Issues in Scienceville.

[JacktheCatholic]

Then why was Noah and family aboard the Ark for a year and ten days, if the Flood was just a local one?

Here is one explanation to consider:

As the last ice age waned some 10,000 years ago, the Black Sea overflowed with meltwater from the northern Asian ice cap, and it drained downhill into the Mediterranean, which like the rest of the ocean was rising but still well below its present level. Then a global cold snap hit. The glaciers stopped melting and the Black Sea shrank to a large freshwater lake about the size of today's Caspian Sea, a hundred meters or so below sea level. People moved there and set up the earliest significant farming societies on the lake's shores.

When warming resumed after a millennium or so, the north Asian meltwater went elsewhere and the lake stayed low. But the Mediterranean continued to rise until, one fateful day around 5600 BCE, it spilled over the hills where once the Black Sea had spilled the other way.

That first trickle of seawater grew within days to a colossal, roaring torrent as it gouged out a deep notch in the hills. Storms, lightning, earthquakes and other geophysical disturbances surely accompanied this catastrophe. In a matter of months, the great lake was utterly drowned and its shore-dwellers scattered. The Black Sea and its outlet to the Mediterranean, the Bosporus, became as we know them today in a geologic instant. But the survivors of the Flood long remembered what happened in epic songs and myths, one version of which is preserved in the book of Genesis.

The Comeback of Noah's Flood

We need to remember that Genesis is also an oral tradition and though preserved well was never meant to be historical or scientific proof but rather a story of God and His relationship with mankind. So, men could learn and know about God. If anything, these geological finds give credibility to Noah and the great flood.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Funny, you're the only creationist who doesn't have a problem with that.

Well... I do believe in the Holy Trinity and that Yahweh created everything. I just do not read the bible as a scientific journal because it is not. The Old Testament is more poetic than literal at times too.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well... I do believe in the Holy Trinity and that Yahweh created everything.

And here's where the issue of definition comes in -- around these parts, the question of whether one is a "creationist" or "evolutionist" centers around how the deed was done, not by whom.

You believe that God created -- ok, so you're a theist. Since you don't think it happened in six literal days, 6000-10000 years ago as "documented" in the Bible, you're not a "creationist" by the common definition. You're what we'd call a theistic evolutionist -- God began the process and let nature take its course from there (with or without prodding on His part).

Now, there are some creationists who love to (in fact, can do very little but) play games with semantics and defintions, and claim that since you believe that God created, you're a creationist. Some of them go even further and say that since everyone believed that the world was created (a hard fact to dispute, since we're all currently standing on it) that everyone is a "creationist."

This serves no purpose, of course, except to give creationists an artificial sense of validity by inflating their perceived ranks. It sounds pathetic, because it is, as you will see when you encounter creationists who employ such petty semantics -- assuming you haven't already.

I just do not read the bible as a scientific journal because it is not.

Indeed -- nor is it God's autobiography, a literal factual history of everything worth knowing, or an eyewitness account of the world -- and yet, you'll be surprised how many people labor under the assumption that it is.

The Old Testament is more poetic than literal at times too.

Far more poetic -- and we all need to remember that.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

By those comments I would have to think that I am not a "creationist".

 

[Nathan Poe]

By those comments I would have to think that I am not a "creationist".

Not for the purposes of discussing CvE on this board, no.

I think (and of course I could be wrong, but I do hope I'm not) that you're humble enough to realize that neither you nor the Bible have all the answers, that it, for all its strengths, is limited by the mindset and the level of knowledge of its authors, and that "God," whatever Hs/She/It/They may be, would be something so far beyond our understanding that any attempt to confine it to the narrow definitions of an ancient text would be an exercise in supreme hubris.

I also think (again, hoping I'm not wrong on this one), that when the facts clash with your idea of God, that you alter your idea to fit the facts, and not try to alter the facts to fit your idea. This would be comforting -- I've noticed a tendancy of "creationists" to pencil in their own laundry lists of extrabiblical "miracles" that they attribute to God, for no other reason than that they demand He perform such miracles in order for their idea of Him to remain unchanged.

And really, is there anything more narcissistic than demanding God perform a miracle so that you don't have to admit an error? Isn't such an attitude completely antithetical to Christian humility before God?

You seem like the type to avoid such arrogance -- sadly, it seems to define most "creationists."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not for the purposes of discussing CvE on this board, no.

OK


As Popeye would say, "I am what I am".

 

[Nathan Poe]

OK


As Popeye would say, "I am what I am".

Great. I don't know if you noticed, but I edited my post to include a bit of a mini-rant.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Great. I don't know if you noticed, but I edited my post to include a bit of a mini-rant.

I did

As I have stated before, "God (religion) and science coexist together." The RCC has written much on this and teaches that evolution does not interfere with our understanding of God. However, for myself, I believe in micro-evolution but am hard pressed to believe in macro-evolution. Of course, it seems, there are different understandings (definitions) as to what macro-evolution and micro-evolution are.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did

As I have stated before, "God (religion) and science coexist together." The RCC has written much on this and teaches that evolution does not interfere with our understanding of God. However, for myself, I believe in micro-evolution but am hard pressed to believe in macro-evolution. Of course, it seems, there are different understandings (definitions) as to what macro-evolution and micro-evolution are.

Do you believe in transubstantiation?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Do you believe in transubstantiation?

As he is a catholic, I would guess so.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do you believe in transubstantiation?

Am I Catholic?


I will note that many do not know what Transubstantiation is. It is a latin term that means to "trans" or change and "substantiation" or substance. In essence it means that when Jesus held bread at the Last Supper and said "this is my body" that it became His body and ceased being bread.

Interestingly we have had some debates on this in General Theology. You will find that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) and the Oriental Orthodox Church (OOC) and the Lutherans (founded by Martin Luther) and the Anglican Church (founded by King Henry VIII) all believe in this Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist though they define it differently.

It was not until John Calvin and Zwingli, during the Protestant Reformation, that the Real Presence was refuted into a merely symbolic ceremony or a ceremony that lacked any physical change.

There was one that contested that if the Eucharist is the Real Presence that we should be able to do a DNA test on it. It was then argued that the substance is still changed even if DNA does not reflect this. Faith? Maybe. Or maybe we just do not know enough about matter.

In the RCC we also have miracles with the Eucharist that have shown real human blood bleeding from the Eucharist. And others as well. But in the end it always comes back to Faith and no science has been published that can conclusively declare this miracle as scientific fact (phenomenon). At least nothing that I could present here and not expect some debate on anyhow.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Inan3]

Well... I do believe in the Holy Trinity and that Yahweh created everything. I just do not read the bible as a scientific journal because it is not. The Old Testament is more poetic than literal at times too.

Hey Jack can you tell me who gets to decide when they are more literal than poetic or vice versa? The scientists or Jesus?

He believed that God created Adam and Eve male and female from the beginning. That rules out common descent. He believed in Noah and the ark. That kind of overrules what todays geologists are trying to tell us. I go with Jesus every time. If science doesn't agree then science is wrong and hopefully one day will find (or allow) the truth.

I don't think the Bible should be read as a scientific journal either. God forbid, that I would have to depend upon scientific journals for eternal life. They deny the very existence of God by denying that God made man in HIS image and likeness and not out of chimpanzee. (Don't you see the irony in that? Straight from the pit of hell) Also, they deny the existence of God in the Big Bang theory. No you can't serve two masters, either you will love the one and hate the other or hate the one and love the other. I choose God. Man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of His mouth from Genesis to Revelation. If you can't talk it for what it says in every place then you can't take any of it. Then it IS only subject to man's interpretation.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Hey Jack can you tell me who gets to decide when they are more literal than poetic or vice versa? The scientists or Jesus?

He believed that God created Adam and Eve male and female from the beginning. That rules out common descent. He believed in Noah and the ark. That kind of overrules what todays geologists are trying to tell us. I go with Jesus every time. If science doesn't agree then science is wrong and hopefully one day will find (or allow) the truth.

I don't think the Bible should be read as a scientific journal either. God forbid, that I would have to depend upon scientific journals for eternal life. They deny the very existence of God by denying that God made man in HIS image and likeness and not out of chimpanzee. (Don't you see the irony in that? Straight from the pit of hell) Also, they deny the existence of God in the Big Bang theory. No you can't serve two masters, either you will love the one and hate the other or hate the one and love the other. I choose God. Man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of His mouth from Genesis to Revelation. If you can't talk it for what it says in every place then you can't take any of it. Then it IS only subject to man's interpretation.

Or better, read it as fiction, since no one here has put forward a shred of proof for it the whole time I've been here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that answer your question?

Enough to tell me to take your previous posts about a figurative Noah (or Flood) with a grain of salt.

If I take this dodge correctly, instead of answering my question about what you believe, you're telling me that this sacrament is being peer reviewed by science?

If the Lord's Table was a sacrament in our church, and scientists showed up to do a DNA sample on it, I would like to think they would leave wearing their equipment on their heads.

 

[Jazer]

the Anglican Church (founded by King Henry VIII) all believe in this Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

The Anglican Church is called the Episcopal Church in American. It is a real refuge for people who leave the Catholic Church. They believe the Eucharist is a point of contact and can be a time of healing. God can do a work in us and it is a time to receive what He has for us. The Charismatics believe in the Chrismas as the Gifts of God given to the People of God. I believe in a two fold atonement. Jesus died to reconcile us with the Father, but also He died to reconcile us with each other. As living stones being fit and joined together.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hey Jack can you tell me who gets to decide when they are more literal than poetic or vice versa? The scientists or Jesus?

He believed that God created Adam and Eve male and female from the beginning. That rules out common descent. He believed in Noah and the ark. That kind of overrules what todays geologists are trying to tell us. I go with Jesus every time. If science doesn't agree then science is wrong and hopefully one day will find (or allow) the truth.

I don't think the Bible should be read as a scientific journal either. God forbid, that I would have to depend upon scientific journals for eternal life. They deny the very existence of God by denying that God made man in HIS image and likeness and not out of chimpanzee. (Don't you see the irony in that? Straight from the pit of hell) Also, they deny the existence of God in the Big Bang theory. No you can't serve two masters, either you will love the one and hate the other or hate the one and love the other. I choose God. Man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of His mouth from Genesis to Revelation. If you can't talk it for what it says in every place then you can't take any of it. Then it IS only subject to man's interpretation.

The Jews had the Old Covenant priests that kept the teachings and the New Testament has their priests too which maintain an Apostolic line back to the Apostles.

As to Adam and Even the words used here could be two people or it could be mankind.

From Wiki:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, ʼĀḏām, "dust; man; mankind"; Arabic: آدم‎, ʼĀdam) and Eve (Hebrew: חַוָּה‎, Ḥawwā, "living one") were, according to the Book of Genesis, the first man and woman created by YHWH (the God of the Hebrew Bible).

All men came from the dust and to the dust they will return, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust."

Adam and Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Enough to tell me to take your previous posts about a figurative Noah (or Flood) with a grain of salt.

If I take this dodge correctly, instead of answering my question about what you believe, you're telling me that this sacrament is being peer reviewed by science?

If the Lord's Table was a sacrament in our church, and scientists showed up to do a DNA sample on it, I would like to think they would leave wearing their equipment on their heads.

I never said there was a figurative Noah. It would be nice if you read what I wrote. I love discussions where there is intellectual honesty but that requires that we do not take what someone said and change it to something else.

Read my posts again as I wrote them. You should find that I believe Noah was a real man that according to him the world as he knew it did indeed flood. Please try to understand what I present. Thanks

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Anglican Church is called the Episcopal Church in American. It is a real refuge for people who leave the Catholic Church. They believe the Eucharist is a point of contact and can be a time of healing. God can do a work in us and it is a time to receive what He has for us. The Charismatics believe in the Chrismas as the Gifts of God given to the People of God. I believe in a two fold atonement. Jesus died to reconcile us with the Father, but also He died to reconcile us with each other. As living stones being fit and joined together.

OK...

So your church, which is no longer part of the Church of England, believes in the Real Presence.

 

[Inan3]

Am I Catholic?


I will note that many do not know what Transubstantiation is. It is a latin term that means to "trans" or change and "substantiation" or substance. In essence it means that when Jesus held bread at the Last Supper and said "this is my body" that it became His body and ceased being bread.

Interestingly we have had some debates on this in General Theology. You will find that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) and the Oriental Orthodox Church (OOC) and the Lutherans (founded by Martin Luther) and the Anglican Church (founded by King Henry VIII) all believe in this Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist though they define it differently.

It was not until John Calvin and Zwingli, during the Protestant Reformation, that the Real Presence was refuted into a merely symbolic ceremony or a ceremony that lacked any physical change.

There was one that contested that if the Eucharist is the Real Presence that we should be able to do a DNA test on it. It was then argued that the substance is still changed even if DNA does not reflect this. Faith? Maybe. Or maybe we just do not know enough about matter.

In the RCC we also have miracles with the Eucharist that have shown real human blood bleeding from the Eucharist. And others as well. But in the end it always comes back to Faith and no science has been published that can conclusively declare this miracle as scientific fact (phenomenon). At least nothing that I could present here and not expect some debate on anyhow.

Does that answer your question?

Hey Jack, I'm not a RCC now but I was brought up a RCC, baptised, communion, confirmation, etc. I went to RCC school most of my childhood. I understand transubstantiation etc. I have no problem if anyone believes that the Euchrist actually becomes the body and the wine becomes the blood. There is nothing that says it is NOT so.

I do think that as one grows up they need to reevaluate their faith in Christ, though. As a little child I didn't really understand what I was doing though, I knew what to do, and what I was taught. As an adult, I came to the place where I couldn't just keep doing ritualistic types of things such as taking communion without faith. I needed more. I knew about God but I didn't KNOW God.

I left the RCC at about 19 years old, I just couldn't keep doing the rituals, knowing I wasn't going to stop the sin. It seemed so hypocritcal to me. I didn't even think God would want me, because of the type of life I lived.

My point is that, never did the Euchrist change me. I mean IF it were Christ coming into me why didn't it change me? But... when I finally actually ASKED Christ to come into by life and forgive me my sins at age 21, that moment He did and my life did a 180 degree turnaround. I mean, one day I was one way and the next I was new. I didn't do this in a church but in the office of a social worker in Health and Human Services offices. It was simple I just asked and my life was changed. It was not the taking of the Euchrist. As I said, I'm not down on people who believe that but Christ came into my life just by asking. I do have communion and I love it but that is after Christ actually came into my life via His Holy Spirit. I now have communion with my brethren remembering all He has done for us by His body being broken and by shedding His blood for us.

Now if one has made that decision to give their life to Christ and believes that the Euchrist is actually the Body of Christ and the Wine is the Blood of Christ then I believe they will be changed but it is their faith in Christ and the giving over their life to Him that makes the difference not merely the Euchrist. In Hebrews 11:6 we are taught that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him for they that come to God must believe that He is and that He is the Rewarder of them that diligently seek HIM.


Just my two cents on the subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said there was a figurative Noah. It would be nice if you read what I wrote. I love discussions where there is intellectual honesty but that requires that we do not take what someone said and change it to something else.

Read my posts again as I wrote them. You should find that I believe Noah was a real man that according to him the world as he knew it did indeed flood. Please try to understand what I present. Thanks

That's why I put "or Flood" in parentheses -- in case you believed in a literal Noah.

I'm willing to drop this conversation, if you are.

You're entitled to your beliefs, and so am I.