darwin's beliefs

[archaeologist]

What goes against God is subjective,

i disagree with that as God is quite clear with His instructions and directions.

a list of the sciences that are secular and the ones that are not.

the words themselves should have beenthe clue as one of them is used commonly in christian circles. one would have thought you would have caught on by now.

i haven't provided a definition yet as i am preparing to face the criticism that will come once i do.

 

[USincognito]

i haven't provided a definition yet as i am preparing to face the criticism that will come once i do.

Why don't you just post your definition, wait for the responses, and then reply to them as you have time to formulate counter-responses? You post, nor any replies to it aren't going away and there's nothing in the rules that say you have to respond to critique or criticism immediately.

 

[archaeologist]

its been posted in another thread.

 

[metherion]

Please tell me which thread.

A link would be nice, but at least the name is necessary.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

here:

'we' = true believers

'secular science' = all science done outside of God, His leading, His word, led by unbelievers, nonscriptural theories (e.g. evolution, natural selection), all conclusions, research, hypothesis, et al that have no foundation in God or His Word and lead away from Him and the truth. And so on.

studying nature does not qualify science as of God as there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

[metherion]

Thank you very much. More to come soon.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

no worries.

i am in no hurry

 

[metherion]

so God says.
[/quote]
Where, exactly?

it has been done,

Where has it been done? Show where, when, and how. Explicitly.

you just won't accept the fact that there is evil involved in science.

That's right. Because it is an UNTRUE fact.

every comment you and your TE buddies make expose your lack of faith and belief in God.

Nope. They show a lack of acceptance of your specific interpretation.

but God is not silent on the origin of all things, and He made it clear evolution was not involved,

No. He did not make it clear. If we look at the world He made (though which we will know Him), there is in fact quite a lot there that muddles it. Either He is lying in the world, He is lying in the Scripture, or He is not literal in the Scripture.

so why are you still pursuing that which is not of God? if you look at the Bible closely, you will see how vocal He is.

Again, you still need to show exactly and explicitly how evolution is not of Him. Forget the timescale, that can come from somewhere else. Just tell how the whole idea is evil. Again, forget the timescale. The age part comes from other branches of science. Tell how the idea of gradual change via natural selection is against God.

He may not address every situation specifically but He words His verses so that they apply to all situations. including science.

Then you should have no trouble showing relevant Scripture.

it is, i have said at least twice before in other threads that go to any hospital, tree nursery, vet's hospital and you will see the evidence for creation every day.

And that evidence is…?

you will also see the results of the fall of man

Which is…?

BUT you will never see any evidence for evolution.
(by the way, that evidence for creation has been recorded for the past 10,000 years +/- in all walks of life while evolution has nothing to support it)

1. Nylonase, breeding.
2. What is this evidence for creation you speak of? You talk about it but you never actually say what it is.
3. You have been told by me at least once that there is evidence for evolution, and I have named 2 of the myriad evidences. Nylonase and breeding. Stop simply saying there is no evidence and either accept it or show how it isn't evidence.

still not talking about losing one's faith. think on this:

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived

do you see any restraints or boundaries on those words?

Yes. I see the word 'but'. The word 'but' is by its very nature a limiting word. It would in this case mean the sentence is referring to what happens to those Christians who are not true during the situation Timothy described, i.e. persecution.

Quote:
1. True DOES NOT EQUAL literally true. Jesus told parables
i would watch your extrapolation, just because Jesus told parables does it mean genesis one is a figurative story. to think so would be wishful thinking. the Bible is quite clear--6 24 hour days. you can't get around it.

However, because Jesus told parables it DOES open up the field for non-literal interpretation. Other evidence indicates an allegorical Genesis.

"my sheep hear my voice" if you deny genesis 1 are you really listening to His voice?

Believing He is Christ, trying to act like Him, leading others to Him, yeah. I'd say I am at least trying very hard to listen. And since we can't actually listen if we sin (a la 1 John) it's pretty much impossible to do better, because every man sins.

The Bible says nothing on the matter

yes it does, it may not mention the word evolution but it certainly describes creation in a manner that excudes it. read gen. 1:31 and you will see it was finished in those 6 days.

And as I showed in my thread 'undersea plants" Genesis is not exhaustive. There are things not described in it. Which means it is not complete. Which means evolution cannot be categorically ruled out.

i doubt i used those exact words but if you deny creation and follow evolution, are you following God or man? genesis says differently than darwin's adjusted theory which do you choose?

I Believe God created the Universe. However, when asked for the how, I choose to believe geology, astronomy, nuclear physics, evolution, and several others instead of a creation myth. So I choose the truth God put into the world when He made it, and find the spiritual truth located in the myth.

i wouldn't bet the farm on that as we do not know who was first to use writing.

Pretty sure it was the Chinese.

as for the rest please clarify: are you saying writing is a secular invention?

Yes. Yes I am. Just like evolution, germ theory, atomic theory, and so on. All these ideas fit with 'secular science' (if I understand it correctly, see the end of my post). None of them have any mention (and therefore basis) in Scripture, all were proposed by unbelievers. Though none of them lead us either towards or away from God.

if so, then you would be leading to the pointi have been making concerning secular science which you all ignore and deny is possible.

What exactly is that point?

Now, about the definition of secular science.

'secular science' = all science done outside of God, His leading, His word, led by unbelievers, nonscriptural theories (e.g. evolution, natural selection), all conclusions, research, hypothesis, et al that have no foundation in God or His Word and lead away from Him and the truth. And so on.

So, according to this, any particular bit of science can only be Christian science if:
A. The idea was proposed by a Christian.
B. All further research beyond the original proposition that is not rejected has been done by Christians.
(If A and B are not met it is considered led by unbelievers.)
C. The idea presented is in the Bible already.
(If C is not met it does not have foundation in God or His Word.)
D. The conclusions do not disagree with a literal reading of the Bible.
E. All ideas must specifically mention God and use Him as the guiding force in some way or another.
(If D and E are not met it leads away from Him and the truth.)

I have provided my reasoning for these 5 statements in parentheses after the statements. Am I understanding 'secular science' correctly when I make these 5 statements? If not, which ones are incorrect?

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

That's right. Because it is an UNTRUE fact.

the Bible says:

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

so i guess you are calling God a liar.

They show a lack of acceptance of your specific interpretation

that is your escape route to avoid the truth.

Either He is lying in the world, He is lying in the Scripture, or He is not literal in the Scripture

none of the above, it means you are following that which leads you from God as He is not the author of confusion. everything is quite clear, it is only through being deceived that you think things are muddled.

Then you should have no trouble showing relevant Scripture

'in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths' provs. 3:5-6

'4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice' john 10:4

'15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;' 1 peter 1:15

'8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things' phil. 4:8

'15Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else' 1 thess. 5:15

'11But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.' 1 tim. 6:11

here are more: http://www.biblegateway.com/topical...&source=2&search=following+God&searchtype=all

Again, you still need to show exactly and explicitly how evolution is not of Him.

already been done. read all the creation related verses in the bible.

And that evidence is…?

everything proceeds as they were created to do.

You have been told by me at least once that there is evidence for evolution, and I have named 2 of the myriad evidences

there is no evidence for evolution, it is all inferred ,conjecture or assumed.

It would in this case mean the sentence is referring to what happens to those Christians who are not true during the situation Timothy described

no you are wrong. not even close.

However, because Jesus told parables it DOES open up the field for non-literal interpretation. Other evidence indicates an allegorical Genesis

prove it. not the Jesus part but the other evidence.

Believing He is Christ, trying to act like Him, leading others to Him, yeah. I'd say I am at least trying very hard to listen

then why do you listen to secular science, darwin and others who are not of God and leading people astray?

So, according to this, any particular bit of science can only be Christian science if:

i will let you think on it for awhile as i do not want this to be the point thattakes everything off topic.

 

[metherion]

the Bible says:

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

so i guess you are calling God a liar.

That is just an exhortation not to be lead astray. I don't see how that makes me call God a liar. Which I do not.

that is your escape route to avoid the truth.

Nope, it is the truth. I do not accept your specific interpretation.

none of the above, it means you are following that which leads you from God as He is not the author of confusion. everything is quite clear, it is only through being deceived that you think things are muddled.

Yep, it IS clear. It just depends on what you want to be clear. If you want the Bible and the Bible alone to be clear, one can deny and rail against anything. If one wants all creation to be true, well then it gets different.

'in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths' provs. 3:5-6

This could go either way. Both the idea that Genesis is literal and that it is not are manmade. I would go and ask the Jews. On the other hand, the spiritual lessons of both are the same , one just adds a literal meaning.
However, I would say adding things to the salvation requirement beyond the simple things as given in Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8-9 (as belief in a literal Genesis is a deed beyond simple faith), Acts 16:31, Mark 16:16, to name a few would not be what God wants (which would fit into Proverbs 3:7, " Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.".

'4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice' john 10:4

So if we believe Jesus is God we'll follow Him and keep His commandments. Which are to believe in and love Him and treat our neighbor as our self. Gotcha. So, where does a literal Genesis fit into that?

'15But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;' 1 peter 1:15

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

So we are supposed to reject evil desires (aka sin) and act like Jesus. Which does not require a literal Genesis.

'8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things' phil. 4:8

So among what we should think on are things that are true, right, excellent, and lovely. Like science. Gotcha.

'15Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else' 1 thess. 5:15

I honestly have no idea how this relates to science.

'11But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.' 1 tim. 6:11

" righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness." Which are what you get from following Christ. Which, as I have mentioned before, has no indication of a literal Genesis anywhere.

already been done. read all the creation related verses in the bible.

That does not say that everything is fixed and unchanging after creation is done. Not one bit.
Furthermore, God says everything is good in Genesis one, but later in Genesis 6 it hurts them that He has made them. If they were good, how would they hurt Him by their mere existence? Somethign must have *gasp* changed!!

everything proceeds as they were created to do.

Everything living in the way that best fits it fits with the idea of natural selection just as well as with the idea of creation.

there is no evidence for evolution, it is all inferred ,conjecture or assumed.

Then explain to me exactly how what I have named is not evidence.

no you are wrong. not even close.

Rote denial doesn't get anyone anywhere. Tell me how Timothy talking about what will happen to false Christians during persecution relates to true Christians during non-persecution.

prove it. not the Jesus part but the other evidence.

In other words show reasons why Genesis could be allegorical.
Well, one of them is that if Noah and his sons were the only humans still around, and firm believers in God who they had witnessed the glory and power of first-hand, then why did they perpetuate all the pagan stories? All the other tellers of them had died so all the stories would have been wiped out except the ones Noah had. That's for starters.
Another thing is that it is not exhaustive, as my thread undersea plant showed. So if it DOES chronicle everything God did, someone other than God must have made several things.
Also is the fact that even in times where the Bible is supposed to be literal there are scientific mistakes, such as the number of legs on a locust and what exactly a bat is, and the digestive systems of several other animals.

then why do you listen to secular science, darwin and others who are not of God and leading people astray?

They do not lead people away from God. Neither do they lead them towards God. They say nothing on the matter. It does not lead people astray. As a matter of fact, I have yet to meet an atheist who has become an atheist because of evolution. Furthermore, according to your definition, everything is secular science. EVERYTHING. So even you follow it.

i will let you think on it for awhile as i do not want this to be the point thattakes everything off topic.

I just want to make sure I understand how it works before I confront you with the magnitude of your folly. Because "Christian science" encompasses things such as a flat earth, a stationary earth, a moving sun, and several other things which are all wrong as can be. Verses will be forthcoming upon request.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

So we are supposed to reject evil desires (aka sin) and act like Jesus. Which does not require a literal Genesis.

Jesus believed in a literal genesis. He was there. ae you greater than Him?

Gotcha. So, where does a literal Genesis fit into that?

very simple, you call the very God whom you say you love and follow a liar. 1 cor. 13 tells us that 'love believes all things' yet i haven't heard one person here who is not a creationist say they believe all of God's word.

So among what we should think on are things that are true, right, excellent, and lovely. Like science. Gotcha.

no. another excuse to justify being led astray.

[QUOTEEverything living in the way that best fits it fits with the idea of natural selection just as well as with the idea of creation][/QUOTE]

you certainly love fooling yourself.

i think those serve as enough of an example of how you treat honest posting. you look for any excuse or avenue to avoid facing the truth and the reality.

you even ignore scripture and miss the lessons being taught by them. 1 thess. quoted above in a previous point is ap[rime example. if you can't see it then you better re-evaluate your beliefs and where you stand with God. also the following is a good example:

That is just an exhortation not to be lead astray. I don't see how that makes me call God a liar. Which I do not.

you deny the evil one's presence, influence and other evil workings which is contrary to what God teaches then you call God a liar. same with adding evolution, changing passages to allegoricl when they are not and so on

buti didn't think you would be honest, i hoped you would have been but it seems you are just playing a game and are not being serious or wanting an honest discussion.

 

[metherion]

Quote:
So we are supposed to reject evil desires (aka sin) and act like Jesus. Which does not require a literal Genesis.
Jesus believed in a literal genesis. He was there. ae you greater than Him?

Jesus used the ideas presented in Genesis. If I retell one of the fables about a tortoise and a hare racing does it means I think they actually raced? No. So, His just using that does not mean He believed it. We do not know whether or not He believed in a literal Genesis. Furthermore, the Father reserved the Timing of the End to Himself. We do not know what else He reserved to Himself. The true origin or man might very well have been reserved to the Father also.

Quote:
Gotcha. So, where does a literal Genesis fit into that?
very simple, you call the very God whom you say you love and follow a liar. 1 cor. 13 tells us that 'love believes all things' yet i haven't heard one person here who is not a creationist say they believe all of God's word.

I do NOT call Him a liar. A liar tells lies. Lies are completely untrue. God does not lie. God tells stories. God tells parables. God uses allegory. God conveys a spiritual truth using words. God does NOT lie, and I do not say He does. There is a HUGE difference between disbelieving something and believing something is not literal. Furthermore, stating that I call God a liar doesn't answer where it says a literal Genesis is necessary for salvation.
Also, love is not envious, boastful, self-serving, or rude.
And also, if we believe everything we may fall prey to the evil one. While the Bible itself is above reproach, man's beliefs about it may certainly lead the Satan. THAT would be delicious for him. And I personally think that contradicting the message of salvation would be much more delicious to Satan than messing with the idea of origins.
So yes. You will not find someone who is not a Creationist say the literally believe all of God's word. But those of us who do not literally believe still belive.

no. another excuse to justify being led astray.

Nope nope nope. I was using it as an example.

Everything living in the way that best fits it fits with the idea of natural selection just as well as with the idea of creation]

you certainly love fooling yourself.

Oh really. So, the idea that every organism has adapted to live the best in its environment doesn't fit with the idea that organisms live best in their environments?

i think those serve as enough of an example of how you treat honest posting. you look for any excuse or avenue to avoid facing the truth and the reality.

No. I look at the very narrow ideas presented and show their weaknesses.

you even ignore scripture and miss the lessons being taught by them. 1 thess. quoted above in a previous point is ap[rime example. if you can't see it then you better re-evaluate your beliefs and where you stand with God.

The verses you pulled from 1 Thessalonians are telling you what to do when someone slights you (or, more accurately what NOT to do.) That has nothing to do with whether or not science is accurate. And I would say that you seem to have missed some of the lessons, like not judging others' salvation, not imposing limits on God, etc.

also the following is a good example:
Quote:
That is just an exhortation not to be lead astray. I don't see how that makes me call God a liar. Which I do not.
you deny the evil one's presence, influence and other evil workings which is contrary to what God teaches then you call God a liar. same with adding evolution, changing passages to allegoricl when they are not and so on

I would honestly say that the evil one is more likely to be lurking among doctrines that ADD things to the salvation requirement and take things literally that shouldn't be. I do not add evolution to the Bible, nor do I say that one must accept evolution to be saved despite the lack of references to it in the Bible (as opposed to, say, a literal Genesis). I do not call God a liar, I recognize His use of allegory. There is a huge difference.

buti didn't think you would be honest, i hoped you would have been but it seems you are just playing a game and are not being serious or wanting an honest discussion.

And now apparently I'm a liar who calls God a liar and who isn't serious. Wonderful.

I don't know what else I can say in response to that last paragraph and keep it civil. So I'm not going to further respond to it. I shake the dust of that last paragraph from my feet.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus believed in a literal genesis. He was there. ae you greater than Him?

When did Jesus mention Adam and Eve, a six day creation or a global flood?

very simple, you call the very God whom you say you love and follow a liar. 1 cor. 13 tells us that 'love believes all things' yet i haven't heard one person here who is not a creationist say they believe all of God's word.

That is an interesting claim. Let's see,

metherion, do you believe Jesus when he said the bread was his flesh?
architect, what about you, do you believe Jesus turned the bread being his own flesh?

 

[metherion]

metherion, do you believe Jesus when he said the bread was his flesh?

Yes. Yes I do. As a matter of fact, not only do I believe it happened then, I believe His words to do it in memory of Him were a command and that the divine power of God does this every Sunday during the Mass.

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

When did Jesus mention Adam and Eve, a six day creation or a global flood?

That is an interesting claim. Let's see,

metherion, do you believe Jesus when he said the bread was his flesh?
architect, what about you, do you believe Jesus turned the bread being his own flesh?

If Jesus said, "I thirst" and it was literal, does that mean that all statements he made were literal? If not, then why is your example any more helpful? As you well know, I have never found a fully satisfying explanation for the fact that the quote you use does not contain language like "his bread is LIKE my body." Usually such language does exist, but not in the case of the Genesis citations that Jesus made.

 

[metherion]

Jesus taught the crowds in parables. When Jesus was talking about how God created male and female, He was teaching to the crowds. On the other hand, on Passover He was talking to His apostles, who usually got the full truth. On the Cross, He was talking to a Roman solider conveying a need. Neither of those is a candidate for parable.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

If Jesus said, "I thirst" and it was literal, does that mean that all statements he made were literal? If not, then why is your example any more helpful? As you well know, I have never found a fully satisfying explanation for the fact that the quote you use does not contain language like "his bread is LIKE my body." Usually such language does exist, but not in the case of the Genesis citations that Jesus made.

Archie likes to accuse TE of not believing God's word, dismissing the fact that quite a lot of what God says is figurative and metaphorical, if we don't take Genesis literally, the way he does, we do not believe God's word. I thought there was a wonderful irony in archie bringing this up in a conversation with metherion, whose icon say Catholic, who I figured would take things literally that archie actually denies.

(Thanks metherion )

In answer to your point about why Jesus did not use language indicating this statement is figurative, I think the bible does that a lot less than you realise. Jesus was so at home with figurative language, his conversation just ran naturally into metaphor without any warning, lots of his parable were told without labels, if you read the text it is often the gospel writer who tells us they were parables, not Jesus. The OT is very similar allegories and metaphors are not always announced, look at the parable of the trees in Judges or Ezek 16.

 

[busterdog]

Jesus taught the crowds in parables. When Jesus was talking about how God created male and female, He was teaching to the crowds. On the other hand, on Passover He was talking to His apostles, who usually got the full truth. On the Cross, He was talking to a Roman solider conveying a need. Neither of those is a candidate for parable.

Metherion

OK. But examples of parables prove nothing about how Jesus intended to use the Genesis references.

So, I say the references to Genesis are not metaphorical.

Then you say, what about the parables?

Then I say, so what. Prove the Genesis references were parables.

Then you say, but what about the parables?

Then I say, well OK, what about the literal narrative that Jesus uses?

You say, well that was completely different.

I say fine. The Genesis references could have been different too. And, I just say, can we please stop using the parables as proof of what the Genesis references were intended to mean?

 

[busterdog]

Archie likes to accuse TE of not believing God's word, dismissing the fact that quite a lot of what God says is figurative and metaphorical, if we don't take Genesis literally, the way he does, we do not believe God's word. I thought there was a wonderful irony in archie bringing this up in a conversation with metherion, whose icon say Catholic, who I figured would take things literally that archie actually denies.

(Thanks metherion )

In answer to your point about why Jesus did not use language indicating this statement is figurative, I think the bible does that a lot less than you realise. Jesus was so at home with figurative language, his conversation just ran naturally into metaphor without any warning, lots of his parable were told without labels, if you read the text it is often the gospel writer who tells us they were parables, not Jesus. The OT is very similar allegories and metaphors are not always announced, look at the parable of the trees in Judges or Ezek 16.

Generally the text seems to discriminate between metaphorical use and literal use. At times, we YECs admittedly struggle. The text doesn't always seem to do what I think it should do in that respect.

That being said, I do think the context provides evidence for the position Archie is taking. I understand the counterarguments, which are not without some reason. But some use of metaphor elsewhere isn't definitive, nor would lots of such use elsewhere.

Whether we are dealing with one's level of irrationality, in terms of rejecting scientific consensus, or dealing with unbelief in terms of rejecting literal scripture, we are going to be hitting those nerves. But, we should I suppose hit those raw nerves, but not without the salt of humility and recognizing the body of Christ. If one believes like Archie, I think such a man should pretty much proceed as he has. I don't always understand him, though. And I think recognizing the Body (even where it includes those who reject a literal Genesis) is pretty important thing to do and perhaps he should do it more. My point is that these conflicts are in part, intractible.

 

[Deamiter]

busterdog -- I don't think anybody uses parables as evidence that the references weren't literal. The point is that some creationists make the opposite claim that they WERE literal without backing up that claim with any evidence.

The fact is that every single time early Genesis (1-11) is used it's not as a reference to history but it's being used to make a deeper point. It's being used in a way that could easily be literal or not -- given Jesus' other words it could just as easily be a reference to a historical event like the Hebrew exodus (any of them) or an allegorical event like the many parables he used.

No TE here has claimed that the parables are evidence that these references WERE NOT to a factual event. We claim that the oft-repeated creationist claim that they MUST be historical is false as given Jesus' mode of communication they could very easily have been making use of a non-historical, mythological construct to make the spiritual point.