$133,000 raised for Genesis 3D Movie in 16 days!

[Calminian]

You know....what if what God thinks is "Good", is not always the same thing as what you view something as "good"?

Yes, that certainly is something to consider. So then we research. What does God say about death? He actually calls it the enemy.

1Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.​

Yes, there are things that we cannot comprehend about God. But scripture is very clear that death is an enemy, and not very good according to God.

Again, why not just believe Him? What do you think you will have to give up if you believe scripture as it is written? I can tell you God will bless you abundantly if you'll just try to trust Him on this.

 

[Calminian]

Now this may come as a shock to you, that a man....who accepts modern scientific findings......also accepts the fact that Jesus historically lived, did miracles, and died on the cross for our sins.

I'm a christian after all, and apart of being a christian is accepting the foundations of our faith.


By the way, above you have quoted this..

"Because your literal interpretation of that creation account is silly. You really need to get over your tiresome assumption that people who aren't Creationists don't believe in Genesis."

and for some reason it says i posted that....which i didn't.

Sorry, that may have been my error pasting your name to that quote. It was inadvertent. Sorry.

But back to your point, what then do you say to Bishop Spong who also believes he's a christian? Yet he applies your hermeneutic not only to Genesis but the gospels also. Would you say he is not a christian? And why??

 

[Assyrian]

You know I was wondering when this objection might be put forth.

It's a bit uncanny but it reminds me of the disciples accusation against the woman anointing Christ's head with oil.

Matt. 26:6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

Matt. 26:10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
​

Not sure how making a film about Genesis is supposed to be the same as anointing Jesus' feet with perfume.

And why is it we need the good news of Christ? Oh yeah, it's because of the Fall that happened in Genesis—that book you continually deny. So you want people to believe the good news in last part of the Bible, but forget about the bad news that created our need in the first place.

Jesus said he came to save sinners. The Gospels say he came to save his people from their sins, that he came to seek and save the lost. It doesn't say he died to save us from the fall. We have accounts of the apostles preaching to Jews and Gentiles, they preached about Christ's death and resurrection, they didn't preach about the fall. I could understand how a film portraying the gospel story could be described as anointing Jesus with perfume, but not a film whose main purpose is to promote Creationism.

I want to tell people the entire story, beginning to end.

Is this a 3D Bible project or just 3D Genesis?

 

[Calminian]

It was mentioned that I shouldn't pretend those how don't read Genesis literally deny the fall. But then I read this.

....Jesus said he came to save sinners. The Gospels say he came to save his people from their sins, that he came to seek and save the lost. It doesn't say he died to save us from the fall.....

Case in point. Fall denied. And of course this is the logical route to take when you apply a hermeneutic to erase portions of scripture you don't agree with.

Logically, you'll all arrive at Bishop Spong's conclusion to spiritualize all portions of scripture that disagree with science.

There is still an open invitation to any of you to explain why Bishop Spon's hermeneutic is wrong. So far none of you can explain why he's in error. Not a single taker among you?

 

[Assyrian]

It was mentioned that I shouldn't pretend those how don't read Genesis literally deny the fall. But then I read this.

Your problem is suggesting that everyone who reads Genesis figuratively will deny the fall. That is simply not true. There are many TEs posting here who believe in a historical Adam and Eve and that mankind is fallen because of their sin.

Case in point. Fall denied. And of course this is the logical route to take when you apply a hermeneutic to erase portions of scripture you don't agree with.

Logically, you'll all arrive at Bishop Spong's conclusion to spiritualize all portions of scripture that disagree with science.

Ah the slippery slope argument. We should never search the scriptures for ourselves to see what they mean or we will end up like whoever the pet hobgoblin is. Interestingly, you never addressed my point about what Gospels actually say and the Good News the apostles preached.

In fact my views of The Fall and Original Sin have nothing to do with my interpretation of Genesis. I was still a creationist and read Genesis literally when I stopped believing in Original Sin. I stopped beliving in it because I didn't see it anywhere in scripture. It certainly wasn't in Genesis.

There is still an open invitation to any of you to explain why Bishop Spon's hermeneutic is wrong. So far none of you can explain why he's in error. Not a single taker among you?

I haven't read any of his writing, but if he denies the resurrection, then I would say Paul answered him in 1Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

 

[Calminian]

...Ah the slippery slope argument.

and thank you for making it so easy.

I haven't read any of his writing, but if he denies the resurrection, then I would say Paul answered him in 1Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

But He believes Christ was raised in a spiritual sense, not literal. That's exactly what you do in Genesis. Why is he wrong?

 

[Assyrian]

and thank you for making it so easy.

The slippery slope argument is always easy. Fallacies are like that.

But He believes Christ was raised in a spiritual sense, not literal.

Odd that the Greeks had such problems with Paul preaching the resurrection when they already believed people lived on spiritually.

That's exactly what you do in Genesis. Why is he wrong?

In your last post you couldn't answer what the Gospels and the apostles' preaching said about why Jesus died. Now you can't even address what I said about the literal meaning of Genesis. No wonder you find the slippery slope fallacy easier.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Cal, why do you keep going on about this discredited nut job? Here is what his boss said about him:

Spong's ideas have received strong criticism from some other theologians, notably the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (when Williams was the Bishop of Monmouth), describing his twelve theses as embodying "confusion and misinterpretation".

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fascinated With God]

BTW, aren't you the one, Cal, who discredits the validity of the Shroud of Turin and the Veil of Veronica?

God forbid that Jesus could have left any tangible evidence of the resurrection behind. You just can't have that. It has to be all in your head, it can't be something tangibly demonstrable or that would blow your whole system of going exclusively by blind faith.

(Apologies if this is a mischaracterization, but this was the distinct impression that I got from your comments on the Shroud and the Veil.)

 

[Calminian]

The slippery slope argument is always easy. Fallacies are like that.

Odd that the Greeks had such problems with Paul preaching the resurrection when they already believed people lived on spiritually.


In your last post you couldn't answer what the Gospels and the apostles' preaching said about why Jesus died. Now you can't even address what I said about the literal meaning of Genesis. No wonder you find the slippery slope fallacy easier.

You're stonewalling on Bishop Spong. But the challenge is still there. Please tell me why his hermeneutic is wrong and yours is right. I'll just keep asking until you answer directly.

 

[Calminian]

142 thousand now out of 150. Looks like they're sailing to success on this.

They've announced a "huge announcement" upon reaching the goal. Not sure what that's about.

Some great endorsements have come through, and it looks like the cast will feature some of the best creationist out there.

I'm also linking a Q&A video at the bottom.

Genesis Movie 3D: Q&A with the Producers

 

[Assyrian]

You're stonewalling on Bishop Spong. But the challenge is still there. Please tell me why his hermeneutic is wrong and yours is right. I'll just keep asking until you answer directly.

I'm not Spong, I don't know what Spong actually believes, only what you say he believes and what you say he believes isn't what isn't what I believe. Since it isn't what I believe and he isn't here to defend his beliefs, I don't see the relevance of your bringing him up, other than as part of a slippery slope argument, which I have pointed out is a fallacy.

You fear that if you don't cling to the man made dogma of literalism it will keep you from slipping into Spong's theology. But trusting in a man made dogma is not the same as trusting in God which is what you should be doing, meanwhile this man made dogma keeps you from searching what scriptures and what God actually teach us though his word. That is like the man who buried his talent in the ground out of fear rather than using it to serve his master. The master was not well pleased with him.

You haven't been able to defend your argument against the charge of fallacy, nor have you been able to address any of the biblical arguments I made, that the Gospels never said Jesus came to free us from Adam's sin, nor did the apostles ever preach it when we read their Gospel messages they preached.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I'm not Spong, I don't know what Spong actually believes, only what you say he believes and what you say he believes isn't what isn't what I believe. Since it isn't what I believe and he isn't here to defend his beliefs, I don't see the relevance of your bringing him up, other than as part of a slippery slope argument, which I have pointed out is a fallacy.

It is classic polemic technique, attempt to cast guilt by association with someone way out in left field.

 

[Assyrian]

Indeed.

 

[Alvis]

Wow, something like this exactly exists?

I am definitely in the wrong religion.

 

[kellhus]

It's going to be amusing in a few decades when everyone has finally realized that Evolution and the scientific field were this era's heliocentrism and Galileo.

You know, seeing as certain segments of the church are making Christianity look like a bunch of cretins over the issue.

 

[Alvis]

You know, seeing as certain segments of the church are making Christianity look like a bunch of cretins over the issue.

They speak what they know.

A dog can only bark and a fundamentalist can only spout... this.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

From watching a little of the trailer, I can see it's not actually accurate concerning the animals. I know the guys at AIG don't believe in "macro" evolution, but they do believe in "micro" evolution. Well, if that's the case, why do they have a modern lion existing with the dinosaurs? Plus in all honesty, the dinosaurs are modern looking to in terms of micro evolution. If the fossils were buried during the time of the flood, that means the dinosaurs had at least 1600 years of evolution and adaptation before that time. Which means, we don't honestly know what the dinosaurs looked like before the fall, and we don't know what any animal looked like before the fall. Even Adam and Eve didn't look like we look today. (Adam and Eve were created to live forever, surely their bodies were designed for that. Our bodies break down, and we don't even live past a hundred years or so compared to Adam living almost a thousand years)


So in all, this movie isn't accurate as they say, in YEC terms. Other than that, what do I think about the movie? There's nothing wrong with wanting to make the movie. Yet I feel this is nothing but Christian propaganda. These guys should be more interested in actually proving YEC, not making sensationalized movies to convince someone. Yet anytime AIG (Answers in Genesis) and Eric Hovind is involved in something, the project is never about proving YEC with actual evidence. Their whole thing is the Bible says it, that's the end of the discussion.

 

[Smidlee]

That money could be used for better things instead of being used to fight science.

Christians who happen to believe in YEC, should be focused on spreading the good news of Christ, instead of trying to force the whole "YEC is Fact" onto people. I think in some ways, this whole YEC thing does more harm then good, and causes some people to not see the truth about Christianity because they are unfortunately fed the misconception that Christians should accept YEC because some Christians think its truth.

I really don't care if some Christians believe in YEC, no harm to me, however i do dislike it when so much money/effort is wasted on the YEC ideology, when it should instead me used to further the aim of the real important things about Christianity.

I would be careful here. Do you waste money on things other than spreading the gospel? Video games, movies, eating out or even buying your woman some flowers could be considered a waste of money by your standard.

 

[Smidlee]

It's going to be amusing in a few decades when everyone has finally realized that Evolution and the scientific field were this era's heliocentrism and Galileo.

Or the exact opposite.
When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of <em>Darwin's Doubt</em> - Evolution News & Views
Marshall doesn't deny what Meyers wrote isn't true but somehow life in the past was different than life today which goes against the idea "the present is the key to the past".

"Yet, contrary to Marshall’s speculation about how dGRNs might have functioned in the past, all available observational evidence establishes that dGRNs do not tolerate random perturbations to their basic control logic. "


Scientist will use "the present is the key to the past" as long as it fits their theory but will dismiss it if it don't.