Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[rjc34]

Are we Christians adopted children of God?

(Just a YES or NO will suffice please; it's a binary question.)

Did you stop beating your wife?

(Just a YES or NO will suffice please; it's a binary question.)

 

[TheReasoner]

Lol @ Dad, I really like the image of satanic scientists. I'm curious what you guys think most of us do all day.

Glad you can laugh. It made me angry.

 

[dad]

Glad you can laugh. .

I get that a lot. I rather enjoy making people actually question their programming.

 

[dad]

Ohoho YES, it IS personal! VERY personal!

Then you have a problem. You will need to be able to separate yourself from man's wisdom.

And yes, if you claim you can read the bible without error you are claiming infallibility, which is hubris to the point of blasphemy.

There is no error in knowing there was a flood or creation, or first man, etc. You have it wrong side up. Try the natural way...

Calling other people devil worshippers for studying God's creation is vile, disrespectful and yes, sub-human in the sense that it does not befit a decent human being, much less a CHRISTIAN to act that way.

Your words, not mine. I merely note that the source and inspiration for modern so called science, which opposes the word of God directly, is not God! It is His old enemy, same old same old....

 

[Jro]

Glad you can laugh.

BRB gonna go sacrifice a chicken to the elder gods so my experiment goes well MOO HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Scientific conferences are actually a cross between Rosemary's Baby and Evil Dead, for those not in the know.

I get that a lot. I rather enjoy making people actually question their programming.

If it's offensive that must mean it's enlightening! I know, I'll go tell holocaust survivors all about the wonderful world of holocaust denial! Those silly people just need to question their programming.

 

[dad]

We're in serious need of a revival, bro; and covet your prayers for us.

Thanks. But I think that the nation itself was not really Christian, and won't be in the future. The millions there can revive just find, but will have to cut loose from the government...

 

[dad]

Then please tell me what nation was/is a Christian nation -- and why -- or I'll just go ahead and take this with a grain of salt.

I have to admit, the US came pretty close in many areas...prayer and God in schools, etc. But so did South Africa and some others I suppose....? Seems to me that they also had the blue coats killing the natives, and fur traders passing out the whiskey, and many wars...etc.... So I figure the missionaries helping the natives were Christians...etc..rather than the nation as a whole.

 

[sandwiches]

I get that a lot. I rather enjoy making people actually question their programming.

I don't know if it works for other people but all you do for me is remind me of why I post on these forums and that I'm trying to save them and this world from the likes of you who would keep us in the darkness. Call it my atheist ministry.

I can't wait to see my last sentence chopped up and quoted out of context in some religious blog or post. "See?! Atheism IS a religion!"

 

[sandwiches]

Thanks. I used to think of the US as a sort of Christian nation. I think that was a mistaken notion, despite the millions of Christians there.

Hopefully we were instrumental in edifying you and dispelling that silly notion for you.

 

[dad]

Hopefully we were instrumental in edifying you and dispelling that silly notion for you.

Perhaps you were...

 

[dad]

If it's offensive that must mean it's enlightening! I know, I'll go tell holocaust survivors all about the wonderful world of holocaust denial! Those silly people just need to question their programming.

There is a difference between letting the chips fall where they may, and not withholding truth from people... and being unkind, and purposely trying to be offensive. One need not tuck one's bible tail between one's legs.

 

[Belk]

There is a difference between letting the chips fall where they may, and not withholding truth from people... and being unkind, and purposely trying to be offensive. One need not tuck one's bible tail between one's legs.

It would help if one had things like evidence and rational supposition, just a thought.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is a difference between letting the chips fall where they may, and not withholding truth from people... and being unkind, and purposely trying to be offensive. One need not tuck one's bible tail between one's legs.

Interesting that you consider the Bible to be a "tail."

I've always thoght of it more as "tales," myself.

 

[1611AV]

Interesting that you consider the Bible to be a "tail."

I've always thoght of it more as "tales," myself.

Nathan, you spoke of Jewish religion hijacked by Christians. Do you not know that Jesus fulfilled all of the Jewish prophesies concerning the Messiah and yet as a Nation still reject Jesus? How can you say Christians hijacked a religion we do not believe in?

 

[badtim]

Nathan, you spoke of Jewish religion hijacked by Christians. Do you not know that Jesus fulfilled all of the Jewish prophesies concerning the Messiah and yet as a Nation still reject Jesus? How can you say Christians hijacked a religion we do not believe in?

why don't you go ask an actual jew. i promise, they don't really have horns.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan, you spoke of Jewish religion hijacked by Christians. Do you not know that Jesus fulfilled all of the Jewish prophesies concerning the Messiah and yet as a Nation still reject Jesus? How can you say Christians hijacked a religion we do not believe in?

it's actually quite simple -- For Jesus to have "fulfilled" those prophecies, his New Testament Story would have to be historically accurate. It is not.

Rather, the writers of the New Testament played fast and loose with historical accuracy (and indeed, in most cases, discarded it entirely) in order to match up the Jesus story with the OT -- which, you will recall, they quite literally had open in front of them as they wrote.

The Jews reject this (not all of them, mind you -- every Christian is in a way, whether they acknowledge it or not, as much a Jew as Jesus was) because they see it for what it is -- liturgical interpretation of long lost, forgotten, and/or ignored history.

I don't expect you to believe this without some support, so how about we take one of those prophecies as an example: Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

I'll submit to you that the Bethlehem birth stories are complete and utter fabrications -- Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth, but because the prophecy demanded that the Messiah be both in the city of David (Bethlehem), both Matthew and Luke bent over backwards to contrive two separate, contradictory, historically and physically impossible scenarios in order to "fulfill" said prophecy.

Say what you will about the Jews -- they know a snow job when they hear one.

Let me know if you'd like to hear the details.

 

[1611AV]

why don't you go ask an actual jew. i promise, they don't really have horns.

I am a actual Jew.

 

[TheReasoner]

How can you say Christians hijacked a religion we do not believe in?

Wait... What?

This from a self-proclaimed literalist?
My. So much for that integrity.

 

[1611AV]

it's actually quite simple -- For Jesus to have "fulfilled" those prophecies, his New Testament Story would have to be historically accurate. It is not.

Rather, the writers of the New Testament played fast and loose with historical accuracy (and indeed, in most cases, discarded it entirely) in order to match up the Jesus story with the OT -- which, you will recall, they quite literally had open in front of them as they wrote.

The Jews reject this (not all of them, mind you -- every Christian is in a way, whether they acknowledge it or not, as much a Jew as Jesus was) because they see it for what it is -- liturgical interpretation of long lost, forgotten, and/or ignored history.

I don't expect you to believe this without some support, so how about we take one of those prophecies as an example: Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

I'll submit to you that the Bethlehem birth stories are complete and utter fabrications -- Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth, but because the prophecy demanded that the Messiah be both in the city of David (Bethlehem), both Matthew and Luke bent over backwards to contrive two separate, contradictory, historically and physically impossible scenarios in order to "fulfill" said prophecy.

Say what you will about the Jews -- they know a snow job when they hear one.

Let me know if you'd like to hear the details.

Go on...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Go on...

As you wish. Let's start with some simple history:

Jesus grew up and did most of his teaching out of Nazareth, yet, according to two Gospel writers, was born in Bethlehem.

Now, how did that happen? First off, let's remember that the traditional story we've all heard from our school Christmas plays are actually clumsy amalgams of Matthew and Luke's accounts. These two are the only ones to address Jesus' birth, and both felt the need to explain the Bethlehem/Nazareth issue.

Matthew's Gospel has Mary and Joseph already living in Bethlehem, so there's no problem there; the trick is getting them to Nazareth, flying in the face of all logic, after Jesus' birth.

I say "flying in the face of all logic" because Bethlehem was (it you want to think of it this way) practically a suburb of Jerusalem, whereas Nazareth was in the province of Galilee, out in the boonies, as it were. People don't pack up and move without good reason, and any kind of moving would've been towards Jerusalem, where the policital, social, and financial opportunities were, not away from it, into poverty and obscurity. Remember, people back in the day didn't commute to work.

Matthew needs a darn good reason for the Jesus family to hit the road, and he finds one by rifling through the Old Testament -- Jesus and his family need to go into hiding because Herod, having heard of the birth of a new King, orders every newborn male child be put to death.

Now where have we heard that story before? More importantly, where would the Jews have heard that story before?

That's right -- It's Exodus II: The Sequel. Matthew is making a point of Jesus' greatness to his Jewish audience by parallelling him with their greatest hero: Moses.

So Joseph sneaks his family out, leads them to Egypt where they will be safe, and eventually relocates to Nazareth once the heat is off, so to speak.

Hmmm -- this just gets better and better -- What does Matthew tell us about Joseph?

1. He had a father named Jacob
2. God communicated with him (only, it seems) through dreams (Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, and 2:22)
3. He rescues Jesus from certain death by taking him down into Egypt.

If you're a Jew, you should be getting a serious case of deja vu right about now. This is the Joseph of Genesis 37-50, so here we have Matthew doing it again: making the point of Jesus' greatness by having his story mirror another Jewish hero.

You'll notice that this is pretty much Matthew's signature style -- everything Jesus does, some OT hero or prophet did it first.

My point? They say history repeats itself, but never so completely or conveniently -- not unless someone's writing it that way. Either God contrived to micromanage (heck, nanomanage) human history for no reason other than to have these stories balance out the way they do, or someone's cooking the books.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe the simpler possibility.

Let me take a brief pause, but I assure you; we've barely gotten our feet wet. Care to go deeper?