its lengthy course?
>
> Indeed. You may think so if you like. You may equivalently think
> that all history up to your own birth was a fiction, as a solipsist
> does. But to pretend the history *isn't there* is insanity and
> willful disregard of reality -- it is a lie.
>
> The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
> > anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
> > action when Man starts on the scene.
>
> Perhaps god is more important than Man, and has other interests
> besides Us. Does this enter into your equation, or do you insist that
> god has no other interest in Our universe but Our position in it? Why
> is your god so puny?
The Universe, we are told, is built to last human history and then comes to
an end. God could have told us he has many other projects in mind for the
planet, but that isn't what the Bible actually imparts.
For all we know, God could have universes of angels, but we know that he has
done something special and unique with this Universe, and with humanity, for
we are in his image, and ransomed by His own Son's blood.
>
> But also, equivalent to your claim, whatever Almighty is there might
> also have started the real action on May 3, 1966, as there would have
> been no point to anything before that moment either, from My
> perspective. Doesn't it sound egocentric when put that way?
>
> > Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> > chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
> > making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> > understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
>
> Nothing prior to me was what I am, and therefore nothing prior to me
> was of any importance. If you think my claim is egocentric, yours is
> too.
I see I am sharing the planet with other people as intelligent as or more
intelligent than I, but I do not see that we are sharing the planet or any
of the known universe with other life forms of which I can say the same.
I believe that would also be your unbiassed observation??
>
> But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
> specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
> claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
> my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
>
> The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
> the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
> humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
> omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
> prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*, just as light
> still shows warping around gravity fields hundreds of millions of
> light-years away whether the light was post-created in transit or not.
The interesting thing about a black hole is that as it sucks light back into
itself, you cannot see its event horizon coming and it is on you before you
have any clue about it.
Like a thief in the night.
>
> > Man has been set here to see if he will accept salvation based on faith
on
> > what Christ did.
>
> ... which happened many thousands of years *after* the supposed
> creation event you describe. Why not be more fair and consistent, and
> say everything *before Christ* was a fiction?
He states Himself that there was time before Abraham.
"Before Abraham was, I am".
>
> > Either by pagan religions, which as has been hammered home
> > here often enough when not thought of as a point in our side, even pagan
> > religions had an unnamed christ figure,
>
> Mithras was unnamed? What is 'Mithras', if not his name? And why not
> provide the sacrifice up-front? Hardly seems fair.
Up front of what?
Compare the number of people who lived prior to Christ and the number alive
afterwards.
The population of humans prior to Christ's time was the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
According to this data, if you graph it out, over 90% of the people who have
ever lived to date have lived in the age of grace.
Please note also the mercy of God in how the populations were not allowed to
start rising strongly from the time the Catholic church went badly wrong
until the Reformation (so much for Catholics being all about large familes
and Protestants having smaller ones) when the Truth was out there.
Please note these are secular figures, not creationist or Christian sources.
> You misrepresent, anyway. Dying/resurrecting gods started when
> agriculture started, because they represent seeds and seasonal
> renewal. Seeing everything through your own lens is one of the
> hallmarks of egocentrism -- and lack of empathy.
>
I would tend to say that seasonality started so that people could understand
certain things related to death and resurrection every year.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> >
> > Then I'm afraid their conversions could well be valueless.
> >
> > We wanna bring forth fruit so badly, we don't always check it's not
plastic.
> >
>
>
>
> Who is this "we", Davey . . . . .
Evangelicals.
Uncle Davey
Douglas Berry
stranger called by some Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
>On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
><no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>
>>U?ytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>>news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...
>
>>> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>
>>So that things would actually work.
>
>>When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
>>lying on his back and helpless?
>
>That doesn't explain why we need "fossils" of "dinosaurs" that "died"
>"millions of years ago". Or why we need to see a universe 37 billion
>light years in diameter, rather than one 12,000 light years in
>diameter.
Or have cosmic background noise at 3 degrees Kelvin, which is exactly
what we'd expect for a universe about 15 billion years old.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Liz
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> in news message
<be9ivvcf88tp2oelt...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:08:27 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
>Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
>free.christians
>
>
>
>>
>>Użytkownik "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> napisał w wiadomości
>>news:sm3gvv4070sm0ubf0...@4ax.com...
[-----]
>>True. Kids don't need to be taught to behave badly. It's natural for them.
>>Any parent can have a practical lesson in original sin.
>
>I'd be more inclined to say that it's not so much that they behave
>badly, but that they have not been taught to behave well.
Primarily, children have learned by example. They are little mirrors
to their parents bad behavior and prejudices, but few parents can see
their own reflection.
>>> Now Adam did not have the benefit of parents, and was not socialised
>>> into human society. Presumably you would maintain that since he was
>>> created "mature," his social and other psychological skills were
>>> created along with him and as such expressly designed by God
>>> presumably with rather more precision that the mere actuality of a
>>> good, honest, moral upbringing could supply.
>>>
>>> Which leads to the question as to why God thought it appropriate to
>>> create a person whose internal reality was such that he had no problem
>>> lying and being disobedient?
>>
>>That was the result of the Fall, and it was allowed so that the Redemption
>>could also happen.
>
>But hang on a minute - the initial act of disobedience was pre-fall!
Don't get all nitpicky, Therion. But it also brings up the question
of why GodŽ would knowingly allow character traits that would result
*in (not of) the FallŽ, which would allow the RedemptionŽ to happen,
which would not have been necessary if those character traits had not
been allowed because the FallŽ would have never happened.
And round and round we go . . .
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with
a passionate need for external authority and guidance,
pretending not to trust their own judgement. - Alan Watts
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>
> > They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
>
>
>
> earth . . . . .
>
>
>
> >
> > Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
> > them at all.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
> really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
>
>
It's not crucial whether we think there's one or not, we're not gonna get
there anyway.
>
>
>
>
> >>Last Thursdayism?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Last Thursdayism would imply a deceptive God
>
>
>
>
> Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
> not"?
>
>
More like 'I told you the stars were there as lights, and that's all the
benefit you'll get out of them. Don't read anything more into them than
that.'.
>
>
>
> , as we would have false
> > memories and everything. Any creation of men after Adam other than the
> > preparation of a special body for Christ would make nonsense of the
whole.
> >
>
>
>
> Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
> doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
>
> Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
> messenger of God . . . ?
>
>
I've never said that.
You keep on ascribing those words to me.
>
>
> >
> >>>The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
> >>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>ensuing tectonics.
> >>
> >>Not even possible, for so many reasons, I'm just not going to get into
> >>it right now. Instead, check out the links, and when you are done
> >>ignoring them, we can dig deeper into the subject : )
> >>
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
> >>
> >>http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html
> >>
> >>http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/gc_intro.html
> >>
> >
> >
> > I won't ignore tham, but I'll deal with them later on.
>
>
>
>
>
> Maybe, just maybe you should have dealt with them BEFORE you decided to
> yammer stupidly about yet another topic that you don't know anything
> about . . . .?
>
The order is not unimportant. I achieved the links precisely BY yammering
stupidly, as you put it, so how
could I have looked at them before?
Evolutionists' logic, you've got.
>
> >>
> >>Billions of years isn't actual time? Is it fake time?
> >
> >
> > First you tell me what time is, in your understanding, and how it
relates to
> > matter and energy.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Are you a cosmologist now, in addition to your other many talents, Davey?
No, Lenny. I'm not even an armchair cosmologist.
Even my herpetology is better than my cosmology, but the question is fine
anyway.
> > The problem with physicits is that they don't see how the laws of
> > thermodynamics carry over into other fields of life.
>
>
>
>
> What the fuck are you blithering about.
>
I see some entropy's gotten into your manners.
>
>
>
> >
> > Or, if not, please can someone give me the definitive family tree of
> > hominids and australopithecids that every evolutionist on here is happy
to
> > sign up to?
> >
>
>
>
>
> No, we can't. Not until all the data is in (and all the data is never
> in). >shrug>
>
> But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
> creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
> to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
> simple thing to all of His followers?
>
It's alright for us to have differences on secondary issues.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>
> . Only pure faith
> > salvation leaves no room for boasting.
>
>
>
>
> You mean like "I am God's Messenger"? Is THAT the kind of "boasting"
> you are referring to?
>
1. Like I said that, and
2. Like that would be a cause for boasting.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "H,R.Gruemm" <psych...@xpoint.at> napisał w wiadomości
news:5662bb3.04010...@posting.google.com...news:<bt9319$d4d$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w
wiadomości
> > news:3cbfvvg8qc3mjik0q...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:07:00 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> > > <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
>
> > Several places place faith and works in apposition, including your no
doubt
> > well perused Letter of James.
> >
> > If obedience is not faith, it is works. If obedience were necessary for
> > salvation, then some room for boasting would be left. Only pure faith
> > salvation leaves no room for boasting. "Not of works, lest any man
should
> > boast."
>
> Apparently you are a Paulist, and not a Christian. Jesus - if we are
> to believe Matthew - set up a necessary and sufficient criterion for
> entering heaven: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. Those are
> obviously works; the passage says nothing about faith.
>
> Regards,
> HRG.
>
I'm sure I've fed more hungry and clothed more naked than most people.
The government of course takes the credit, but I made the money they've done
it with.
And of course, without God's gifts I couldn't have made the money.
I'm happy it's used for the poor, but not happy such a big slice goes to
feed bureaucrats who could be in the productive economy also.
When taxation means our good works, the major part that we could do, are
done on behalf of us and without choice on our part, then you're right about
it having nothing to do with faith.
Uncle Davey
AC
Perhaps you misunderstood the term "objective evidence".
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Uncle Davey
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:26:04 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians, Uncle
> Davey ("Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com>) said, directing the reply to
> free.christians
>
>
>
> >
> >Użytkownik "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> napisał w wiadomości
> >news:0rjhvv0t3dg5sme9f...@Pern.rk...
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:59:07 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> >> <no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >That having been said you have no evidence that my omphological
explanation
> >> >is wrong.
> >>
> >> That's shifting the burden.
> >>
> >> >Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but
random
> >> >products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
> >>
> >> First - was there really a Christ? Objective evidence?
> >
> >"My sheep hear my voice".
>
> Sure. But sheep hear all kinds of voices, mostly on a mutually
> contradictory basis. How is the interested onlooker to differentiate
> between mutually contradictory "God told me" claims?
>
We can check the way the professing person deals with the Bible, the length
of time their interpretation survives, if they make false prophesies or
bring forth no fruit or false fruit.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
So it was.
The disobedience was pre-Fall, the lying was post fall.
God gave in this world freedom of decision and a credible alternative.
Here we have the credible alternative of evolution against the faith in
creation. There we had the serpent's beguiling, and tempting with forbidden
knowledge.
But then, as now, Adam was free to choose, and he chose to be disobedient.
That one sin was enough for all other sins to follow, post Fall.
Why was the Fall ever allowed? Some say with it being allowed as an option,
there could have been no free will.
That is true. We would have with no need for a saviour.
Is that better than being in Christ? Evidently not.
Ask any angel, they desire to look into the things of men, as we have been
granted far more blessings than they.
Best
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Liz" <ehu...@donotspam.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:d0nivvsbie2erggdn...@4ax.com...
Evidently it's better to be lost and found than always to be okay in the
first place.
Evidently the sonship we have as redeemed beings, and the communion with God
that we have as coming to him in that way, outstrips the blessings of the
angels who were created perfect and always stayed that way. They are called
ministering servants to the heirs of salvation.
Trust God, it'll be all right in the end for those who go with the flow and
accept the Word, trusting in Christ and not themselves, for their salvation.
Uncle Davey
eyelessgame
> Użytkownik "eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> napisał w wiadomości
> news:e707421e.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> >
> > > He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are the
> > > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
> >
> > "Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
> >
>
> Possibly to put us in mind of the end of time.
Or possibly not, since for some reason that's not what scientists talk
or think about when they talk of SN1987A -- though it *is* used as a
dramatic simple illustration of the hoops through which omphalism must
leap, since calculating the distance to -- and therefore time since --
SN1987A is a simple bit of trigonometry.
Almost like it was there for *that* purpose.
Kind of like the miraculous cooperation of chemical elements and
physical isotopes that produces an isochron and unambiguously tells
you the time since a rock formed. There's no reason physical law
*had* to be set up to make it possible to find a rock's age this
clearly.
Almost like it was meant to be.
[snip]
> > > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and the
> > > ensuing tectonics.
> >
> > No, they're not; no flood and no tectonics would arrange them in the
> > way they are arranged. Fossils, like the rocks in which they're
> > embedded and the DNA in the cells of their apparent descendents, tell
> > a consistent *history* that does not include a global flood.
> >
> > The age, and origin, and history of the Universe, the Earth, and life
> > on Earth are written in the spectra of light from the stars, in the
> > isotope ratios of the rocks beneath our feet, and in the DNA of the
> > cells within our bodies. If you believe God wrote this story instead
> > of letting it happen, then so be it; but don't pretend the story isn't
> > there, for you then show contempt for the Creation whose Creator you
> > say you worship.
>
> Are you claiming the fossil record is complete?
Of course not. Don't be absurd. Why would it have to be 'complete'?
It's more than sufficient. But the strongest evidence for evolution
isn't the fossil record anyway. You might consider what I wrote --
our history is written in the DNA of our cells.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Just as an example. Great apes and humans have an error in their DNA
that renders nonfunctional the vitamin C production that all other
mammals can do. It's the same mistake, in the same place. Why is
that?
>
> Where are all the internmediate forms?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
Want more? Others on talk.origins can provide them.
> > > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> religions of
> > > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how he
> made
> > > the world.
> > >
> > > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> >
> > Not just a bit, but exactly. There need be no conflict between
> > omphalos creationists and mainstream science, and to the extent there
> > is it's because the omphalos creationist dishonestly shies away from
> > the implications of his claim-of-convenience. To the honest omphalos
> > creationist, the apparent history of the universe and earth and life
> > is not a "lie", it is a *fiction* -- but only if the universe was
> > created "mature" IN EVERY DETAIL.
> >
>
> That's an interesting argument for full Gosse flavoured Omphalism, rather
> than my Omphalism-Lite.
>
> I do feel sorry for Gosse. He meant well, and he hoped to build a bridge
> between faith and science, but both sides got upset with him in the end.
> Probably quite consistent with his ideas being true, though.
*shrug* I find omphalism at least as vacant as solipsism, but it's
what you're advocating. You're just shying away from the
implications.
> > An analogy. There is no conflict, for many religious people, in seeing
> > the fortuitous hand of God in many events for which there is *also* a
> > mundane explanation. A thunderstorm may postpone a trip and turn out
> > to have some fortuitous side effect, and this is attributed to God,
> > but few people would deny the science of meteorology. If God created
> > the universe as a creationist would say, he did so in a way that *also
> > presents a non-supernatural explanation*, whether you accept the
> > non-supernatural explanation or not.
> >
>
> Fair comment, but where's your non-supernatural explanation for the new
> creation, preferably one that doesn't involve us waiting another several
> trillion years for the resurrection bodies and the new heavens and earth?
I don't believe in "new creation" or resurrection bodies and new
heavens and earth. That would a problem for the religious person. But
many religious people have no problem with this at all.
> 'For me to live is Christ, for me to die is gain.' I don't read anything
> about gain this much postponed.
*shrug* Your problem, not mine. But the universe appears to have
non-supernatural explanations for everything we see. Whether one also
sees the hand of God behind it is up to the viewer, imho.
> > > Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
> they
> > > say.
> >
> > I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
> > one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
> > of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
> > religiously based?
> >
> > A distrust of science coupled with ignorance of science is simple
> > stupid arrogance.
> >
>
> What you don't know you shouldn't trust. That's not arrogance, that IS
> science.
Since I don't know anything about accounting, I shouldn't trust
accountants? Is that your advice, mister accountant? Why did you go
to school to learn accounting, if not to become good at a skill that
not everyone has, so that others would depend on your skill?
> > > Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history actually
> to
> > > run its lengthy course?
> >
> > Indeed. You may think so if you like. You may equivalently think
> > that all history up to your own birth was a fiction, as a solipsist
> > does. But to pretend the history *isn't there* is insanity and
> > willful disregard of reality -- it is a lie.
> >
> > The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
> > > anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the real
> > > action when Man starts on the scene.
> >
> > Perhaps god is more important than Man, and has other interests
> > besides Us. Does this enter into your equation, or do you insist that
> > god has no other interest in Our universe but Our position in it? Why
> > is your god so puny?
>
> The Universe, we are told, is built to last human history and then comes to
> an end. God could have told us he has many other projects in mind for the
> planet, but that isn't what the Bible actually imparts.
Right, and you trust the bible rather than reality.
> For all we know, God could have universes of angels, but we know that he has
> done something special and unique with this Universe, and with humanity, for
> we are in his image, and ransomed by His own Son's blood.
I note you don't respond to the charge of egocentrism. But then, the
Bible would hardly be a popular book if it didn't make the reader feel
special.
> > But also, equivalent to your claim, whatever Almighty is there might
> > also have started the real action on May 3, 1966, as there would have
> > been no point to anything before that moment either, from My
> > perspective. Doesn't it sound egocentric when put that way?
> >
> > > Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> > > chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence, capable of
> > > making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> > > understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
> >
> > Nothing prior to me was what I am, and therefore nothing prior to me
> > was of any importance. If you think my claim is egocentric, yours is
> > too.
>
> I see I am sharing the planet with other people as intelligent as or more
> intelligent than I, but I do not see that we are sharing the planet or any
> of the known universe with other life forms of which I can say the same.
>
> I believe that would also be your unbiassed observation??
So? I also share the planet with a lot of people as tall as or taller
than I am, and I don't konw of any taller people elsewhere, but I
don't consider this to be critical to the purpose of the universe.
But then, if the Bible tells you so, you will think so. Fine.
> > But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
> > specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
> > claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
> > my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
> >
> > The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
> > the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
> > humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
> > omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
> > prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*, just as light
> > still shows warping around gravity fields hundreds of millions of
> > light-years away whether the light was post-created in transit or not.
>
> The interesting thing about a black hole is that as it sucks light back into
> itself, you cannot see its event horizon coming and it is on you before you
> have any clue about it.
>
> Like a thief in the night.
There are many things about black holes that are interesting. But I
admit I had not previously considered them similar to Jesus.
Are you going to respond to the substance of what I said in the two
paragraphs above? You ignored it. Here, let me repeat, removing the
black hole part (since it got you entirely too excited):
> > But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
> > specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
> > claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
> > my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
> >
> > The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
> > the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
> > humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
> > omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
> > prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*...
[snip rest, since the above was the point I wanted to invite you to
respond to]
eyelessgame
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> In Christ, God did indeed have two arms, two legs, two eyes, and the other
> things and if that doesn't inspire you then I'm sorry for you, because
> that's how God himself achieved our salvation - by dying in that body.
>
So God is a white asexual male?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:3ff8a0e7$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the
>
> algorithm
>
>>>behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
>>>specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out
>
> evolved
>
>>>by another kind. Will Christ then come also in the image of that other
>
> kind
>
>>>again for them?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Maybe. Who are YOU to tell Christ what to do or not do?
>>
>
>
>
> I'm not telling him anything. That much is clear from the Bible account
Oops, you mis-spelled "from MY INTERPRETATION of the Bible account".
Remember, Davey, you're not God's Messenger, and your understanding of
"what the Bible really says" is no beter than my next door neighbor's or
my pizza delivery boy's, since you're not any more holy than anyone else.
You seem prone to forgetting that occasionally. never fear -- I will be
here to remind you whenever you lapse into self-righteous infallilbility.
> although Christ does mention He has 'other sheep'. The Mormons think that
> verse applies to a group of people from the Levant who sailed to America,
> but as far as I can tell, that's just a fairy story.
>
>
>
>>
>>>How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think
>
> that's
>
>>>just a metaphor?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You think it's NOT a metaphor . . . .? You're kidding, right . . . even
>>YOU cannot be THAT goddamn stupid . . . . .
>>
>>
>>Please tell me what the image of God is, Davey. Is God white or black
>>or Asian. Male or female. Blonde or brunette. Brown eyes, green or
>>blue. Tall or short. Fat or skinny. Left handed or right handed.
>>
>>Do tell, Davey.
>>
>
>
> As the tamed wolf is to the races of dog, so Adam to all the races of
> mankind.
>
> Make of that what you will.
>
I make of it that you're being evasive and not answering the question.
Naturally, that doesn't at all surprise me.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
And even assuming that the Bible (1) is the actual word of God and (2)
that actiual word of God was accurately transcribed and translated by
the various humans who wrote and edited it, how does that make YOUR
INTERPRETATIONS of it any more valid than anyone ELSE's interpretation?
Are you now claiming that not only is the Word of God infallible, but
that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are ALSO infallible?
Sorry, Davey, but I've seen the kind of "information" you spout out, and
I find the idea that you are in any way shape or form "infallible" to
be laughably ridiculous.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
>
> "My sheep hear my voice".
>
Let me guess ---- Jim Jones?
No . . . wait . . . . Ayatollah Khomeini?
No . . . . how about . . . . Charles Manson?
Do and Ti?
Jim and Tami Bakker?
L Ron Hubbard?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> That was the result of the Fall, and it was allowed so that the Redemption
> could also happen.
>
Is that your opinion, Davey, or God's opinion. Or are you once again
forgetting that "your" opinion and "God's" opinion are not one and the
same? Must I remind you YET AGAIN that you are not the infallible
Messenger of God, you're nto any holier than anyone else, and your
religious opinions are no more authoritative than anyone else's?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
>
> I'm sure I've fed more hungry and clothed more naked than most people.
>
> The government of course takes the credit, but I made the money they've done
> it with.
>
> And of course, without God's gifts I couldn't have made the money.
Without God's gifts you'd also not have made the money that the
government uses to make nuclear weapons.
Or is it your opinion that nuclear weapons are godly.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Then say so. Most Christians are not "evangelicals". In fact, most
Christians think "evangelicals" are nuts.
And in any case, "evangelicals" are not God's Messengers either, and
their religious opinions are no more authoritative than any other
Christian denomination, sect, or groupuscule.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> wiadomości news:3ff8a...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>>Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>They are only lights in the sky to shed light on the earth.
>>
>>
>>
>>Uh, what about the ones that are so far away they cannot be seen from
>>earth . . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Some of them may be only a stream of light, with no star actually behind
>>>them at all.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Really. Which ones. How can you tell.
>>
>>Is it your view that God is lying to us by making us THINK there is
>>really a star there when actually there IS NONE. . . . ?
>>
>>
>
>
> It's not crucial whether we think there's one or not, we're not gonna get
> there anyway.
>
I seeeeee. So it makes no difference whether God is a liar or not . . . .?
>>
>>Kind of like "I made it APPEAR that this star is there, but really it's
>>not"?
>>
>>
>
>
> More like 'I told you the stars were there as lights, and that's all the
> benefit you'll get out of them. Don't read anything more into them than
> that.'.
>
But Davey, you DID "read more into them than that". You read into them"
the starlight doesn't really come from a star". I don't see those words
anywhere in the Bible. Did you decide to correct God on that point all
by yourself and add those words on your own? Ever read Deuteronomy 4:2?
How about Proverbs 30:6? Revelation 22:18?
>>
>>Says you. <shrug> Fortunately, your religious opinion on the matter
>>doesn't mean any more than that of my veterinarian's. <shrug>
>>
>>Or are you now once again back to pretending that you are an infallible
>>messenger of God . . . ?
>>
>>
>
>
> I've never said that.
> You keep on ascribing those words to me.
You keep acting like one.
Or is there some other reason why you are regaling us with your
religious opinions as if they had some sort of authority and actually
answered anything.
>>
>>But please, would YOU mind giving us a theory of creation that all the
>>creationists (ODers, old-earthers, day-agers, gap-theorists) are happy
>>to sign up to? No? why not -- is God too stupid to communciate this
>>simple thing to all of His followers?
>>
>
>
> It's alright for us to have differences on secondary issues.
>
But not alright for "evolutionists", right?
Goose, say hello to gander.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>>"Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
>>
>
>
> Possibly to put us in mind of the end of time.
>
> Supernovas and other phases in the life of a star lead men to understand
> black holes, the medium God will possibly use to reel in the universe quite
> shortly.
God tell you that himself, did he?
Liz
<no...@jose.com> in news message <btcdpp$90b$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
wrote:
Except that it is not evident at all.
>
>Evidently the sonship we have as redeemed beings, and the communion with God
>that we have as coming to him in that way, outstrips the blessings of the
>angels who were created perfect and always stayed that way. They are called
>ministering servants to the heirs of salvation.
Except that it is not evident at all.
>
>Trust God, it'll be all right in the end for those who go with the flow and
>accept the Word, trusting in Christ and not themselves, for their salvation.
Trust Lint, and your laundry will be whiter than white.
Liz #658 BAAWA
"LintaneticsŽ" by L<dot> iz
A guide to a cleaner, brighter laundry.
Guaranteed to remove lamb's blood stains.
Daniel Harper
<snipped previous material>
>>
> Alright, but in this thread Frank Reichenbacher admits that the algorithm
> behind evolutionary theory is blind and simple, and didn't produce us
> specially. We're not special, according to darwinism. We can be out
> evolved by another kind.
Yes, that is highly possible in the long run. The long-term survival
advantage of intelligence is not as obvious as we like to think it is.
> Will Christ then come also in the image of that
> other kind again for them?
>
How do you know that Christ hasn't already come to the various types of
organisms and given them their own messages in their lives, the same way
He came for us by your theology. Granted, the Christ of liver flukes or
slime molds wouldn't communicate with the bretheren the same way the
Christ of humans did, but if you accept Christ's essential message as
being of healing love and salvation, what's to say that other organisms
can't have had the same kind of experience?
(Okay, of course I'm being a bit facetious here. But the overall point is
that we simply don't know what kinds of spiritual provisions other
organisms might or might not need, and so we can make no hard-and-fast
rules about their spiritual existence. If we accept Fall Theology, as I
assume you do, then isn't it at all possible that after the human race has
shuffled off this mortal coil that the replacement species might never
have a Fall to begin with?)
> How are we then ones created in the image of God? Perhaps you think that's
> just a metaphor?
>
"Just a metaphor"? Methinks you have no understanding of the power and
beauty of metaphor within sacred literature. Your theology is simplistic
and fails to reflect the nature of the real world, and you seem remarkably
immune to even the most basic concepts in a more complete theological
construction. If you think the questions you have posed here have been
difficult for theistic evolutionists, then you are quite simply mistaken.
> Uncle Davey
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> We can check the way the professing person deals with the Bible, the length
> of time their interpretation survives, if they make false prophesies or
> bring forth no fruit or false fruit.
Well, lessee . . . . Rejection of Biblical literalism has been around
since Aquinas, and the longest-running Christian church is the Roman
Catholic, which rejects literalism AND rejects creationism.
Fundamentalist inerrancy, on the other hand, comes from a series of
pamphlets published in the early 1910's.
Looks like you lose, Davey. <shrug>
Speaking of "no fruit", Davey, I've never met ANYONE, ANYONE AT ALL, who
was won to Christianity as a result of creation "sciecne". No one.
EVERY creationist I've ever met became a fundamentalist FIRST, and THEN
embraced creationism.
On the other hand, I know personally at least nine people who have been
driven AWAY from Christianity as the result of creation "science"
Let's do a little experiment here, shall we, Davey? Let's ask (1) all
the Christians here who were won over to Christianity as the result of
creation "science" to please raise their hands, and then ask (2) all the
peopole here who have been driven AWAY from Christianity as a result of
creation "science" to raise their hand, and let's see which number is
larger. let's see which bears the most "fruit" . . . . .
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> The disobedience was pre-Fall, the lying was post fall.
>
> God gave in this world freedom of decision and a credible alternative.
>
> Here we have the credible alternative of evolution against the faith in
> creation. There we had the serpent's beguiling, and tempting with forbidden
> knowledge.
>
> But then, as now, Adam was free to choose, and he chose to be disobedient.
> That one sin was enough for all other sins to follow, post Fall.
>
> Why was the Fall ever allowed? Some say with it being allowed as an option,
> there could have been no free will.
>
> That is true. We would have with no need for a saviour.
>
> Is that better than being in Christ? Evidently not.
>
> Ask any angel, they desire to look into the things of men, as we have been
> granted far more blessings than they.
>
May I respectfully ask how the hell you know what an angel thinks,
Davey? Hearing voices again, Davey?
Have you fallen once again into your "I am the messenger of God"
delusion? Do I need to point out YET AGAIN that your religious opinions
are jsut your religious opinions, and aren't any more divine or holy
than those of my pizza delivery kid's?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:36:46 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> "Just a metaphor"? Methinks you have no understanding of the power and
> beauty of metaphor within sacred literature. Your theology is simplistic
> and fails to reflect the nature of the real world, and you seem remarkably
> immune to even the most basic concepts in a more complete theological
> construction. If you think the questions you have posed here have been
> difficult for theistic evolutionists, then you are quite simply mistaken.
>
>
That's right. Davey has a kindergarten theology to go along with his
kindergarten science.
R.Schenck
> Użytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
> news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...> news:<bt91d9$jo$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > Użytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisał w wiadomości
> > > news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Uncle Davey" <no...@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<bt804s$6r4$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>...
> > > > > > R.Schenck wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > btw what do you mean by omphology, i am familar with the "navel
> of
> the
> > > > > > > world" at omphalos, i didnt find it in any online christian or
> > > > > > > philosophical dictonaries, and when i tried looking it up i got
> a
> bit
> > > > > > > on the study of brit. spears', but i dont think thats what you
> have
> in
> > > > > > > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He means that God is a liar, because even though the earth is
> "really"
> > > > > > only 6,000 years old, God made it LOOK as if it were billions of
> years
> old.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WHY God would be dishonest in that peculiar and silly way, Davey
> > > > > > probably won't tell us.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He made it mature, but the things which needed to look mature are
> the
> > > > > functional things, like the lights in the sky.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born
> baby,
> > > lying on his back and helpless?
> > >
> >
> > garden is no more helpless than an adult in the garden. a three week
> > old zygote would be no more helpless in the garden either.
>
> Zygotes are clearly not designed for gardening prior to a lot of other
> things happening to them.
> I think you have a taste for surrealism.
>
its easy to tell what time it is once you get used to the melting
clocks.
> >
> > > But what point was there in making the actual history exist whien the
> bits
> > > prior to the existance of freewill are not the important bits. Do we
> > > criticise great novelists that the characters we meet in their pages are
> > > already grown up, when we meet them. Are we upset with Tolstoy that we
> don't
> > > see Pierre Bezukhov as a little boy? (Actually, that'd be a jolly good
> idea
> > > for a modern novel, reconstructing Bezukhov's childhood. It could have
> him
> > > playing with the food on his plate as kids do, and bear the title "War
> and
> > > Peas".)
> > >
> > > Joking aside, if we see by common observance that we are the only
> > > intelligent life, the only that can understand concepts such as freedom,
> and
> > > seek to investigate the world, regardless of the time available in
> > > evolutionary theory and the space for others to have got there first,
> then
> > > is it so strange for this scene to have been set for us, rather than
> having
> > > us as accidental by-products of a dumb algorithm?
> > >
> >
> > yes it would be strange to use evidence (there are no other
> > intelligent lifeforms) to conclude anything about a metaphysical
> > realm. perhaps it can reinforce you faith, but anything can do that.
> > if anything it all falls apart if/when we do find life on other
> > planets, so your faith seems to fall on evidence? why shoudl any
> > evidence make you drop your faith? look at it this way, if a man had
> > never met anyone outside of his tribe, he would assume everything
> > existed for his tribe. so when he sees something made by antoher
> > tribe, unfamiliar to him, he will make of it what he pleases. and not
> > matter how much evidence of other tribes he is shown, he will never
> > accept them, until he comes running into them oneday. meanwhile,
> > someone who acts in a logical scientific matter will be able to
> > conclude that there are other tribes out there, and make contact with
> > them. i don't mean this necessarily in the sense that the other
> > tribes are "aliens" are anything like that, but rather that teh other
> > tribes represent the scientific world and our ability to study it.
> > >
> > > > > The fossils are not there to mislead, they are from the Flood and
> the
> > > > > ensuing tectonics.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > if they were there from a flood then they are definitly misleading, as
> > > > they contradict in everyway a flood account.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Flood is the first part of it, and since that time tremendous
> tectonic
> > > activity took place.
> > >
> >
> > so i gather you are saying that every fossil (more or less) was
> > deposited during the flood, and then afterwards it some how got sorted
> > into the order we see it in now, and order that just so happens to
> > conform to the predication of a theory of evolution, and an order that
> > if we study it can lead us to conclude (falsely here) that this
> > evolution occured via natural selection?
> >
>
> The thing is it isn't always in order.
>
You're correct, they often aren't found in the expected order. the
thing is, if we use uncontroversial methods to examine the strata they
are in, we learn that they have infact been put out of order
afterdepostion. and we can 'undue' the processes that have distorted
the order in a systematic way. once we do this the 'order' we find
invariably conforms to the established one. we've seen solid rock
deform literally as if it were plastic in labs. we've observed folded
layers in the field. we've seen that adding water warm water to a
rock can components of it to liquify. we've observed slabs of oceanic
crust plunging beneath continental crust and resting on denser
quasi-plastic rock underneat all of that. we know rocks can fold, we
know the environment they get deposited in, we know the processes that
remove them and alter them.
> People are seeing what they expect.
>
yes, exactly, they -are- seeing what they expect, they are confirming
thier hypotheses.
> > >
> > > > > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> religions of
> > > > > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
> he
> made
> > > > > the world.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > so he just mislead everyone who hadnt been exposed to genesis and
> > > > everyone who has not yet been exposed to geneisis.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The genesis account has been known by all generations that have sought
> to
> > > find a solution in evolution.
> > >
> >
> > what? no it hasn't. there are people who know about evolution but
> > have never read genesis or the bible. you think every university
> > student in china is reading the bible? and what, if you have heard
> > the slightest murmur of the bible or christ, even a garbled (due to
> > cross cultural transmission) account of christ? or do you aslso assue
> > that everytime someone talks about christ orthe bible the holy ghost
> > intervenes to make sure the message gets across? why not just put a
> > bible in every house, since you're asking for miracles anyway? oh,
> > and which genesis account, not that it matters.
>
> They are the same account from two different styles of telling.
>
> And obviously the Chinese still don't all have access to the Bible, even
> though in fact the Word went to China very early on and there was a Church
> there before there was one in Britain.
>
yes so how does that give with your previous statement? there are
people who dont have access to the bible or the genesis account. they
know about evolution.
> >
> > > Other than that, the testimony of the world on minds untutored by
> humanist
> > > sciences is that there is a God or gods.
> > >
> >
> > but your saying that the 'world' is created in such a way as to lead
> > people to conclude that evolution by natural selection and commyn
> > descent is what happens/happened. and the theory of natural selection
> > is not a part of humanism. humanists might look to it, but its simply
> > isn't. darwin explicitly said that there is nothign in nature or his
> > theory that can tell us anything about ethics and morality. he left
> > that up to religion and faith, you know, metaphysics.
> >
>
> And my metaphysics says that the algorithm was only notional prior to ten
> thousand years or so ago.
>
but that doesnt change the fact that an examination of the world,
which at least now is operating under those notional algorithms, is
going to present to anyone who studies it scientifically to conclude,
not that there are gods or a god, but rather they will ultimately
arrive at the same conclusion as darwin. they might also develope a
religion, but there is nothing in this world that would lead them to
develop the old testament religion. well, perhaps thats not
particularly relevant. but the point is, if god repeated the whole
experiment in the same way, (but say, didnt include anything like the
bible) people might still develope religous beleifs similar to those
of today, or they might not, but if they study things scientifically,
which i believe would be inevitable, they would come to the same
conclusions that darwin did.
> > > > > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > > > > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > so you agree that evolution happens anyway, just that the earth is
> > > > young
> > >
> > > The earth was created mature, and the process of natural selection and
> > > speciation continue apace, but generally speaking genomes devolve,
> entropy
> > > enters their system,
> >
> > i am sorry but this is simply not what happens, new species are
> > observed to evolve, entropy has no effect on the maintenance of living
> > systems, at least not in the way you are talking about, if for no
> > other reason than that living systems are not closed systems.
> >
>
> Give an example of speciation that has been observed which has made the new
> species more vigourous than their common ancestor.
>
you mean an example of adaptation?
you doubt it? do you contend that all of darwins finches were created
seperately? how about Oenothera gigas, its a giant evening primrose
formed from a non giant variety.
> > > bacteria devolve out of human cells,
> >
> > so now you are rejecting germ theory? there is nothing about bacteria
> > that can lead us to conclude that they are devolved bits of human
> > cells, certainly no more than we can conclude that maggots arise from
> > putrifaction.
>
> Hmmmn. What about that woman whose cells gave rise to a new species of
> bacteria under lab conditions. She's in your FAQs somewhere, as proof that
> one species can turn to another, but that is devolution of human DNA into
> germ DNA.
>
if yer talking about the talk.origins faq, i -wish- i could take
credit for any of those, however i have never supplied one. actually,
i suppose that germ theory might not be concerned with the origin of
the germ, just that they are disease causing and can spread. but i
think that them forming spontaneously within a person might eliminate
the transmission aspect.
the dna in question remains human dna, just as the germ and viral dna
that is imbedded within our own genome is still really viral dna. i
dont understand tho, isn't a more 'devolved' parasitic tapeworm
'stronger' than one that has superflous organisms? its better
adapted. when in competition with the less 'devolved' one it will win
out.
> >
> > > animals that are
> > > less vigourous from animals that were stronger.
> >
> > thats really subjective and not really correct either. are you saying
> > that as lions hunt their prey, over time, those prey populations are
> > becoming, on average at least, weaker and weaker? and this is
> > happening because the predator is culling out the weak and letting the
> > strong continue to breed? Your're saying tht animals, who have
> > inheritable characteristics which you would class as 'strong' are
> > producing offspring that, because of the fall, have not inherited
> > their paternal 'strong' adaptations but instead 'weak' ones?
>
> Why has nothing that big existed since the dinosaurs? Why's there nothing
> that big today?
>
why? because, what? what difference does that make? the environment
is different. the structures of the animals are different. why
should different systems react to different conditions in the same
way?
also, by your reasoning, why nothing bigger before then? why even use
this reasoning if you think these dinosaurs are only ever existed as
fossils to set the stage for the appearance of great age?
and if you are saying that dinosaurs went extinct during the flood,
along with other giants, why does the rate of evolution have to be so
fast as to create giants in what, 4 thousand years (more or less) by
your reckoning? I mean, if you actually were to insist that it had to
work that way, you may as well insist that we observe the antelope and
lions becomming competitively larger over, what, a few
years/generations?
> >
> > >It's almost like a Microsoft
> > > world, even upgrade seems to lose some functionality.
> > >
> >
> > no no no, microsoft is a more accurate description of hell then earth
> > after the fall. at least purgatory.
> >
> > > The kinds God put here at the creation moment are still discreet kinds,
> and
> > > nothing has crossed kind.
> >
> > so got created, say, cat kind, and dog kind. and he also created an
> > intermidiate kind, one that if we look at scientifically we will
> > conclude that it is the last commyn ancestor of cats and dogs. and he
> > also created all those kinds between that last commyn ancestor of cats
> > and dogs and the cat and dog kinds. and all the kinds before that.
> > and then he killed them all, either by not putting them on the ark or
> > in some other way, leaving us with just cat kind and just dog kind.
>
> I don't think there was ever an actual common ancestor to both cats and dogs
> actually walking the earth.
>
> There may have been, but I see no reason for it.
>
but we see intermeadiates like that in the fossil record. you seem to
be saying that he created kinds that conform to our expectations of
intermeadiates, and a large number of them too. why shouldn't two
extraordinarily similar kinda not interbreed? how would we tell the
difference between modern dog kind, a kind that appears to be a
somewhat more primitive ancestor (and yet is a specially created kind)
and a kind that appears to be inbetween even those two very similar
kinds? it needn't be dogs, or transitionals between dogs and cats.
what about birds? there is a very well represented series of fossils.
most people wouldn't be able to quickly tell the difference, but each
is. are you saying in addition to the blatantly obvious kinds, such a
dog kind, horse kind, whale kind, there is also aves kind, paraves
kind, maniraptoriform kind, coelurosaur kind, etc etc?
> Notionally, you could posit a common ancestor.
>
> Notionally you can posit a first human language differentiating from the
> simple grunts of apes, but such a language never existed.
>
i'm not saying notionally, i am saying evidentially, erhm, wait,
should that be evidently?
> When babies start to talk, they make consonant sounds which cannot even be
> transcribed by the letters of most languages. Yesterday, my little boy was
> making a noise with his tongue a bit like the clopping of horses hooves. I
> think the sound exists in bushpeople's languages, but since kids everywhere
> naturally make this sound and then have to unlearn it to make way for the
> consonants that exist in language almost universally, wouldn't language, if
> it evolved have had consonants like those noises babies make which we cannot
> even transcribe in Indo European languages, although we can imitate them
> perfectly well?
>
wait, so you're saying that we can't represent baby clops, or adult
grunts groas and moans, or sounds lke ppphhhhpt! with the writting
systems contained within the 'indo-eurpoean' system? why aren't the
above examples of just that? our alphabetic system is explicitly made
so as to not include a different symbol for each sound. so i wouldn't
expect it to, and i wouldnt think that it working the way its supposed
to means that it too was specially created.
> >
> > >Some have been made extinct, mainly in the flood
> > > and aftermath,
> >
> > i thougth all animals were on the ark. some in pairs, some in sets of
> > seven. why didnt the 'clean' ie kosher kinds that are now extinct not
> > get saved? why did the non-kosher animals get saved at all by the
> > way?
>
> There is more to getting saved than being kosher.
>
> Being kosher gives you a prior right, but salvation has been offered to
> non-Jews also.
>
normally i would assume this was a joke or something, i wasn't
implying that the kosher animals were saved, as in saved by jesus,
just saved from drowning. however, i made the same mistake with your
lemuric argument before. point was, if the unclean animals were not
to be eaten or used in any way, then why were they even put on the
ark? heck, why were they created in the first place. i know i know,
god works in mysterious ways.
> >
> > > and the activities of Nimrod's gang and later human activity
> > > right up to today's date.
> > >
> > > > (snip the fairy tale about acccounting, and why theren't arent aliens,
> > > > timetravelers, or alien time travelers, and oh yeah the anti-catholic
> > > > propaganda)
> > >
> > > I don't take pleasure in criticising the RCs, and as I have said, a lot
> of
> > > individuals in that Church are surely redeemed people.
> > >
> > ah yes, but you think that the pope is the anti-christ. hopefully
> > that kind of talk won't lead to anti-catholic purgers like it has
> > before.
> >
>
> I certainly think the office of Pope is very antichristian. Christ is head
> of his own Church and usurpal by a man is not necessary.
>
> Or by a woman, in the case of Anglicanism.
>
yes, perhaps i was being jumpy. i just find the malformed opinions
that protestants have about catholics bewildering. i knew this one
doode who insisted that catholics keep idols because they pray to
saints, that they thought the saints were demi gods or something. but
lets not get started on that then.
>
> > > >
> > > > look, that was all very nice. you have faith. great. you agree that
> > > > logical empiricism cant answer questions about faith. good. so,
> > > > maybe there has been a misunderstanding here. do you or do you not
> > > > beleive that your faith should be taught in public high schools?
> > >
> > > I have never said it should be, or shouldn't be.
> > >
> >
> > you indicate below that it should be, in so far as teachers, if they
> > want, should be allowed to teach it.
> >
> > > I believe teachers of whatever belief should be allowed to give an
> account
> > > of what they believe, whether they are atheists, Christians, Jews,
> Muslims,
> > > as long as they don't go over the top and usurp the home's prior right
> to
> > > give a philosophy and code to the children.
> >
> > so then you have no problem with yer children, (or your neices and
> > nephews, right ) from having to study the creation account of the
> > koran in order to pass high school biology. or studying the ilead so
> > they can see how the gods need eat ambrosia and drink nectar. infact,
> > they can teach whatever they want, no matter how unscientific it is,
> > and will be paid out of tax money in order to do it.
> >
> > > In the main they should be
> > > allowed to be people with a professional calling, and not given
> blinkered
> > > guidelines by the state.
> > >
> >
> > teaching religion in schools would be blinkering teachers.
> >
> > > I don't want atheist teachers teaching my kids how to worship God.
> >
> > well, according to you, atheists can fail a child for beleif in god,
> > because people are allowed to make their beleifs part of a class
> > curiculum.
> >
> > > What
> > > point would there be in that? What would be the point in me teaching
> Islam
> > > in a scgool, when I don't believe that. Teachers should be hired
> according
> > > to their ability,
> >
> > ability to what, tho? ability to teach? to teach what? their own
> > personal views? or science?
>
> To teach.
>
> That's why they are called 'teachers'.
>
and how do you measure that ability? has a teacher who failed to get
a student to have faith in jesus failed? has a teacher who doesn't
beleive in your religion and gets the kids to see that other religions
are better (not that i myself would say one is better or anything
childish like that) has that teacher suceded? where's the standard?
are students who perform well in the real world taught by good
teachers? whats well in the real world? many would say money, where
would we be if everyone focused on making money? are teachers that
produce dissidents failures, or successes?
> Many of them my have perfectly acceptable and fantastic personal views about
> what they teach.
i hope by fantastic you mean "fantaaastic" liek ahnold, since you are
saying its acceptable.
> Maybe my history teacher did, but I don't know, as I
> couldn't be kept interested by his droning for more than two minutes out of
> every lesson.
>
so were they a bad teacher? if so, why because they didnt appeal to
some students? would they be better if they got everyone to learn
very little by being 'exciting' or would they be better be getting
some to learn a lot? (not to imply that i that i have an opinion on
that matter)
> >
> > >and then they should teach according to their competence
> > > and their conscience.
> > >
> >
> > so should we have a state regulation for conscience then? any person
> > who claims to be a science teacher and yet tries to include his/her
> > personal view on faith in the curiculum has a pretty low conscience.
> >
>
> We've seen quite enough state interference in the teaching profession as it
> is.
>
i agree, all those local school boards interfering with school
curriculae by inserting their insupportable personal beleifs,
demanding equal time, but only when it involved their beleifs, and
claiming that their religion was science and that science was a
religion. repugnant.
> Just pay them decent money, then you'll get decent teachers.
>
you'd think, but it doesn't allways work that way. is the teacher
settled into thier tenure at in a wealthy district a better teacher
than someone who slugs it out school year in school year out in an
inner city school? who produces the better student? also, education
is not a business, so a business solution, i think personally, is not
an adequate solution. i know a community college that has some of the
highest paid teachers in the region. are they then better than all
other teachers. (not to knock state education, if thats what it seems
like)
> You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
if the only people that're available to be teachers are monkeys,
you'll just have well paid monkeys. if teaching become very
profitable, the people with the most money will use it to get into the
programs with the higher job applicant sucess rates. th program can
do that through advertising and having a better marketing department
than other programs. then they really need to accept students who can
pay for the premium product. if they produce inferior teachers, who
will ever know, especially if their is less state wide and national
accountability than there is now?
> > > I am all for a free market in ideas, even to kids, as long as things
> overtly
> > > wicked, like the occult, drugs, denial of the holocaust and things which
> > > could facilitate their sexual abuse are kept well away.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > why exclude the occult? if the teacher is a pagan, then why should'nt
> > they teach the pagan stories of creation?
>
> I'm not sure anybody believes them literally.
i think you haven't met very many wiccans, or have a weird image of
what their religion is. i have met some more devout than some
relatively devout christians. i haven't met many other types of
pagans personally tho, not to my knowledge anyway. the wiccans are
the only officially recognized witchcraft religion in the u.s., for
what its worth, so the state would certianly not interfere with them
teaching whatever it is they do beleive.
>I think most wiccans and
> pagans are adherents of darwinism,
well, if by darwinism you mean 'cold materialistic science with no
room for god" then you are wrong, because they beleive in their gods.
>but if you like we can ask them.
what, your're going to go around asking pagans if the 'acutually
beleive that stuff'?
> Free.christians has an ongoing dialogue, at varying degrees of courtesy,
> with their Usenet groups.
>
yes to convert them, or in the hopes that the 'word of god' will what,
'grow within their hearts into a pretty pretty flowa'
> >
> > > >do
> > > > you or do you not beleive that your faith should be researched with
> > > > public grants?
> > >
> > > No. It is enough if some tax rebate on believers (of all faiths)
> donations
> > > to their charities are given. Additional grants are not required. The
> > > children of God should fund our own projects, and not go cap in hand to
> > > atheists.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > then you agree that aig and icr and id institutes should never receive
> > government funding either. excellent we are in agreeance on that.
> >
>
> All these organisations ought to receive is the donations of believers and
> those donations should have the same tax breaks as other charitable
> donations.
on that we can agree again then.
>I believe that should be the same for all.
>
i assume you dont mean to say that scientific orgs should not receive
government funding? i guess we could leave it up to private
indivuals. of course, when they find a vaccination for a disease,
they shouldn't give it out, or at least be allowed to charge whatever
they want for it. then we will see what survival of the fitest really
means.
> In the UK, we had an organisation called Keston College which was a
> government funded organisation for tracking religious persecution in the
> USSR and other places. Not sure what they do now. They did produce a lot of
> data which could be used but of course they were unable to distinguish
> between JWs, Mormons and other cults on the one hand and the baptists,
> pentecostalists and other evangelicals on the other. It was like
> co-operating with the world sometimes working with them.
>
> On the other hand the Soviet Baptists had their own Mission, which was far
> more effective. It's safe now to say that this mission gave us most of the
> live info, and when the Soviets found out we knew more than we should, they
> automatically blamed Keston. The upside of this was, I didn't need to get
> pressured to reveal anything about the actual source, since they thought
> they had the source, but the downside was, they thought I was working for MI
> 5, as they had the idea that Keston was controlled by MI 5, and that only
> that way they could know the things they knew. I thought at one point I
> would not get out of Russia in 1985, but they ejected me and just took it
> all out on my then girlfriend.
>
that is unfortunate, the soviets had major problems, to say the least.
> I am all for believers standing on their own feet without their cap in hand
> to the government or to the world.
>
> > > do you or do you not believe that evolution should be
> > > > taught in a -science- class room? everything you've been talking
> > > > about seems to indicate that you agree that science should be taught
> > > > in a science class and the state should not enforce you religious
> > > > views. so lets just get a good, clear statement as to the veracity of
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have no problem with teaching evolution in a science class, as long as
> it
> > > is taught ethically, together with what we don't really know yet.
> > >
> >
> > how can we teach what we dont know? and if we could teach it, why
> > would we?
> >
>
> We should teach that certain things are not certain. Instead of saying to
> kids 'here's a dinosaurs skeleton' we should let them know how many of the
> bones are real, how many are plastic, and what the margin for error is in
> the reconstruction. Things like that. And things like the fact that we
> cannot get DNA out of dinosaur fossil bones, so we can't check everything
> genetically that we've assumed from morphology. Things like that.
>
no complaints here, science is dumbed down enough as it is. course,
certain peole might think that the professors were droning on and not
pay attention, but c'est la vie. people have been able to extract
organic materials from fossil material, not dino dna, but dino bone
proteins.
> > > I was never taught anything but evolution in school. I don't believe the
> > > subject has been anywhere near discussion in the UK, where there are
> hardly
> > > any creationists, and still by looking into it as a little boy, with no
> > > contact to Christians, I nevertheless started to believe that too much
> was
> > > contrived and the real answer lay elsewhere.
> > >
> >
> > what was contrived? aren't you the one with the belief that
> > everything was made to look in such a way so as to conform with your
> > own beleifs? that sounds a bit contrived.
>
> No more than those who fill in the gaps in evolution to accord with their
> beliefs. When I first came on here, I asked about chlorophyll, and never got
> a straight answer.
what was that question. i doubt i can answer it but what was it
anyway? this isn't in the begining of this thread right? you only
mentioned photosythesis in realtion to accounting there.
>
> >
> > > So let them teach wordly wisdom in wordly schools.
> >
> > yeah, science in science class rooms. not feelings, not opinions, not
> > religion.
> >
> > > But let them do it in an
> > > honest way, and also allow for the fact when teaching religious studies
> >
> > religious studies are not nor should they be taught in schools. i
> > understand you aer posting from poland, so things might be different
> > there.
>
> Religious studies are on the curriculum all over Europe.
that is unfortunate for europe. as i understand it the french have
also outlawed overt articles signifying faith. large crosses and stars
of david are not permitted in school. small ones are. muslim women
must not cover there heads. presumably yamakas are not allowed
either. they do lots of stuff in europe.
>
> In my school it was part of so-called "EPR" or 'Education on Personal
> Relationships'. We were supposed to be taught the basic facts concerning all
> the world religions.
>
and this was the entire class? we teach cultural perspective here
also. almost any college here is going to invlove getting credits
yeilded thru a class that is labeled something like
"cultural/historical perspective" or 'human diversity'. not
necessarily courses on that only. some schools will include courses
in roman archaeology and the like under that. others will include
western lit, etc etc. from what i understand there is at least one
school in france where the professor teaches a course that is
basically "why your muslim beliefs are closed minded and ignorant, and
what you muslim founders -really- did', and this is a -required-
course, specifically.
> >
> > >that
> > > a mature creation could have been made with a mature looking earth soe
> ten
> > > thousand years ago, and that wouldn't contradict any science.
> > >
> >
> > if it doesn't contradict science, they why are you teaching it? how
> > is your theory any different from saying everything started after i
> > sent the original post, with the appearnce of great age and what not?
> > the only reason you have that "omphalos" idea is because you feel you
> > need it in order to literally interpret the bible. what about people
> > who dont want to do that? are you going to have them learn that
> > theory?
> >
>
> All they need is to be aware of it.
so they have to learn it, in some detail at least. and where does it
stop? do they need to learn all the varieties of the 'theories', is
omphalos enough, or do they also need to learn your version of
omphalos lite? do they need to learn about creationist misconceptions
of evolutionary theory? or are only 'legitimite' claims allowed? who
decides? is there community discussion? are the kids ever allowed to
go home, or do they stay until everything is gone over, and then are
taught what you would call 'usefull/observable' science? Are they
going to live in communal barracks like the spartans? are they going
to be doing 'other' things the spartans did? are they going to be
required to take 'gay studies' courses?
>
> > > Let the kids who wish to opt into alternative views of origins have the
> > > chance to pick that option at A level.
> >
> > ah, here we have the problem of cultural differences. we dont have A
> > level and what not here. if A level students are wise enough to make
> > their own decisions, then let them do it on their own time. if its
> > not worth their time to study thier own beleifs, why is it worth the
> > states and -everyones- time?
>
> The time they spend at education after _16_ is their own time. Education at
> that age is not obligatory in the UK.
>
do they get diplomas there at 16? here you dont.
> We are giving people the option at A level to study the areas they wish.
> This is not the case so much at O level, or GCSE as it is now called, where
> there are minimum requirements for Maths, English, foreign languages and
> Science.
>
why is the state supplying funds for students to study what they wish?
and it cant be everything, if you are talking about a currently
operating system. it must come from a smaller list. why not just
give a stipend/grant to whoever wants one, which is effectively what
you are saying. just require them to hand in thesis at the end or
pay it back right?
> > > By then, they are able to understand
> > > the arguments coming from either side. Under 16 I would not trouble them
> > > with too much of the details.
> > >
> > > The elect will believe the Truth anyway.
> >
> > then why bother.
> >
>
> It's called giving people the information that there are choices available.
>
but the elect will belive the truth anyway? do the elect need to be
told to believe the truth? how can they be elect if there is any
posibility that they will not beleive the truth and be saved by it?
> > > And we should sometimes look to
> > > keeping our dignity.
> >
> > the concept of dignitas has nothing to do you judeo-christianity.
>
> Of course it does.
>
dignitas is a roman word and a very roman concept. when caesar was
attacked near the pharsalos in alexandria, he had to rip off his
armour and dive into the water, making it difficult to preserve his
dignitas. its just like our laws, they have very little to do with
judeo-chrisianity, and much to do with classical civilization, heck
they have more to do with the babylonians the israelites and judeans.
perhaps dignity doesn't have strictly -nothing- to do with
judeo-christianity.
> >
> > >Tussling over creationism in schools is not something I
> > > would do, myself.
> > >
> >
> > if by this you now mean science teachers are only allowed to teach
> > science in science classrooms, then i have no arguement with you what
> > so ever.
> >
> > a person's beleifs are just that. i wouldn't dream of trying to
> > persuade someone out of their own faith or beliefs. but if you or
> > anyone else think for a moment that the public is going to allow
> > radical fundamentalists to invade our school systems, uproot our
> > constitution and even begin to allow fundies to teach creation in
> > mandatory classrooms then you can forget it. before long its obvious
> > they will be teaching that the pope is anti-christ in history class,
> > and that its alright to stuff adders down the throats of
> > non-converters in ethics. what the creationsists,who amount to little
> > more than pan-theists, not true beleivers but primitives fearful of
> > the thunder and storm and the god that runs it, are trying to do in
> > this country, and apparently australia too, is bring us back into the
> > dark ages and completely undermine the enlightenment and renaissance
> > the gave birth to this country.
> >
>
> You set up an independent America to be free.
>
> Freedom means, freedom of choices.
>
we know what freedom means over here, it doesn't mean teaching
biblical literalism in schools to non-fundies.
> Salvation means, having faith in Christ as a free choice, and not because
> the faith is forced on us. That doesn't make for any saving faith. We don't
> create Christians by passing laws, we don't create Christians by carnal
> means of indoctrination, such as the psychological methods cults use,
> love-bombing, questionnaires, hypnotism, all that shit. We don't create
> Christians by proving that what we believe is true and winning arguments
> about science either.
>
> Each of these methods produces false conversions.
i thought you were talking about the elect beleiving the truth. what
if the elect are brought the truth in this manner, they have not been
'falsely converted'
> Instead of real fruit we
> have clockwork oranges, people who have done the right thing not freely, and
> therefore not meaningfully.
>
> The freedom which you won is the ideal environment for people to attain to
> true salvation. Once people have that, they sometimes misguidedly seek to
> bring others in by force, but it doesn't work.
>
> We have to give our views, exchange our opinions, love the lost and pray.
>
> We can't bully you into the fold of God.
>
> Any Christian wishing to do that has misunderstood something.
>
> But God clearly is calling people, and swelling the ranks of his Church,
> both in places of freedom, and in places where there is massive opposition.
> The worst environment of all is when we try and use force to get people onto
> God's side. This was done in catholic history
this was also done by christians before the catholic chruch existed,
when the pope was still just the patriarch at rome.
>, and the fundamentalists who
> want to repeat the experience will find that if it could happen to the early
> church fathers that it all went pear shaped after Christianity became an
> imposed state religion, then it will not fare any better with them.
>
> Uncle Davey
Al Klein
<no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>U?ytkownik "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>news:0rjhvv0t3dg5sme9f...@Pern.rk...
>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:59:07 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>> <no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>> >Did Christ come for Mankind uniquely, and if so, why, if we are but random
>> >products of the DNA replication and survival of the fittest algorithm?
>> First - was there really a Christ? Objective evidence?
>"My sheep hear my voice".
That's an unattributed quotation, not evidence of anything or the
least bit objective.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 5 Jan 2004 03:02:58 +0000 (UTC), a
>stranger called by some Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> came forth and
>told this tale in alt.atheism
>
>>On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
>><no...@jose.com> posted to alt.atheism:
>>
>>>U?ytkownik "R.Schenck" <nyg...@yahoo.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
>>>news:198d0a68.04010...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>> you havent explained why anything would need to look mature.
>>
>>>So that things would actually work.
>>
>>>When Adam was made, what point would there be in making him a new-born baby,
>>>lying on his back and helpless?
>>
>>That doesn't explain why we need "fossils" of "dinosaurs" that "died"
>>"millions of years ago". Or why we need to see a universe 37 billion
>>light years in diameter, rather than one 12,000 light years in
>>diameter.
>
>Or have cosmic background noise at 3 degrees Kelvin, which is exactly
>what we'd expect for a universe about 15 billion years old.
Almost as if the god deliberately made our young universe look EXACTLY
like an old universe - for the sole purpose of fooling us. Ya think?
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
Jos Flachs
<no...@jose.com> wrote:
>In Christ, God did indeed have two arms, two legs, two eyes, and the other
>things and if that doesn't inspire you then I'm sorry for you, because
>that's how God himself achieved our salvation - by dying in that body.
In Ganesh, God has a mighty tummy and a big trunk. What about him?
Uncle Davey
Because God wanted us to eat fresh fruit.
That's a bit much to ask of a tiger.
The building block which other creatures have is there, as a signature of
the creator, but switched off.
>
> >
> > Where are all the internmediate forms?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html
>
> Want more? Others on talk.origins can provide them.
>
I'll get to them, but the intermediate forms are generally too sparse for my
liking.
Especially for cetaceans. I can't see how the melon evolved.
> > > > God has not mislead - he has said in the key text for the major
> > religions of
> > > > the world that use a defined text, namely the Genesis account, how
he
> > made
> > > > the world.
> > > >
> > > > Had the billions of years been actual time, then sure, it would have
> > > > happened a bit like the evolutionists think.
> > >
> > > Not just a bit, but exactly. There need be no conflict between
> > > omphalos creationists and mainstream science, and to the extent there
> > > is it's because the omphalos creationist dishonestly shies away from
> > > the implications of his claim-of-convenience. To the honest omphalos
> > > creationist, the apparent history of the universe and earth and life
> > > is not a "lie", it is a *fiction* -- but only if the universe was
> > > created "mature" IN EVERY DETAIL.
> > >
> >
> > That's an interesting argument for full Gosse flavoured Omphalism,
rather
> > than my Omphalism-Lite.
> >
> > I do feel sorry for Gosse. He meant well, and he hoped to build a bridge
> > between faith and science, but both sides got upset with him in the end.
> > Probably quite consistent with his ideas being true, though.
>
> *shrug* I find omphalism at least as vacant as solipsism, but it's
> what you're advocating. You're just shying away from the
> implications.
>
>
The implications are not, that God deceived the world.
> > > An analogy. There is no conflict, for many religious people, in seeing
> > > the fortuitous hand of God in many events for which there is *also* a
> > > mundane explanation. A thunderstorm may postpone a trip and turn out
> > > to have some fortuitous side effect, and this is attributed to God,
> > > but few people would deny the science of meteorology. If God created
> > > the universe as a creationist would say, he did so in a way that *also
> > > presents a non-supernatural explanation*, whether you accept the
> > > non-supernatural explanation or not.
> > >
> >
> > Fair comment, but where's your non-supernatural explanation for the new
> > creation, preferably one that doesn't involve us waiting another several
> > trillion years for the resurrection bodies and the new heavens and
earth?
>
> I don't believe in "new creation" or resurrection bodies and new
> heavens and earth. That would a problem for the religious person. But
> many religious people have no problem with this at all.
That's what I don't really get.
>
> > 'For me to live is Christ, for me to die is gain.' I don't read anything
> > about gain this much postponed.
>
> *shrug* Your problem, not mine. But the universe appears to have
> non-supernatural explanations for everything we see. Whether one also
> sees the hand of God behind it is up to the viewer, imho.
The definition of a 'non-supernatural' explanation is it obviates the need
to.
Of course, if we needed to, faith would be of no effect.
>
> > > > Now I may not be a scientist, but I am an accountant, a good one, so
> > they
> > > > say.
> > >
> > > I am not an accountant, but I am a computer programmer, and a good
> > > one, so they say. So I should trust my convictions on taxes instead
> > > of believing what accountants say, if my convictions on taxes are
> > > religiously based?
> > >
> > > A distrust of science coupled with ignorance of science is simple
> > > stupid arrogance.
> > >
> >
> > What you don't know you shouldn't trust. That's not arrogance, that IS
> > science.
>
> Since I don't know anything about accounting, I shouldn't trust
> accountants? Is that your advice, mister accountant? Why did you go
> to school to learn accounting, if not to become good at a skill that
> not everyone has, so that others would depend on your skill?
They do, but a lot of people have come unstuck, relying on accountants.
Right now I have to suffer because I'm getting lumped in with the kind of
accountants who misaudited Enron. I've never made a mess like that, and I
never would allow it, but still it's impacting on my insurance premiums and
on the public perception of my profession.
Who ripped off millions from Elton John? Sorry to say it, but it was his
accountant.
Anyway, accountancy calls, I won't make it to the end of this.
> > > > Why have all the background transactions, the pre-human history
actually
> > to
> > > > run its lengthy course?
> > >
> > > Indeed. You may think so if you like. You may equivalently think
> > > that all history up to your own birth was a fiction, as a solipsist
> > > does. But to pretend the history *isn't there* is insanity and
> > > willful disregard of reality -- it is a lie.
> > >
> > > The Universal Balance Sheet balances at all times
> > > > anyway, so God could just as easily cut to the chase and start the
real
> > > > action when Man starts on the scene.
> > >
> > > Perhaps god is more important than Man, and has other interests
> > > besides Us. Does this enter into your equation, or do you insist that
> > > god has no other interest in Our universe but Our position in it? Why
> > > is your god so puny?
> >
> > The Universe, we are told, is built to last human history and then comes
to
> > an end. God could have told us he has many other projects in mind for
the
> > planet, but that isn't what the Bible actually imparts.
>
> Right, and you trust the bible rather than reality.
The one does not exclude the other.
>
> > For all we know, God could have universes of angels, but we know that he
has
> > done something special and unique with this Universe, and with humanity,
for
> > we are in his image, and ransomed by His own Son's blood.
>
> I note you don't respond to the charge of egocentrism. But then, the
> Bible would hardly be a popular book if it didn't make the reader feel
> special.
>
I am not 'humanity'. I am one person.
It's not me personally it all revolves around.
And quite frankly I'd be as happy if it revolved around tropical catfishes,
but that isn't what the Bible says.
> > > But also, equivalent to your claim, whatever Almighty is there might
> > > also have started the real action on May 3, 1966, as there would have
> > > been no point to anything before that moment either, from My
> > > perspective. Doesn't it sound egocentric when put that way?
> > >
> > > > Nothing in the notional evolutionary
> > > > chain up to man was an animal of any reasonable intelligence,
capable of
> > > > making the choices Man could make, capable of personality, of self
> > > > understanding, of analysing and enquiring into the world.
> > >
> > > Nothing prior to me was what I am, and therefore nothing prior to me
> > > was of any importance. If you think my claim is egocentric, yours is
> > > too.
> >
> > I see I am sharing the planet with other people as intelligent as or
more
> > intelligent than I, but I do not see that we are sharing the planet or
any
> > of the known universe with other life forms of which I can say the same.
> >
> > I believe that would also be your unbiassed observation??
>
> So? I also share the planet with a lot of people as tall as or taller
> than I am, and I don't konw of any taller people elsewhere, but I
> don't consider this to be critical to the purpose of the universe.
>
> But then, if the Bible tells you so, you will think so. Fine.
>
But giraffes are taller. But they're not free to have doubts or believe.
> > > But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
> > > specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
> > > claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
> > > my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
> > >
> > > The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
> > > the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
> > > humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
> > > omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
> > > prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*, just as light
> > > still shows warping around gravity fields hundreds of millions of
> > > light-years away whether the light was post-created in transit or not.
> >
> > The interesting thing about a black hole is that as it sucks light back
into
> > itself, you cannot see its event horizon coming and it is on you before
you
> > have any clue about it.
> >
> > Like a thief in the night.
>
> There are many things about black holes that are interesting. But I
> admit I had not previously considered them similar to Jesus.
>
> Are you going to respond to the substance of what I said in the two
> paragraphs above? You ignored it. Here, let me repeat, removing the
> black hole part (since it got you entirely too excited):
>
The day comes like a thief in the night.
> > > But regardless -- *even if I were right* and the universe were created
> > > specifically for me at my birth -- it is still willful stupidity to
> > > claim that the universe *did not have a consistent history* prior to
> > > my birth, because the evidence that it did is overwhelming.
> > >
> > > The evidence of a consistent pre-human history to life, the Earth, and
> > > the universe is overwhelming. The evidence for common ancestry of
> > > humans and apes is overwhelming. You may solipsistically,
> > > omphalostically claim we don't have common ancestry, and no one can
> > > prove you wrong, but *the evidence is still there*...
>
> [snip rest, since the above was the point I wanted to invite you to
> respond to]
>
>
> eyelessgame
>
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Would you want to believe it, if it was?
>
> >
> >Evidently the sonship we have as redeemed beings, and the communion with
God
> >that we have as coming to him in that way, outstrips the blessings of the
> >angels who were created perfect and always stayed that way. They are
called
> >ministering servants to the heirs of salvation.
>
> Except that it is not evident at all.
>
Would you want to believe it, if it was?
> >Trust God, it'll be all right in the end for those who go with the flow
and
> >accept the Word, trusting in Christ and not themselves, for their
salvation.
>
> Trust Lint, and your laundry will be whiter than white.
>
>
> Liz #658 BAAWA
>
> "LintaneticsŽ" by L<dot> iz
> A guide to a cleaner, brighter laundry.
> Guaranteed to remove lamb's blood stains.
Nothing will remove the Lamb's blood from us.
When God washes us therein, we are whiter than snow.
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:2ilgvv05fratsdob0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:02:33 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Użytkownik "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net> napisał w
wiadomości
> >news:3cbfvvg8qc3mjik0q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:07:00 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> >> <no...@jose.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Użytkownik ""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> napisał w
> >> >wiadomości news:3ff72cb8$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >> >> R.Schenck wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Salvation by faith, and not through works of our own, this is the
> >essential
> >> >reason we are here, we are created so that we could be to the praise
of
> >HIS
> >> >glory, those whose first trust is in Christ. Who trusts in his own
work
> >for
> >> >righteousness, glorifies himslef. This will not glorify god in heaven,
> >and
> >> >of course there are none righteous enough to go to heaven, so if they
> >trust
> >> >their own work they will be shut out of God's kingdom, and shown how
the
> >> >many sins they made could not be overlooked, they deceived themselves.
> >Those
> >> >who come by faith are saved, and that is the only way the
righteousness
> >of
> >> >God the son can be applied without the need for a work. Everything
beyond
> >> >the purity of faith, even the obedience to Christ that Charles Casey
has
> >> >talked about, is works,
> >>
> >> Wrong. I wasted so much time on this so I demand verses to back this
> >> up. I demand that you show verses that state that you don't have to
> >> obey Jesus. Obeying Jesus is not works and no where in the New
> >> Testament does it say that it is works. NO WHERE. Paul was talking to
> >> people that were led astray and taught that first they had to follow
> >> the Old Testament laws. I'm sorry if you followed Calvin your whole
> >> life, maybe you should have read the Bible instead. So put up or shut
> >> up. Show the verses that state that you don't have to obey Jesus, and
> >> that obeying Jesus is works.
> >
> >Several places place faith and works in apposition, including your no
doubt
> >well perused Letter of James.
> >
> >If obedience is not faith, it is works. If obedience were necessary for
> >salvation, then some room for boasting would be left. Only pure faith
> >salvation leaves no room for boasting. "Not of works, lest any man should
> >boast."
> >
> Luke 7 "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the
> sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field,
> 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? 8 Would he not rather say,
> 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and
> drink; after that you may eat and drink'? 9 Would he thank the servant
> because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have
> done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy
> servants; we have only done our duty.' "
>
> Jesus is telling you here that when you obey him and follow everything
> he has said you have only done your _DUTY_ and you deserve no praise.
> So how can you boast when you have only done your duty? Duty is not
> works. Obeying is not works, it is your duty to obey. The Bible is so
> clear on this point you have to refuse to see it in order to miss it.
This is part of Christ teaching the law, and how we cannot be justified that
way.
The point at issue here is that tring to obey the law will not save you,
because the obedience to the law was your duty anyway. You wouldn't get
thanked for it. It'd be like holding a door for someone in Poland, they
wouldn't say 'oh thank you, what a gentleman'. It woudl simply have been
your duty. And any lapsus in that obedience, even only one, is enough to
justify the sinner being sent to hell.
But what does 'not under the law' mean?
> >>
> >> > if it doesn't flow naturally out of the love of the
> >> >forgiven sinner, who is completely justified by faith, and given a new
> >> >heart, a new spirit within him, and presented with spiritual armour.
So
> >> >whilst obedience to Christ is good and right, it is not a prerequisite
> >for
> >> >salvation, as we see by the thief on the cross, who received
> >unconditional
> >> >salvation at the moment of faith as he died.
> >> >
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> I didn't think that you could give up that last piece of flesh and I
> >> was right. So you go on thinking that obeying Jesus is works, which it
> >> isn't and you can't justify it by any book accept by quote mining it.
> >>
> >> So tell me, in your "I don't have to listen to Jesus" religion, how do
> >> you account for this:
> >>
> >> John 14: 15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
> >>
> >
> >It's absolutely true. If we love him, we will keep his commandments.
> >
> >We might fail, and we will fail, but the answer is to repent again and
get
> >back with the journey of sanctification.
> >
> Exactly, but if you _plan_ lies how is that _repenting_? Sounds like
> the exact opposite to me.
That sounds like repentance of your repentance. Hence we pray for a
'repentance not to be repented of', as the Bible says.
>
> >> How do you reason away that verse? It is quite simple, Jesus said that
> >> if you love him you will obey him. Now find me a verse that says Jesus
> >> is wrong here.
> >>
> >> John 14: 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who
> >> loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
> >> love him and show myself to him.
> >>
> >
> >Absolutely true. If we love God we will seek to please Him, just as if we
> >love our wife we will seek to please her.
> >
> You don't obey God to please him, you obey him because you love him
> and it is your duty. You don't obey him to please him, that would be
> works. You obey him because it is your duty. You don't try and please
> him like a wife or a girlfriend or even a father, you obey him because
> you believe him to be God.
>
You cannot please God without Christ's sacrifice, but God delights in seeing
sinners who are saved battling against their sins.
> >It's nonsense to say you love someone, but don't wanna be with them , and
> >please them.
> >
> >> How do you reason away that verse? See that? Do you have his commands?
> >> If you love him you will do what? Obey him? Is that what he said? If
> >> he did I would like you to find me a verse that says that Jesus is
> >> wrong here.
> >>
> >> John 14: 23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my
> >> teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
> >> our home with him.
> >>
> >> How about that one? Was he just joking? Oh my oh my, another one!
> >> Jesus says that if you love him you will obey him. Now, in your
> >> version of Christianity please quote me a verse that states that Jesus
> >> is wrong here.
> >
> >He isn't wrong! He's absolutely right.
> >
> >>
> >> 2 John 1: 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his
> >> commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that
> >> you walk in love.
> >>
> >> What do you do with that verse? Walk in obedience? They must be
> >> joking, right? Certainly you must have a verse to back up your
> >> doctrine that states that this is wrong, right?
> >>
> >
> >No, I'd like to walk in obedience. That's what hauled me red-eyed out of
bed
> >this morning to go to Church only four hours after finishing spiritually
> >battling in here.
> >
> Supporting a ministry of lies is not spiritual battling. Trying to
> convince people that science is wrong and Last Tuesdayism is the way
> to go is not spiritual battling. Who are you to tell God how he should
> bring people to him? That's not spiritual battling, that's ego.
I'm not telling God anything, that's what is in scripture.
Omphalism is doctrinally sound, and allows both science and faith to
co-exist.
And I don't do lies, I might well do errors, but I don't do deliberate lies.
> How many people in your church accept evolution as the best
> explanation for the observed evidence? If there are any, why wouldn't
> you be forcing your ideologies on them instead of marching as a
> soldier for the Jason Lies Ministry?
>
I don't suppose there is a single evolutionist in the Church I go to.
> >
> >> Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told
> >> to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our
> >> duty.' "
> >>
> >> How about this one? Oh my! This one says that obeying Jesus is your
> >> DUTY doesn't it? That means that you will not receive any reward for
> >> obeying Jesus, will you? Nope, and why is that? Because it is your
> >> DUTY to obey him, not WORKS. Do you get it yet? It looks like Lenny
> >> was right, you can't form the words "I WAS WRONG" can you?
> >>
> >
> >There isn't the trichotomy works-duty-faith, there's the dichotomy faith
vs
> >works. Doing duties is on the works side of that dichotomy, as we see in
the
> >context of James 2. Where Abraham is commended for being willing to
> >sacrifice Isaac, was that a good deed or an act of duty required by God?
> >Obviously the latter, so obeying God is a duty and it is also a work.
Devils
> >believe, and tremble, they do not obey, they do not submit to the will of
> >God, they do not do their duty, they have no works. Faith without works
is
> >dead faith. It's the tree with no fruit. Dead faith. Dead faith isn't
saving
> >faith. If we love God, we naturally want to please him, so carelessness
in
> >this means we don't really love Him.
>
> You don't obey God to please him, you obey him because you love him
> and it is your duty. You can't do anything to please him, that would
> be works. Obeying is your duty it is not part of works. Read Luke 17.
You clearly don't know what works are.
The definition of work is obedience. All capitalist economic dictionaries
have work defined as the sacrifice of the worker's liberties in order to
perform what he would not perform if he were not working, and all the
marxist dictionaries define work as the glorious destiny of the proletariat.
The bible shows workd vis a vis faith, so whetever we do that isn't faith is
works.
> >So we have a dead love, and a dead faith. Just as a woman ought to doubt
the
> >love of a man who makes no effort for her, so we can doubt the love of
the
> >complacent professor.
> >
> >> I was going to post about 30 more verses but I think that you get the
> >> point, don't you?
> >
> >Sure do. Now do you get this - it was said by Christ, who is forgiven
much,
> >loves much.
> >
> >So if the love gives rise to the obedience, and it must, when you hear
'who
> >is forgiven much, loves much' then what do you understand to be the
driver
> >here, our obedience leading to forgiveness or forgiveness leading to
> >obedience?
> >
> Love leads to obedience. If you love him you will obey him. If you sin
> once you are saved you should be disgusted by it, ask for forgiveness
> and then do your best not to sin again. It is your duty to obey him
> and once you die having done your duty you deserve no praise because
> you have only done that which is required of you.
Quite. So all that obedience won't save me.
Only the unearned favour of God and the sacrifice of Christ will save me.
>
> Sin is the disobedience to God. Sin means you did something he told
> you not to do or didn't do something that he told you to do. If you
> love him you will obey him and do the things that he wants you to do
> and not do the things he doesn't want you to do. You don't sin because
> you love him and his spirit dwells in you making it that much easier
> to obey him. It doesn't mean that you won't let your emotions get away
> from you once in awhile and sin, but in those rare cases that you do
> sin it should disgust you so you repent and do your best not to do it
> again.
>
Quite. It should, shouldn't it? But have you any idea how unclean I am by
nature?
> If you plan sins that doesn't show much love at all, does it?
That's right. I'd better not plan any sins, but plan to avoid them like the
plague, out of love to Christ.
> >> Now, tell me how you can ignore all those verses and say that you
> >> don't have to obey Jesus. You are spouting off nifty doctrine that
> >> Calvin dreamed up because no one could tell that fool what to do. Yet
> >> now that you have believed it your whole life you are confused looking
> >> at these verses because you have to now dream up a way to justify
> >> ignoring them.
> >>
> >
> >I don't claim anitnomianism and I never have.
>
> Well it sure seems that way when you support a liar and then claim
> that you don't have to obey Jesus. Or was that another lie to justify
> your actions?
>
I haven't said 'you don't have to obey'. I said that's not the means, but
the outcome of salvation.
> >
> >> It is quite amusing how you claim to be a Christian yet you don't
> >> follow Christ, you follow Calvin. Calvin twisted faith without works
> >> to mean something it doesn't. And that's the downfall of
> >> fundamentalism; everything has to be black and white bumper sticker
> >> sayings as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
> >>
> >> Now take all of those verses and all of the ones that I posted in the
> >> other two threads and it looks like your brand of Christianity demands
> >> that you ignore most of the New Testament. You ignored everything I
> >> said in those threads. And I didn't just spew, I backed up everything
> >> I said with IN CONTEXT verses.
> >
> >You've misunderstood our brand of Christianity. Whatever Calvinists you
knew
> >could have been out of order, or maybe you started to look for things to
> >criticise them with so as to excuse yourself, who knows? God certainly
> >knows. I would like to please God, myself, and keep to his Holy Laws. I
> >know that I've got a cat's chance, but I'm trying anyway.
> >
>
> I understand your brand of Christianity all too well, and I have
> witnessed the negative results of it my entire life.
>
No, no. You're tarring us all with the same brush. The words you've quoted
from someone in your congregation showed already that there were things
wrong there.
> >>
> >> Now tell me how that can be. How can a Christian ignore most of the
> >> New Testament? Why did Jesus give those commands, because he liked to
> >> hear himself talk? Because the Bible would have been too thin and he
> >> needed filler? You never did answer any of these questions so why
> >> don't you try answering them now?
> >>
> >> And if you quote Paul you have to say exactly why you can pull verses
> >> out of context. If you forgot that lesson already go back and read
> >> those threads.
> >>
> >> How do you ignore most of the New Testament as a Christian? How do you
> >> ignore that obeying Christ is your DUTY and not just a nice nifty
> >> thing to do if you happen to feel like it?
> >>
> >> Let's see some verses from you. I have about 30 more sitting here and
> >> about 60 or so more in another list I made. Lets see what you come up
> >> with. I really want to see the verses that state that you don't have
> >> to obey Jesus DESPITE all these verses that say you do. No blithering,
> >> no nifty man made doctrines, just verses with an explanation as to why
> >> you don't have to listen to Jesus.
> >>
> >> I went through quite a bit to make my case and now it is your turn.
> >>
> >> Show me the first verse that specifically states that you don't have
> >> to obey Jesus.
> >>
> >
> >I am trying to obey Jesus, because who is forgiven much, loves much, and
if
> >you love me, he said, keep my commandments.
> >
> If you were really trying you wouldn't support a liar.
I don't support any liars. I don't know which liar you mean or why you think
he is a liar.
>
> >If you don't like the standards of my obedience, and think it is too
flawed,
> >join the club.
> >
> >Uncle Davey
> >
> And that's exactly what the people here have been complaining about.
> You came here to support your liar and deceiver in charge which makes
> you just as guilty as him which led to the complaint of your brand of
> Christianity, the "liars for Jesus" cult that you will see people
> complain about over and over again.
>
If you must lump everyone together then that's just tough on me, but I'm not
turning my back on my brother.
He's not perfect, neither am I, but his heart's in the right place.
> Jason came in here to prove that evolution is faith so what not have
> faith in Jesus instead but he is doing it with lies and deceptions.
> Many of those lies may be due to ignorance, but some of them he went
> out of his way to do. You are one of his soldiers, you came in here to
> support him and you continually make pot shots at other people. If you
> support a liar what does that make you?
In disagreement that he is one.
>
> So we danced around and around to reach the same point that we started
> at. Jason is a liar. You support him so you are just as guilty of his
> lies. What hold does he have on you? Why would you risk your soul in
> support of a liar? Why would you go through so much trouble, time and
> effort to disobey Jesus in order to support Jason? Do you love Jason
> more than you love Jesus?
>
No, but I know that if Jason were not serving the true and living God, he
simply wouldn't get to all you lot the way he does.
And I'm not turning my back on my brother.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sure I've fed more hungry and clothed more naked than most people.
> >
> > The government of course takes the credit, but I made the money they've
done
> > it with.
> >
> > And of course, without God's gifts I couldn't have made the money.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Without God's gifts you'd also not have made the money that the
> government uses to make nuclear weapons.
>
> Or is it your opinion that nuclear weapons are godly.
I'm paying in Poland, which doesn't have an atomic weapons programme.
This country hasn't got atomic power stations, either.
And it's 28% wilderness, 19% forest....
Best,
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Uncle Davey
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
>
> >>"Functional". Heh. What was the function of SN1987A?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Possibly to put us in mind of the end of time.
> >
> > Supernovas and other phases in the life of a star lead men to understand
> > black holes, the medium God will possibly use to reel in the universe
quite
> > shortly.
>
>
>
>
> God tell you that himself, did he?
>
I said 'possibly'.
If God told me that, I could have dispensed with the 'possibly'.
Best,
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com