• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,742
52,533
Guam
✟5,133,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why would it?

I've never said the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine.

And even if I were a Transubstantiationist (I'm not), Transubstantiation doesn't say anything about the change of the accidents, but only of the substance.

-CryptoLutheran
I'm not going to get into this with you.

You said it was literally Jesus.

So what started out as literally a wafer, became literally Jesus.

It sounds to me like you're backtracking now; but I don't believe it is anything more than a wafer, so it's not worth arguing about it here.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,529
29,038
Pacific Northwest
✟812,518.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm not going to get into this with you.

You said it was literally Jesus.

So what started out as literally a wafer, became literally Jesus.

It sounds to me like you're backtracking now; but I don't believe it is anything more than a wafer, so it's not worth arguing about it here.

Not backtracking. I said it's literally Jesus. I didn't say it stopped being bread.

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements.

Also, I'm the one who said this debate is inappropriate here, so if you don't want an answer, perhaps don't press the question.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's not about "believe".

It's about accepting the evidence is real (empirical, physical, objective, observable, valid, measurable, etc.) and the scientific conclusions drawn from an examination of that evidence.

One side of the creationsim vs science "debate" has that. The other side does not.
The more you look in the "scientific" study of the past, the more mistakes you will find were made and the more you will find that a lot of what is considered proven really is still up for debate by the scientists themselves.
Science isn't facts, science is theories and the farther back you go the more room you have for human error. Truth is a good part of what we knew about American history when I was a kid was flat out wrong. But you go ahead and believe they are right about what happened billions of years ago. Go ahead and take it on pure faith.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your arguments against the Real Presence, and your attempt to imply that I'm not being honest with you about my beliefs concerning the Eucharist seem to be around the same level as your arguments against evolution.

-CryptoLutheran
Thanks for the compliment.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Essentially your argument is: It's not physically possible for mere bread and wine to actually be Jesus' flesh and blood, so therefore it can't be literal, and thus conclude it must be symbolic.

You predicate your argument here on the basis of incredulity.

And yet, that same incredulity when applied to the physical impossibility of the ark and great deluge is scorned as simply "not believing the Bible".

Of course there's plenty in Genesis to indicate non-literal readings. The creation stories, if read strictly literally, flat out contradict each other, for example.

In the first creation story God causes plants to sprout up on dry land on the third day, animals are created on days five and six, with man being created last on the sixth day. In the second creation story, God forms man from the dust of the earth, and then creates plants, places man in a garden, and then creates animals.

The first story's chronology: Man > Plants > Animals
The second story's chronology: Plants > Animals > Man

In order to force the two stories to not conflict requires drastically changing the plain reading of the text.

Now, if I were a biblicist who believed in taking those stories in Genesis literally, that would be a problem for me. But I'm not, and so those details aren't problematic. Because the point of the creation stories aren't to give us a literal "play-by-play", but rather to provide meaningful context for the story of God's redemption of the world. The first creation story presents us with God as the Creator who has ordained everything to be and to dwell in its ordered spaces. Creation isn't, as it is in many of the mythologies of the surrounding nations to Israel, the result of cosmic chaos; but is the product of Divine Order. A division between light and dark, between sky and sea, between water and dry land, giving room for sun, moon, and stars to rule day and night, birds and fish to rule sky and sea, and beasts to rule dry land--with man as the priestly steward over the earth bearing the Divine Image. The second creation story presenting us with the story of man's relationships with God and the rest of creation, relationships which become fundamentally and forever broken by the introduction of death, sin, and suffering, the realities of this present world which we find ourselves--in which rather than simply enjoying God's good world we must toil at the soil, hunt to kill for food and clothing, in which violence, war, and every other evil is present in our midst.

And so when I get to the story of Noah and the ark, it's really not that difficult to understand that the point of the story isn't "God got really mad and decided to kill everyone and everything on the planet." But rather the point of the story presents to us an important lesson to learn: Salvation does not come through destruction. The flood did not save the world. The world cannot be healed by erasing everything and just starting over. The flood came, the waters receded, and sin, death, and suffering didn't go away. As quickly as Noah gets off the boat, builds an altar to thank God, he gets drunk off his rear end, strips naked, gets caught naked by one of his sons, and then places a curse on his own grandson. And almost as soon as the whole story of Noah ends, we're already reading about men gathering together to build a tower to ascend to heaven--our hubris has not subsided. We were just as bad after the flood as we were before. Nothing got fixed.

That sets us up with something really important, the way God actually will redeem and heal the world.

"Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" - Genesis 11:31-2 - 12:1-3

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ." - Galatians 3:16

In Christianity the point of the Bible is Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran
Of course, the point is Jesus. But Jesus referred to the flood as an actual happening. There are genealogies in genesis that are important to understanding the linage of Jesus. Nothing about points to it being nonliteral.

My argument about the body of Christ isn't based on incredulity. God can do whatever he wants. But he doesn't convert the wine to literal blood as I drink it. Sure, he could if he wanted to. But Jesus doesn't give the disciples real blood so why would we think we are drinking actual human blood?, which is forbidden in the bible, BTW! I didn't say he doesn't literally indwell the elements in some fashion. He says it's the fruit of the vine, which you have never addressed. He says the cup is a covenant when it's still a cup, which you have never addressed. Obviously, he is talking of spiritual and not physical things.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,449
✟156,970.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Facts are not insults I have offered to go over the basics with you so that you would not repeat errors. You did not accept that offer. You have no excuse for your lack of education in this matter. You are being insulted by reality.
Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.
 
Upvote 0

MIDutch

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,421
3,383
68
Detroit
✟83,174.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.
Well, if you truly accepted the vast amount of evidence that exists, understood how evolution happens, and understood how the Theory of Evolution (along with numerous theories from other scientific disciplines) explains it all, then you wouldn't be a creationist.
 
Upvote 0

MIDutch

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,421
3,383
68
Detroit
✟83,174.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Go ahead and take it on pure faith.
You are bearing false witness again.

It has already been explained to you why science (even at it's most imperfect) is still vastly better than the alternative and requires no faith.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,529
29,038
Pacific Northwest
✟812,518.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Thanks for the compliment.

It would seem to me that when debating a subject, that one should have a rudimentary idea about the subject before trying to speak authoritatively on said subject.

You demonstrate a general lack of knowledge on the basics of what evolution is; and likewise demonstrate a similar lack of knowledge on basic historical Christian doctrine on the Sacraments.

Now, there is opportunity here to learn, but learning requires honest and earnest curiosity and inquiry.

I used to be a Young Earth Creationist, and I also used to believe that Jesus was just talking figuratively. In my case I believed these things because it's what I was told to believe by those I regarded as having answers to these questions--namely my parents, my teachers, pastors, and youth ministers. But I realized in my very, very early adulthood that maybe there were things I didn't know but I should know, for example, why did everyone teach me about "the rapture", but never about the resurrection of the body? Why did all my teachers teach that justification by grace alone through faith meant that I had to earn God's favor by performing certain works of conversion and living a lifestyle of holiness? Why were so many passages of the Bible never spoken about? And why when Scripture spoke plainly about, say, what Baptism is, did my teachers tell me that Baptism is only an outward public sign of personal faith? Rather than call it what it was: the means by which we are born again into God's kingdom.

If I wanted to take my Christianity seriously, that meant I had to step outside of the comforts of having "all the answers", and to start asking lots of questions. What don't I know that I should know? How well do the things I believe hold up to scrutiny? Is it biblical? Is it what the early Church believed? What is Christian faith? Do I believe the Creeds, or do I believe what some self-declared teacher, prophet, or inspired teacher says? Do I hold to the faith as I have seen it practiced and confessed for the last two millennia, or do I believe something other than that?

Who do I take more seriously, St. Augustine of Hippo, that most holy and precious Doctor of the Christian Church, or some quack like Kent Hovind?

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And I say you're wrong.I know.Right -- and I'm Genghis Khan.

I'm surprised academians aren't all over this.

In fact, one seems to be on your side.

And that says it all.
You probably need to go to the mods to change your name. They can probably do so if you want it done.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your constant claim that I don't understand evolution is hogwash.

No, you constantly provide evidence that you do not understand it. Also you inability to support any of your claims supports my claim.


The fact is that you do not understand evolution. A person that understands a topic can support their claims, something that you never do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,529
29,038
Pacific Northwest
✟812,518.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Of course, the point is Jesus. But Jesus referred to the flood as an actual happening.

Jesus referred to the flood as a point of mutual recognition for the purpose of analogy. Nothing in what Jesus says suggests that it literally happened.

If I compare something to the Lord of the Flies, I'm not saying that the Lord of the Flies is about something that literally happened; I'm providing a point of reference.

There are genealogies in genesis that are important to understanding the linage of Jesus. Nothing about points to it being nonliteral.

And theologically those genealogies serve a purpose; even when the genealogies don't agree--such as between Matthew and Luke. Because the points the Evangelists are making isn't a pure genealogical record, but rather to declare that Jesus is the long promised Messiah who came through Abraham and David (Matthew's Gospel); and Jesus is the Lord who, from Adam, has come to redeem Adam's race. But the mere presence of a genealogy does not, in itself, indicate something is literal. Otherwise we would have to conclude that all ancient genealogical accounts are always literal--in which case that would make the Japanese emperors literal descendants of Amaterasu, the sun goddess in the Japanese creation/founding myth.

Genealogies aren't merely about paternal lineage, but serve to emphasize importance. And, of course, the Apostle St. Paul does remind us,

"As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach heresy; and likewise not to obsess over stories or endless genealogies which only promote pointless speculation rather than managing God's household in faith." - 1 Timothy 1:3-4

My argument about the body of Christ isn't based on incredulity. God can do whatever he wants. But he doesn't convert the wine to literal blood as I drink it. Sure, he could if he wanted to. But Jesus doesn't give the disciples real blood so why would we think we are drinking actual human blood?, which is forbidden in the bible, BTW! I didn't say he doesn't literally indwell the elements in some fashion. He says it's the fruit of the vine, which you have never addressed. He says the cup is a covenant when it's still a cup, which you have never addressed. Obviously, he is talking of spiritual and not physical things.

What stops the Eucharist from being both bread and wine, as well as being Christ's flesh and blood?

You'll note that at no point have I argued that the bread ceased to be bread, or the wine ceased to be wine. Which is why I haven't addressed your "fruit of the vine" comment, because it's not relevant--I'm fully aware that it's wine. That it's wine isn't the issue. That's like me saying "Jesus is both God and man" and you pointing out that Jesus was human, and therefore can't be God, as though this were mutually exclusive when it isn't.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,742
52,533
Guam
✟5,133,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It appears that they made a huge error.
Yup -- busted by science.

That's one of the reasons I gave for God giving us scientists: to keep religion in check.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,742
52,533
Guam
✟5,133,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why should they be holes?
Please don't act innocent. I think you know what I mean by missing links.
Subduction Zone said:
You have not explained why so called missing links are holes in the theory.
If they aren't missing, then produce them.

Otherwise evolution is just a game of connect-the-dots.

Remember this thread?

My Daisy Chain Challenge

You were the first one to reply to it.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,742
52,533
Guam
✟5,133,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You probably need to go to the mods to change your name. They can probably do so if you want it done.
Are you saying SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE, are you? ;)
 
Upvote 0