Dinosaurs/Dragons

[DynamicDrummer]

so he could take advantage of gullible newbie Christians.

I suppose that's me, eh?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Baptism rejuvinates our souls; it "regenerates" our souls and heals it, although not immediately. As Christians grow in their faith and service, the soul slowly heals and is repaired.QUOTE]
Are you saying Baptism saves?

 

[PaladinValer]

Baptism imparts Grace unto the recepient and enters the person into the Communion of saints and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is required for salvation, as the Holy Spirit instructed the Early Church to teach.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Look everyone, the reason I'm debating you guys is because I want to know why you believe what you believe. What are the advantages of believing in the theory of evolution to get us here? Seriously, if it would have an effect on morality, etc., why should I believe it?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Baptism imparts Grace unto the recepient and enters the person into the Communion of saints and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is required for salvation, as the Holy Spirit instructed the Early Church to teach.

No. Salvation is by faith alone. Baptism does not save. The blood of Jesus Christ that was spilled out on Calvary saves. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no man may boast." Eph. 2:8-9

 

[PaladinValer]

1. You're completely off the original topic.
2. Baptism is a Sacrament

St. John 3:5
Acts 2:38
St. Matthew 21:25
St. Mark 1:4
Ephesians 4:5
The Nicene Creed

 

[DynamicDrummer]

1. You're completely off the original topic.

Fine. So is it still possible for dinosaurs to still be around?

 

[jameseb]

Kent Hovind is a liar. He is a cheat.

Perhaps instead of disparaging the man you might provide the poster with a link that supports your claims and might shed some light on some revealing information that the poster might appreciate. Personally, I'd like to know too.. I've heard of Hovind mentioned often around here and I'd finally like to know what this is all about.

 

[seebs]

Perhaps instead of disparaging the man you might provide the poster with a link that supports your claims and might shed some light on some revealing information that the poster might appreciate. Personally, I'd like to know too.. I've heard of Hovind mentioned often around here and I'd finally like to know what this is all about.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

To make a long story short, the guy has problems.

 

[KleinerApfel]

I Kings 7:23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about. KJV

How thick were the sides of the vessel - is this the internal or the external measurement of the rim?

Blessings, Susana

 

[seebs]

Look everyone, the reason I'm debating you guys is because I want to know why you believe what you believe.

Because it appears to be true.

What are the advantages of believing in the theory of evolution to get us here?

Most importantly, honesty with myself. I cannot deny the conclusions I reach from the evidence available to me.

Secondly, there are significant pragmatic benefits to evolutionary theory in general. For instance, it explains why it is important to continue taking antibiotics even after you "feel better". Evolutionary theory covers this nicely; creationism doesn't even hint at the topic.

Furthermore, it allows me to accept a God who would create me and a cat using the same pattern of joints, even though both of us would be better off with specially-designed joints that match the very different ways we use our limbs.

Seriously, if it would have an effect on morality, etc., why should I believe it?

I'm not sure whether you mean "would" or "wouldn't".

Evolution does not deny human morality. It does give us some insights into the mechanisms by which we tend to make moral decisions, in the absence of specific insights or guidance.

But... If evolution is what really happened, then if we are to be honest, we must believe it, no matter the effects. To believe something for reasons other than its apparent truth would be to start down a very dangerous path. If you can be persuaded to "become a Christian" because you fear punishment, rather than because you believe it to be true, your faith is not genuine faith, but rather, an attempt to get out of trouble, and won't help you much.

In practice, evolution doesn't directly impact moral questions. The impact is indirect; if we are to conclude that some portions of the Bible are not literal history, then how shall we tell what style different parts of the Bible were written in? This is a challenging question, but one that we have two thousand years of practice in answering.

The notion that every word in the Bible must be literal truth is a comparatively recent invention; verbal plenary inspiration is largely a creation of the Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900s, especially around 1910-1920. For the previous millennium and change, theologians have always understood the Bible to contain writings in many different genres, ranging from plainly literal to plainly allegorical, and some which are harder to categorize.

Finally, there is a very important impact of concluding that Genesis is myth; when we understand it as a myth, rather than as history, our eyes are opened to the meaning of the story. History does not have a "moral of the story"; myth does. As a myth, Genesis tells us, not that at a specific moment God uttered the phrase "this is good", but rather, that God sees His creation as good. More importantly, it tells us that this message - that God sees His creation as good - is an important one about the nature of our universe. It is not a side-effect of understanding a bit of history; it is the purpose of that story.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

I'd like to meet all of you. I'm not the best at debating in online forums. And also can you show me ANYWHERE in the bible where a prophet, Jesus, etc. read the bible in an allegorical form? Whenever they read the scripture, they always took it literally. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all of God's Word has come to pass.

 

[jameseb]

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

To make a long story short, the guy has problems.

Thank you for the link, I'll check it out now.

 

[seebs]

I'd like to meet all of you. I'm not the best at debating in online forums. And also can you show me ANYWHERE in the bible where a prophet, Jesus, etc. read the bible in an allegorical form? Whenever they read the scripture, they always took it literally. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all of God's Word has come to pass.

I can show you Jesus speaking in parables over and over, certainly. I can show you people interpreting symbolic dreams, too.

And, once again, you should be aware that the Bible clearly states that Jesus is "the Word". Therefore, anything which isn't Jesus isn't the Word.

 

[PaladinValer]

Fine. So is it still possible for dinosaurs to still be around?

Nope; went extinct 74 million years ago. And what does this have to do with evolution?

I'd like to meet all of you. I'm not the best at debating in online forums. And also can you show me ANYWHERE in the bible where a prophet, Jesus, etc. read the bible in an allegorical form? Whenever they read the scripture, they always took it literally. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all of God's Word has come to pass.

Let me make this as easy as a possibly can...

1. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded on Pentecost, c 33 ce, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit. The Apostles served as the first bishops of the Church.
2. As the Church spreads, dissention arrises. The New Testament describes one such dissention about whether Christians must be circumcized and follow the ritual/ceremonial laws of the Torah. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles that no Christian must follow the ritual/ceremonial laws of the Torah and does not have to be circumcized. Since many did not believe the inspired (and thus denied the authority of the Holy Spirit-driven Church), they were named heretical and were osted from the Church. Today, that heresy is called "circumcisionism." It was labeled heresy because the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interpreted that those laws, as they were laws of Jewish worship, had no baring because of Jesus.
3. Come about 300 years later. Christianity decides to Canonized those books that will become the Christian Bible. Controversy had been ensuing for hundreds of years now about which books were inspired. The entire Church met to select those books that were inspired. As always, they prayed for guidance by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guided them. All the books of the Septuagint were admitted as Canon as well as the current books of the New Testament. A problem was that the Church knew that a literal reading of the Old Testament depicted a flat Earth, something they knew was not true. The Holy Spirit guided them and in the Church's authority, said that the Bible contained everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. They knew that any further knowledge about the world wouldn't matter because it would have no bearing on the theological truths of Christianity. As such, it wouldn't matter to them if the Bible was proven fallable in matters of the size and shape of the Earth; the Bible was, after all, a Holy Canon on salvation, faith, and doctrine, not of worldly matters.

The above is factual history. It is the history of the Christian religion. If you wish to reject the history of the Church, then it would seem that you are rejecting the fact that the Holy Spirit gave authority to the Church. The same authority that declared the circumcisionists, the montanists, the modalists, the arians, the gnostics, and many others heretics. Why? Because their doctrines went against the orthodox interpretation of the Bible. The modalists denied the Trinity, while the gnostics believed that only through special knowledge could a person be saved and also that Jesus wasn't Man. If you deny the authority of the Church, then you are accepting of heresies, and the Church will fall into heterodoxy.

This is the official doctrine of the Early Church, as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is orthodoxy, historical, and tradition. The Holy Spirit would not lie to the Church, so I must have trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. As such, I accept the Church's inspired doctrine of the Bible. It, not the Canon, came first.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

I can show you Jesus speaking in parables over and over, certainly. I can show you people interpreting symbolic dreams, too.

And, once again, you should be aware that the Bible clearly states that Jesus is "the Word". Therefore, anything which isn't Jesus isn't the Word.

Let's try this again. Is there anywhere in scripture where when a prophet or whomever picked up the scriptures and read the scriptures allegorically? I'm not asking if Jesus taught allegorically or a dream was interpreted allegorically.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Nope; went extinct 74 million years ago. And what does this have to do with evolution?


Let me make this as easy as a possibly can...

1. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded on Pentecost, c 33 ce, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit. The Apostles served as the first bishops of the Church.
2. As the Church spreads, dissention arrises. The New Testament describes one such dissention about whether Christians must be circumcized and follow the ritual/ceremonial laws of the Torah. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles that no Christian must follow the ritual/ceremonial laws of the Torah and does not have to be circumcized. Since many did not believe the inspired (and thus denied the authority of the Holy Spirit-driven Church), they were named heretical and were osted from the Church. Today, that heresy is called "circumcisionism." It was labeled heresy because the Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, interpreted that those laws, as they were laws of Jewish worship, had no baring because of Jesus.
3. Come about 300 years later. Christianity decides to Canonized those books that will become the Christian Bible. Controversy had been ensuing for hundreds of years now about which books were inspired. The entire Church met to select those books that were inspired. As always, they prayed for guidance by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guided them. All the books of the Septuagint were admitted as Canon as well as the current books of the New Testament. A problem was that the Church knew that a literal reading of the Old Testament depicted a flat Earth, something they knew was not true. The Holy Spirit guided them and in the Church's authority, said that the Bible contained everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. They knew that any further knowledge about the world wouldn't matter because it would have no bearing on the theological truths of Christianity. As such, it wouldn't matter to them if the Bible was proven fallable in matters of the size and shape of the Earth; the Bible was, after all, a Holy Canon on salvation, faith, and doctrine, not of worldly matters.

The above is factual history. It is the history of the Christian religion. If you wish to reject the history of the Church, then it would seem that you are rejecting the fact that the Holy Spirit gave authority to the Church. The same authority that declared the circumcisionists, the montanists, the modalists, the arians, the gnostics, and many others heretics. Why? Because their doctrines went against the orthodox interpretation of the Bible. The modalists denied the Trinity, while the gnostics believed that only through special knowledge could a person be saved and also that Jesus wasn't Man. If you deny the authority of the Church, then you are accepting of heresies, and the Church will fall into heterodoxy.

This is the official doctrine of the Early Church, as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is orthodoxy, historical, and tradition. The Holy Spirit would not lie to the Church, so I must have trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. As such, I accept the Church's inspired doctrine of the Bible. It, not the Canon, came first.

I did not ask for what the church did with the bible. I'm asking is there anyone IN the bible who PICKED UP the scriptures and read them off allegorically?

 

[seebs]

Let's try this again. Is there anywhere in scripture where when a prophet or whomever picked up the scriptures and read the scriptures allegorically? I'm not asking if Jesus taught allegorically or a dream was interpreted allegorically.

An interesting question. One problem is that we can't tell without first deciding whether something was an allegory or metaphor.

For instance, if Christ believed that the death which entered the world through sin was spiritual death, not physical death, then you could argue that He spoke allegorically. Or, perhaps, He spoke literally. How would we tell?

The one clue available to us is that, if God said Adam would literally die within the day, and Adam didn't, God's an idiot.

 

[PaladinValer]

I did not ask for what the church did with the bible. I'm asking is there anyone IN the bible who PICKED UP the scriptures and read them off allegorically?

You missed the point. Does the Holy Spirit lie? Of course not! Then why did the Holy Spirit inspire the Church to not declare the Bible 100% literally infallible and instead only declare it so in terms of religion (salvation, doctrine, and faith)? Why also did the Holy Spirit inspire the Church to interpret the Scriptures non-literally when applicable?

That's the point. Did the Holy Spirit lie? I don't think so; He cannot lie for He is God the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

If you say that He does lie, then the following happens:

1. You accept all heresies condemned by the Church as authentic Christianity
2. You deny the authority God gave to the Apostles, the first bishops in the Church
3. You accept that Christianity disappeared immediately after Jesus
4. You accept that the day of Pentecost was a fraud
5. You deny that Christianity existed until only ~100 years ago.

Pretty powerful consequences. So did the Holy Spirit lie?

 

[Alternate Carpark]

In response to pthalomarie's link
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm


First argument: The Firmament.
Your understanding of the firmament is limited but your limited explaination is very good, yet for some strange reason you then blatantly conjecture that the earth is flat.
There is not even an inference of God stating that anything is flat in the scriptures you used for your argument.

So under this firmament (does rather sound like a dome) is a flat thing - the earth. A bit like this

And then you also state that you will not use anything but the KJV to prove your point, yet a few lines later are quoting "dome" from the "Good News'" version.
Can't even stick to your own rules.
I mean, c'mon, you base your opening argument on the word "dome" and even have a picture ( oh, very well done by the way ) to show us what this "dome" looks like.
And sorry, but to most rational people, firmament doesn't "sound" anything like "dome".

First argument invalid due to non compliance to own rules and drawing pictures to prove point.

Second argument: The sun and moon.

All you are stating here is you don't like how God describes how he made the sun and moon. This is not even an argument.
It's you complaining that it doesn't agree with what "we understand it to be now".
Very vague here, are you refering to what "we" know about how they were formed , or what they were formed from ?

What of the flood waters? Well, Genesis 7: 11says that God opened the windows in heaven, which you will recall is the same thing as the firmament - that thing within which are the sun moon and stars, and the water, presumably that 'above the firmament' came in. So the water came from beyond the firmament; that is, beyond the sun, moon and stars.

Okay, so please don't tell me you don't believe rain comes out of the sky now ? Because my friend, let me assure you now.
The sun and moon are in the sky and the rain does come from the sky, of course the rain is a lot lower in the sky that the other two bodies,
but still it's all the same sky. And I like how you use the word "presumably", which of course means you have no factual idea.

Second argument invalid due to presumptions and personal opinion instead of stating facts.

Third argument: The earth--part A.

Psalm 104: 5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

It is unmoving and indeed unmoveable.

I for one have no idea why you even quoted this scripture, because it has nothing to do with how bodies move through the universe( firmament).
If you will stop for a second, turn on that logical brain of yours and REALLY look this time, you will see that it says REMOVED not MOVED !
What shall not be REMOVED ? The FOUNDATIONS of the earth.
Correct interpretation--- Earth shall not be destroyed or removed from it's position within the universe, moving or not moving.

The earth---part B.

What of the motion of the Sun and Moon?

Psalm 104: 19 "He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down"
So the sun does set - it's not just the apparent motion of the earth - because God has told it when to do so.

This is pretty incoherent. What are you actually disputing and\or claiming here ?
So God didn't explain why the sun and mood set, he just said they they "move"...so ?

The earth---part C.

And again; Joshua 10: 12-13 "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun stand thou still upon and Gibeon and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day"
Joshua commands the sun and moon to stay still. This is clearly because it's these bodies which move, not the earth. On its own, you could take this as being 'how it appears to an observer', but coupled with the clear picture of the cosmos above, it is obvious that the earth spinning on its axis and the sun's movement being an illusion is not a Scriptural option.

Nowhere does it state whether the earth or the other bodies are physically moving. All it states, just like in the other scripture, that the sun did not "move" all day long.
It does not explain how it didn't move.

Lest you think I'm being silly here

Now why would we think that

Luther used just this passage to refute Galileo when he advanced the Copernican model of the earth going round the sun. He said that Scripture couldn't be wrong, so the science must be. Does this remind you of anything?

Yes, this reminds me that Luther, is just like you and can't logically see facts in supposedly conflicting information.
Plus he never concidered the other alternative just like you, that scripture and science are interelated.

Third arguement invalid due to not being able to read simple sentences plus unsubstanciated conjecturing...again.

Argument four: The Sea.

Job 38: 8, 10-11 "Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

"And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors.
"And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"
The coastline is fixed by God and doesn't change.

I'm sorry..what ? Okay now I know you're just being silly now. How did you deduce that God doesn't change the coastline out of the above scripture ?
Try doing more research before you present an argument, you wont look so..um..silly.
I refer you to Jeremiah 5:22 so you may get a better understanding of what Job 38 was refering to.

When God states that the sea cannot come onto the land, He's stating that He designed water to adhere to boundaries. And this boundary is the land. It's so simple that an intelligent person as yourself missed it big time. It does not imply that water will not invade land due to storm or flood.

I mean hello ! Don't you think that when God wrote the bible He knew we would come up to Him and say, " Hey God it says here that water wont come onto the land, care to explain ?"
Of course at this inquiry all God can do is slap His forhead with His palm, and state " Are these people for real !?"
Then He would have a lovingly hearty laugh at the so called intelligence of mankind and it's sometimes illogical absurdities.

Forth arguement invalid due to silliness and lack of research and premature speculation.

Closing statements on all the little snippets at the end.

Having established what the biblical picture of the universe really is...

Bwahahahaha..I can't believe you just said that !


I'm with you on the flat earth people. People believing in a flat earth is just as silly as believing in the forever changing theory of evolution.

Plus you don't like the way the bible is worded, or you get confused at how it doesn't seem to be in chronological order.
Oh I'm sorry to hear that, you need to increase your deductive and analytical skills, or you can simply do as you do now.
Find the first bit of information that "proves" the bible wrong and your already established perceptions of reality "correct" and run with that.
It's quicker, easier and you wont hurt your brain trying to figure out anything.
And finally..the thing about the names of God....HUH !! WHAT !!! What are you raving on about ???

Anyway, just for the record. I am not a creationist. Don't even know what that is.
I used to believe in evolution, but I found it to be too ridiculous to believe once I met God and He showed me the truth regarding reality.

I live by this concept, Science is man's way of discovering and understanding what has been created by God.
I see no contradiction between science and the bible, unless science starts creating it's own version of reality. AKA evolution.

Personally, I am not bothered in what you choose to believe in. Makes no difference to me, so don't get all worked up about it because I see evolution as man's greatest monument to stupidity.
Get on with your life and stop arguing with people who don't hold the same beliefs.
I'm sure you can find something more productive to do than go around raving on about what you don't believe in.
As for me, I was just on my way to the Edification section and the title about Dragons caught my eye.
So I just poked my head in for a second and see what the arguers were up to, same old same old.
Anyway keep up the good fight ! Protect that fortification, your life depends on it, Yosemite !