Fossilization and the Dinosaurs

[Hans Blaster]

Even trying to divorce yourself from your sin nature is a sin.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

See, this is *exactly* what I was talking about. Estrid gave some perfectly fine responses. If you want to call this "deceptive" and "a sin" I don't care. I've got no problem with you adding "sin" tags to your assessments of other Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those good enough to be reborn in heaven … are in heaven

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[AV1611VET]

See, this is *exactly* what I was talking about. Estrid gave some perfectly fine responses. If you want to call this "deceptive" and "a sin" I don't care. I've got no problem with you adding "sin" tags to your assessments of other Christians.

Interesting, isn't it, that someone uses the terms: dishonest, fraud, and disgrace, you don't say a word.

But when I chime in with a Biblical word for all three, you get riled.

Some people just can't stand the Bible, can they?

Quote the Koran: meh.

Quote the Bhagavad Gita: meh.

Quote the Bible though, and get ready for a reaction.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Quote the Bhagavad Gita: meh.

Quote the Bible though, and get ready for a reaction.

Because the Bible is inflammatory

 

[Hans Blaster]

Interesting, isn't it, that someone uses the terms: dishonest, fraud, and disgrace, you don't say a word.

'Cause unlike some posters, I don't feel a need to respond to every post, even the ones written in response to me.

But when I chime in with a Biblical word for all three, you get riled.

Nope. It was your use of an unnecessarily broad term (and an irrelevant one, but let's set that aside). I don't even read your bible quotes.

Some people just can't stand the Bible, can they?

Mine lacks the lateral strength to use as a step stool.

Quote the Koran: meh.

Quote the Bhagavad Gita: meh.

Quote the Bible though, and get ready for a reaction.

The problem was not "the book" quoted (as I didn't care about the quote, only what *you* wrote), it was the use of an overbroad term to describe a behavior. "Sin" is too broad. Isn't adultery a "sin"; blasphermy a "sin", not believing "a sin"? The behavior described was one of dishonesty and deception. Only using the broad term (and christian only ) of "sin" doesn't answer the question I asked, nor does it address the behavior.

So here is a question for you: Is "lying for Jesus" a "sin"? Is it OK to deceive or manipulate to "bring someone to Christ"?

 

[JohnEmmett]

So here is a question for you: Is "lying for Jesus" a "sin"? Is it OK to deceive or manipulate to "bring someone to Christ"?

This does not appreciate the value placed on the truth

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the Bible is inflammatory

No argument there!

 

[AV1611VET]

Mine lacks the lateral strength to use as a step stool.

Luke 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

 

[dlamberth]

Because the Bible is inflammatory

Personally that way I take it is that it's not so much the Bible that I find inflammatory, it's has more to do with other related circles.

 

[sjastro]

Interesting, isn't it, that someone uses the terms: dishonest, fraud, and disgrace, you don't say a word.

But when I chime in with a Biblical word for all three, you get riled.

Some people just can't stand the Bible, can they?

Quote the Koran: meh.

Quote the Bhagavad Gita: meh.

Quote the Bible though, and get ready for a reaction.

You don't quote the Bible you deliberately misquote it.
For example in another thread you quote Romans 8:20.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Then you decide it requires a rewrite so it fits your narrative.

Romans 8:20 For the [universe] was made subject to [entropy], not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the [universe] itself also shall be delivered from [decay] into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole [universe] groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

This happens all the time and on the subject of sin I wonder if it is a sin to rewrite Biblical passages without the authorization of the Head of the Church whether it be the British monarch or the Pope.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't quote the Bible you deliberately misquote it.

I said one word of basic doctrine: "sinner".

I even phrased it as a question.

One poster used three: dishonest, fraud, disgrace ... and not a word was said.

But when I chime in with one single word of basic fundamental doctrine, it sets off fireworks.

Had I said "human": meh.

Had I said "mutant copy error": meh.

But no.

I said "sinner".

And lookit the hornet's nest!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said one word of basic doctrine: "sinner".

I even phrased it as a question.

One poster used three: dishonest, fraud, disgrace ... and not a word was said.

But when I chime in with one single word of basic fundamental doctrine, it sets off fireworks.

Had I said "human": meh.

Had I said "mutant copy error": meh.

But no.

I said "sinner".

And lookit the hornet's nest!

I know you can read. I said I wasn't bothered by using "sinner" as an additional term, but it lacks any descriptive power (don't some claim that "all are sinners", which makes it not descriptive at all.) "dishonest sinner" if you like, or "sinner and fraud" if you prefer, but "sinner" is no substitute for a more precise term.

It shocks me how much fraud and dishonesty gets used to prop up "the faith".

 

[sjastro]

I said one word of basic doctrine: "sinner".

I even phrased it as a question.

One poster used three: dishonest, fraud, disgrace ... and not a word was said.

But when I chime in with one single word of basic fundamental doctrine, it sets off fireworks.

Had I said "human": meh.

Had I said "mutant copy error": meh.

But no.

I said "sinner".

And lookit the hornet's nest!

Try reading my post again which you responded to.
Did you or did you not rewrite Romans 8:20 to fit your narrative?

 

[AV1611VET]

Try reading my post again which you responded to.
Did you or did you not rewrite Romans 8:20 to fit your narrative?

I PARAPHRASED it for clarity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said one word of basic doctrine: "sinner".

This isn't about the "doctine of sin". It is a bout the dishonesty used by professional creationists to create tables like the one that got copied into post #8. When you mischaracterized the complaints about that table, I responded to you, not because I was claiming you were dishonest, or that the poster of #8 was either, but to point out the dishonesty (to subtly it would seem) that went in to that collection of bad radiometric dates. (All of which are known from various creationist sites.) I did so in the hopes that you would recognize the dishonesty of the source for post #8, but instead you ignored it to go on some side crusade about "sin". You disappoint me.

 

[sjastro]

I PARAPHRASED it for clarity.

You did not paraphrase Romans 8:20 you changed the words by your own admission.

Creature = creation = universe.

Paraphrasing is designed to make the passage easier to understand, changing the word "creature" to "universe" completely the changes the context.

 

[AV1611VET]

This isn't about the "doctine of sin". It is a bout the dishonesty used by professional creationists to create tables like the one that got copied into post #8. When you mischaracterized the complaints about that table, I responded to you, not because I was claiming you were dishonest, or that the poster of #8 was either, but to point out the dishonesty (to subtly it would seem) that went in to that collection of bad radiometric dates. (All of which are known from various creationist sites.) I did so in the hopes that you would recognize the dishonesty of the source for post #8, but instead you ignored it to go on some side crusade about "sin". You disappoint me.

In that case, I sincerely apologize.

I was wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You did not paraphrase Romans 8:20 you changed the words by your own admission.

Paraphrasing is designed to make the passage easier to understand, changing the word "creature" to "universe" completely the changes the context.

Mamma mia.

Romans 8:20

8:20 vanity. “Vanity” is equivalent to “futility.” Because of sin, the creation was made to operate under a law which specifies a universal process of decay and death. This law of morpholysis is recognized by science as a basic principle pervading the whole universe. It is also called the law of increasing entropy (meaning turning inward) or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Every system in the physical and biological worlds has a tendency to turn inward and “feed” on itself to maintain its structure and activity, but this simply causes it to run down, disintegrate and die, unless it somehow becomes opened to outside sources of energy, information, food, etc. Even if it does remain an open system, this internal tendency continues to act in opposition to the incoming energy. Since even the latter will eventually be exhausted, the whole creation is thus in bondage to this principle of futility, or “in-vainness.” But since this law has been imposed by God, He also can remove it, and so there still is “hope.”

SOURCE

 

[sjastro]

Mamma mia.

Romans 8:20

8:20 vanity. “Vanity” is equivalent to “futility.” Because of sin, the creation was made to operate under a law which specifies a universal process of decay and death. This law of morpholysis is recognized by science as a basic principle pervading the whole universe. It is also called the law of increasing entropy (meaning turning inward) or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Every system in the physical and biological worlds has a tendency to turn inward and “feed” on itself to maintain its structure and activity, but this simply causes it to run down, disintegrate and die, unless it somehow becomes opened to outside sources of energy, information, food, etc. Even if it does remain an open system, this internal tendency continues to act in opposition to the incoming energy. Since even the latter will eventually be exhausted, the whole creation is thus in bondage to this principle of futility, or “in-vainness.” But since this law has been imposed by God, He also can remove it, and so there still is “hope.”

SOURCE

So now you have decided to engage in this colossal diversion because you know very well changing the word creature to universe in Romans 8:20 is not about paraphrasing but a deliberate misquoting of the Bible to promote your own creationist ideas.
It's one thing when creationists distort the science when it comes to radiometric dating, you have taken this a step further by distorting the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's one thing when creationists distort the science when it comes to radiometric dating, you have taken this a step further by distorting the Bible.