Postvieww said:

Isn’t this a little late and a desperate attempt to obscure the great win today?

Click to expand...

Isn't what a little late? If you're referring to my reply, this thread was just started a bit past noon today, so no, how is it a bit late? If you are referring to something/someone else being late and desperate, please clarify.

Who are you accusing of attempting to "obscure the great win", me, the OP, Jeffries or Vance? I have yet to see Vance reading the text which is from whom again?

Postvieww said:

I watched it live. I just assumed someone recorded it. You should be able to find it somewhere. Good luck.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh, "assumed".... How would I know that whatever I find is the one you watched? Seems like a fool's errand to look for more than a minute, which I did, but I was hoping that since you referred to "the" video that you had one particular video in mind. Did you watch the whole eight hours live? If so, congrats, that's quite a feat!

HBP said:

Actually, if you had read more of my posts (not that I blame you for not having done so), you would see that I am a great defender of science and of the need to interpret Scripture in light of scientific truths. I am ANYTHING BUT someone who suggests science is a myth. If you got that out of my posts, you'd have to explain to me how you did.

Philosophical materialism, as opposed to methodological materialism, is indeed an atheistic commitment that is indistinguishable from a religion: there is no spiritual dimension, period. Any scientist would agree with this - it isn't me calling anyone names. Philosophical materialism is prevalent in modern science. A designer or creator is simply ruled out - off the table. If this isn't the functional equivalent of a religion, I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

The you are bringing coals to Newcastle, as the saying goes. Everybody on the pro-evolution side here, atheists and theists alike, already understand the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturals,

HBP said:

I think it's been pretty well exposed by the reaction of the scientific community to the Intelligent Design movement that the proponents of neo-Darwinism do have a philosophical commitment to the theory. The same has been exposed by the difficulty of purely secular scientists who question the theory in presenting their concerns. I'm not breaking any new ground here.

Click to expand...

Certainly they have a philosophical commitment to preserving their work from junk science like ID. IDists like to whine that science rejected ID without examination because it might lead to God. ID was thoroughly examined and found to be worthless.

HBP said:

Apart from those - and they are many - who have a philosophical commitment to it, I don't say that neo-Darwinism is a myth or religion. For thos who have a philosophical commitment to it, it functions as a religion. In the abstract, neo-Darwinism is simply a scientific theory and the currently governing paradigm. It is increasingly being exposed as flawed and untenable, and the reaction is precisely as Thomas Kuhn described when a governing paradigm starts to crumble.

As Francis Collins and the BioLogos folks argue, there is nothing inherently un-Christian or un-theistic about evolutionary theory unless one couples it with philosophical materialism, which is by definition atheistic.

Click to expand...

So don't. Problem solved.

HBP said:

I simply say that neo-Darwinian theory is seeming increasingly outdated and unlikely. Chemical evolution as the theory for the origin of life is seeming even more outdated and unlikely.

The truth, for all I know, may be some variety of evolution not too dissimilar from neo-Darwinian theory together with a creator God. Ditto for the origin of life. Literal creationism seems impossibly unlikely to me, as I have clearly on other threads.

Click to expand...

There is, in the theology of Traditional Christians, who need neither to change their theology or the theory itself in order to accept it.

HBP said:

The emotional responses I've received here, to what I thought were pretty innocuous observations, seem to me to speak volumes and to underscore that, for many, a commitment to neo-Darwinism is indeed the functional equivalent of religious dogma.

Click to expand...

It's the character of the rhetoric more than the content.

I was wondering when this administration would actually pass laws and not just hand down dictates from on high.

ozso said:

If the cost of necessities exceed income then bankruptcy becomes moot. But that's not a platform I was working with. It's something that was added as another goal post move.

Click to expand...

Apparently dealing with reality is a goal post move to you.

Always in His Presence said:

Another Urban myth -

Jimmy Carter was not forced to sell his peanut farm,​

​

​

He sold his farm after not being re-elected because his personal financial management was not any better than his fiscal​

Click to expand...

Amended, thanks for the info.

I guess democrats are the new fiscal conservatives.

Watch, he’ll sign it “in two weeks”.

BCP1928 said:

And you have no idea how little I am interested in that dispute because it is a false one. There is no dispute between God and the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it is clear from this thread that there are numerous atheists who treat setting aside theological questions and limiting the scope of inquiry as a positive denial. So pretending that the question isn't relevant in this setting is, at best, naive.

SabbathBlessings said:

Is God going grocery shopping for you? Is God working everyone's day-to-day job? Is God doing your laundry? Or cleaning your house? Or pulling your weeds? or driving your kids to school?

Click to expand...

Yes, Christ in me...the hope of glory !

SabbathBlessings said:

You will have to take that up to with God. The Sabbath is one written personally by the finger of God commandments and is His Testimony Exo 31:18 going away from is not wise Isa 8:20. God never made all days holy, He only commanded us to keep the seventh day Sabbath holy Exo 20:8 your enmity regarding's God's Sabbath commandment is not with me.

Click to expand...

He commands us to keep every day holy.
"Be ye holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16)

SabbathBlessings said:

Disobedience to God and His commandments is called rebellion and sin in Scripture and it never did anyone any favors, not sure why people think it is going to work now. Jesus said its not. Mat 7:21-23

Click to expand...

If one thinks about it, be declaring that one keeps one day holy, one actually announce that one keeps six days unholy !
I don't want to try explaining to God the reasons for that is because "I was only following the OT Law".

SabbathBlessings said:

Yes and in doing so is one going to disobey God through love and faith or obey Him 1 John 5:3 Rev 14:12. The 4th commandment is no different than the 1st commandment or 7 commandment in God's eyes Deut 4:13 James 2:11-12 Mat 5:19-30

Click to expand...

All the Law, and the prophets, are summed up with... love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength...and love your neighbor as yourself.
Not on just one day a week.

SabbathBlessings said:

No one can ever be holy by disobeying God. You are using your own human reason over what God said. While we have free will, its not the path Jesus told us to take Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13
Exo 20: 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, by the destruction of the old me, and the rebirth of a new creature/son of God, I am perfectly in line with all God's wishes.
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb 4:11)

BCP1928 said:

That may be, but they are not scientific facts.

Click to expand...

Never said they were, but the discussion started over statements about evidence not simply "scientific facts".

BCP1928 said:

What explanatory theories are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Specifically in this instance, "natural" explanations like psychological explanations and appeals to legendary development compared with acceptance of some genuine resurrection event occurring.

BCP1928 said:

But it is generally the only kind that science uses.

Click to expand...

Sure, but as I said science is not the only field that deals with evidence in a broad sense, and physical evidence is a vanishingly small form of evidence as we move down the hierarchy of academic disciplines.

Landon Caeli said:

How? How does less taxes on the rich make people poor. I must know!

Click to expand...

In order to offset some of the “tax-cuts”, Medicaid was slashed.
But little Johnny’s appendix still bursts and the resultant cost for care falls on John Sr., who won’t be able to get the new(er) car that is reliable enough to get him to a better job across town.

It may be helpful for you to take a break from all that romance music.

Hoping2 said:

Why not just keep every day holy ?
Jesus has made that possible, by His suffering, death, burial, and resurrection.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me

Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him Colossians 3

Tinker Grey said:

You might want to think about pursuing this line of dialog.

From here: Addition to the Statement of Purpose

​

Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up.​

​

{Emphasis added}


De facto, or otherwise, I should think.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you had read more of my posts (not that I blame you for not having done so), you would see that I am a great defender of science and of the need to interpret Scripture in light of scientific truths. I am ANYTHING BUT someone who suggests science is a myth. If you got that out of my posts, you'd have to explain to me how you did.

Philosophical materialism, as opposed to methodological materialism, is indeed an atheistic commitment that is indistinguishable from a religion: there is no spiritual dimension, period. Any scientist would agree with this - it isn't me calling anyone names. Philosophical materialism is prevalent in modern science. A designer or creator is simply ruled out - off the table. If this isn't the functional equivalent of a religion, I don't know what is.

I think it's been pretty well exposed by the reaction of the scientific community to the Intelligent Design movement that the proponents of neo-Darwinism do have a philosophical commitment to the theory. The same has been exposed by the difficulty of purely secular scientists who question the theory in presenting their concerns. I'm not breaking any new ground here.

Apart from those - and they are many - who have a philosophical commitment to it, I don't say that neo-Darwinism is a myth or religion. For thos who have a philosophical commitment to it, it functions as a religion. In the abstract, neo-Darwinism is simply a scientific theory and the currently governing paradigm. It is increasingly being exposed as flawed and untenable, and the reaction is precisely as Thomas Kuhn described when a governing paradigm starts to crumble.

As Francis Collins and the BioLogos folks argue, there is nothing inherently un-Christian or un-theistic about evolutionary theory unless one couples it with philosophical materialism, which is by definition atheistic. I simply say that neo-Darwinian theory is seeming increasingly outdated and unlikely. Chemical evolution as the theory for the origin of life is seeming even more outdated and unlikely.

The truth, for all I know, may be some variety of evolution not too dissimilar from neo-Darwinian theory together with a creator God. Ditto for the origin of life. Literal creationism seems impossibly unlikely to me, as I have clearly stated on other threads.

The emotional responses I've received here, to what I thought were pretty innocuous observations, seem to me to speak volumes and to underscore that, for many, a commitment to neo-Darwinism is indeed the functional equivalent of religious dogma.

Fervent said:

I make no objections to evolution, other than that atheist polemicists and Christian fundamentalists have twisted it into an either/or decision between belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

And you have no idea how little I am interested in that dispute because it is a false one. There is no dispute between God and the theory of evolution.

"Politicizes"?

I mean, they are all there in Congress, being politicians, doing politics. Its not like hes bringing this up at a funeral or Boy Scout jamboree.

Hentenza said:

No where in scripture does it say that there is salvation post mortem. What scripture does say in droves is that faith is necessary for salvation and every one of those verses are directed strictly to the living.

Once again, if universalism is true then why did God sent His Son to die for our sins? Certainly God is powerful enough to save everyone without the sacrifice, right?

Click to expand...

The idea that those who will have faith only in the mortal body is what scripture is talking about, does not add up to the big picture that scripture is painting. There are to many scriptures that either directly or indirectly say that all will be saved to just ignore or not to deal with at all.
All the scriptures that talk about "eternal hell" are totally shown to be false just by using the original Greek of that day, if one understands that the rest of the scriptures paint a beautiful story of a God who loves his creation and will stop at nothing to save his children, God has a plan and is working it, Jesus really is the savior of the world not a potential savior.

AV1611VET said:

How long do they plan to be parked in one spot?

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

Click to expand...

Nothing in there about the literal inerrancy of Genesis,

Fervent said:

The issue is, as some of the atheists in this thread have shown, that inability to examine is taken to be evidence in favor of falsity. And its not as if there's anything particularly unusual historically about there being no physical evidence to examine, as physical evidence is not the type of evidence that historians tend to deal with. Physical evidence in history is the exception, not the rule. So while we can't explore it as a scientific question, we can explore it as a historical question to a certain degree. We can establish mundane historical facts using that text, and from those mundane historical facts

Click to expand...

That may be, but they are not scientific facts.

Fervent said:

we can compare explanatory theories on the basis of non-arbitrary heuristic tests.

Click to expand...

What explanatory theories are you talking about?

Fervent said:

Science is not the only academic discipline, nor is scientific evidence the only type of evidence that members of the academy deal with.

Click to expand...

But it is generally the only kind that science uses.

Maria Billingsley said:

He used his " magic minute " to expose the immorality of this bill. That's a good thing.

Click to expand...

There is no immorality in this bill which is going to become law tomorrow.

Fervent said:

If preceding Jesus temporally is irrelevant, why would preceding Abrahm temporally matter? Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the Earth, your objection is moot.

Click to expand...

Can you show me in scripture that those from Adam till Abraham even had any idea about Jesus, even those under the old covenant had no idea of Jesus and what he was truly about, if they did they would have celebrated his incarnation and not killed him.
If the idea that the OT people were saved because they were looking forward to Jesus, very few of them understood so the ones "saved" under that system were very few and most would be damned looking for a king to overthrow the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom.
The idea that people were looking forward to Jesus preaches good to shore up the tradition but in reality it falls short.

BCP1928 said:

The babies the slaves bore once they were here were not brought from Africa. The parents of the baby are not being offered anything. It's the baby that is being given citizenship.I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. The 14th Amendment ONLY APPLIES TO THE BABY. The legal status of the parents is not changed by it and is a separate question altogether.

Click to expand...

EVERYONE knows this. You don’t have to repeat it incessantly. My comment was ABOUT the parent/s.