Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Mr Strawberry]

What part is illogical? That God recreated himself as a mortal human or that both aspects could have been combined into one fleshly body?

Well one point is that god, in your words, "recreated himself as a mortal human" so that he could have himself killed in order to impress himself enough to do some forgiving, which apparently he couldn't have done otherwise although he is omnipotent and can do anything he wants. Yeah, that's obviously not a completely nonsensical story.

This is without mentioning that he deliberately planned to make people crucify him, and thus make them murderers, and that was his plan all along what with him being omniscient. There are no surprises for an omniscient god. Being omniscient means he would have known the whole plot before he even decided to create the universe, and that creates so many problems that the whole thing becomes a joke. I mean, if they'd just decided to let him off with a warning the story wouldn't work quite so well would it.

And this is also without mentioning that god can't actually be killed, so it's more of a suicide gesture than anything else. God as drama queen.

The whole thing is total claptrap.

 

[46AND2]

Yes that is always the point I get to with these debates. At first there can be total denial that even anything at all happened. That it was all lies or made up. Its like a total rejection of anything to do with the bible. Then my aim is to just establish that surely some of it must have happened, how can people go to that extent with such a detailed and elaborate hoax. That there is some evidence for at least some of the characters in the bible even for Jesus. The stories are interwoven around real historical places and times and this can be seen in archeology. I think this is because people dont separate the historical events from the divine events claimed in the bible.

Your argument basically boils down to an argument from incredulity. Christianity has been so persistent that you can't believe it is not true. I'm sorry I don't see it that way. And it isn't because of some agenda about wanting the Bible to be false. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I was raised a Christian, and would MUCH rather Christianity be true.

But if you take away all the supernatural you can have a pretty good book on the life and times of that era. Even archeologist can use the bible as a guide for their digs.

Sometimes. Often not. There is no evidence that the exodus ever happened, archaeologically, despite the fact that a lot of effort has gone in to doing so. I actually saw a pretty long list of things that could not be archaeologically corroborated. I'll see if I can dig that up. (pun intended)

But I know you have heard the point made to you that just because a book gets some historical things right, does not mean that it is all right. Harry Potter gets some things right about London, does that mean it is a work of non-fiction?

So my main aim is to establish the non supernatural aspects of the bible first.

That's a complete waste of time. Because it has no bearing, whatsoever, on the Bible as a whole. Not to mention the fact that it absolutely does fail in certain non-supernatural aspects, so your argument is dead from the outset, anyway, before we even get to the divine part. Unfortunately, since you are already convinced of the divine part, you find non-parsimonious ways to explain the natural failures.

The divine is a separate thing that Christianity is built on and takes a faith to accept it. But still I will point out that if we can accept the historical aspects of the places, people and all the small details of their lives as real then why not what they were talking about.

Why not? because humans have a propensity for exaggeration.

This is where it comes down to trust and whether you believe they were telling the truth or like you were saying whether or not they were deluded. But for so many to be in agreement and speak with such confidence and belief themselves it seems at the very least they believed they were telling the truth. Yet much of what they say seems so coherent, straight forward and matter of fact and something that doesn't seem like that of a deluded person.

You have a markedly more negative view of delusion that what delusion actually is. You seem to think that only people with some form of mental illness can suffer from delusion. EVERYONE is capable of being deluded. In fact, everyone has been deluded many times in their lives.

 

[stevevw]

Your argument basically boils down to an argument from incredulity. Christianity has been so persistent that you can't believe it is not true. I'm sorry I don't see it that way. And it isn't because of some agenda about wanting the Bible to be false. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I was raised a Christian, and would MUCH rather Christianity be true.

As i said my main aim was to at least get people to see that it wasnt all lies and made up like some think.

Sometimes. Often not. There is no evidence that the exodus ever happened, archaeologically, despite the fact that a lot of effort has gone in to doing so. I actually saw a pretty long list of things that could not be archaeologically corroborated. I'll see if I can dig that up. (pun intended)

Well I dont know if the often not is fair. I have read when many said the bible must be false because it had mentioned certain places, people and things that couldn't be verified. Then they were discovered which supported what the bible said. Ie the city of Ur and ancient alters in locations mentioned by the bible. IN fact I think its the other way around. The bible is being confirmed more and more as time goes by with the constant discoveries of cities, people, places and items it mentions.
Caiaphas
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/caiaphas-faq.htm
They're Digging up Bible Stories!
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/news/

But I know you have heard the point made to you that just because a book gets some historical things right, does not mean that it is all right. Harry Potter gets some things right about London, does that mean it is a work of non-fiction?

Its getting to much right to say that. Harry potter is a fiction movie the bible life and times is a reality. In fact some are saying that we are actually digging up bible stories. The bible is used as a map to find locations to dig and then find those cities mentioned in the bible.

That's a complete waste of time. Because it has no bearing, whatsoever, on the Bible as a whole. Not to mention the fact that it absolutely does fail in certain non-supernatural aspects, so your argument is dead from the outset, anyway, before we even get to the divine part. Unfortunately, since you are already convinced of the divine part, you find non-parsimonious ways to explain the natural failures.

Of course it does. If what is mentioned in the bible is then dug up and shown to be correct or in the correct place or finds what it has said then it shows that the people who wrote it were from that time. Its funny but if we use a non biblical example of the same thing like with some writings about ancient Rome or Greece we are excited and claim its such a great document and historically important. But apply it to the bible and suddenly it has little significance. I would say the bible is the greatest historical document for the life and times of that era we have ever had.

Why not? because humans have a propensity for exaggeration.

Exaggeration doesn't mean its not based on something true. As I said it comes down to trust and an assessment of whether they were lying about everything.

You have a markedly more negative view of delusion that what delusion actually is. You seem to think that only people with some form of mental illness can suffer from delusion. EVERYONE is capable of being deluded. In fact, everyone has been deluded many times in their lives.

No Im not going to that extreme. I am saying that normally when someone is deluded about something there are signs and characteristics with that person. As a person they will seem a little irrational about other things as well, maybe highly emotional. erratic, up and down and all over the place. If you take love for example it normally associated with decisions that go outside what a person would normally do in a situation that would indicate rational behavior. ie they will trust a person who they hardly know and give them money or access to their bank accounts. There is a type of behavior associated with that. In the bible many of the people telling the stories seem to come across as being stable when they are talking about normal situation apart from the divine things they go into for example.

 

[EternalDragon]

Well one point is that god, in your words, "recreated himself as a mortal human" so that he could have himself killed in order to impress himself enough to do some forgiving, which apparently he couldn't have done otherwise although he is omnipotent and can do anything he wants. Yeah, that's obviously not a completely nonsensical story.

This is without mentioning that he deliberately planned to make people crucify him, and thus make them murderers, and that was his plan all along what with him being omniscient. There are no surprises for an omniscient god. Being omniscient means he would have known the whole plot before he even decided to create the universe, and that creates so many problems that the whole thing becomes a joke. I mean, if they'd just decided to let him off with a warning the story wouldn't work quite so well would it.

And this is also without mentioning that god can't actually be killed, so it's more of a suicide gesture than anything else. God as drama queen.

The whole thing is total claptrap.

Hey, I respect your views but they don't line up to what the bible teaches. It is as if you have not read or if read, not understood the bible. Perhaps maybe you just read bits and pieces. I don't know but it seems you have a total misunderstanding of God and the whole story of history in the bible.

Perhaps more reading would clear some misconceptions up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well God is not man and man is not God. But the connections were made between the two when Jesus became man. God knows and understands what and who we are. He doesn't have to become us to know that after all He created us. But the whole idea of Him sending His son to us and taking on our flesh nature was to make that bridge and defeat sin and death so that we could be saved from that sinful flesh nature that bound us. We could see God in Jesus and Jesus defeated that fleshly nature when He rose form the dead. That allowed us to also defeat our sinful nature and take on a Godly nature. The only time Christ was a man was when He was here walking this earth. Now He is sitting at the right hand of God in all His Glory.

The whole story is ridiculous if you think about it just a little bit. God shouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone to forgive people, much less an innocent person.

 

[AV1611VET]

God shouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone to forgive people, much less an innocent person.

Cheap grace -- is that how it should be handled?

 

[stevevw]

The whole story is ridiculous if you think about it just a little bit. God shouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone to forgive people, much less an innocent person.

Why its something that we have done as humans. We sacrifice men in war for the good of others. When some people are caught by the law sometimes one will take the rap to get his mates off. It was always seen as a courageous thing to do even though it was wrong. But it also happens in other situations when people are in trouble if you get what I am meaning. Someone sacrifices their lives for the good of others to save a situation. But the divine meaning has so much more significance. The whole of mankind had taken on this evil nature. Part of that nature was death. The body of man was then able to decay and die whereas before we didnt know this. Part of the sinful nature was that this world became materially based and everything could and would decay and breakdown. Thats why it says in the bible that when Adam and Eve sinned they could now feel pain and they could die a physical death.

So The only way to restore that was to do something that would re establish the balance and power to man. Sin and death had to be defeated. The only thing that could do that was the sacrifice of God Himself. So Jesus became man and took on that sinful nature and be tempted and know the experiences of man. But He was obedient to God all the way to His death. That is why He was always going along with the trial and what people were saying. They accused Him of blasphemy when He claimed to be the Son of God. They wanted Him out of the way because deep down they didn't want to face the truth of what He was saying. They didn't want to lose their power and position and wanted to be the Gods of their own empires. This is what killed Jesus the pride and lies of man and this was the sinful nature of man. But Jesus was raised from the dead and defeated sin and the physical death so that no longer it had the power over mankind. There was a way out and we could choose to follow Jesus and also defeat sin and death. That is why it says we become new people and born again in the spirit of God. We have been crucified with Christ and raised again like him as new people when we accept Christ into our lives. So the power of sin no longer has a grip on us. We live according to the fruits of the spirit.

All this is associated with how the Jews had sacrificed animals to God as a way to atone themselves before God. But it was a constant process and they had to do it over and over for their sins. Jesus was given as the ultimate sacrifice that is the one and final sacrifice that will atone us before God for Good if we accept it. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that takes away the sin of the world. It is really a great sacrifice and as the saying goes greater love has no man but to lay down his life for another.

1 Peter 2:24
24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

 

[EternalDragon]

The whole story is ridiculous if you think about it just a little bit. God shouldn't have had to sacrifice anyone to forgive people, much less an innocent person.

Do you know why people in the old testament had to sacrifice an innocent, unblemished lamb to cover their sins?

Do you understand the passover?

Do you know why Jesus is called the lamb of God?

Do you know why it had to be an innocent?


Revelation 17:14

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

 

[Skaloop]

Cheap grace -- is that how it should be handled?

Well, yeah. I forgive people all the time, no sacrifice needed.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Hey, I respect your views but they don't line up to what the bible teaches. It is as if you have not read or if read, not understood the bible. Perhaps maybe you just read bits and pieces. I don't know but it seems you have a total misunderstanding of God and the whole story of history in the bible.

Perhaps more reading would clear some misconceptions up.

You haven't addressed a single part of my post, you just say that it doesn't match up with the bible. Sorry, but I'm working with the same story you are. If the story is nonsensical I can completely understand your unwillingness to discuss it.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey, I respect your views but they don't line up to what the bible teaches. It is as if you have not read or if read, not understood the bible. Perhaps maybe you just read bits and pieces. I don't know but it seems you have a total misunderstanding of God and the whole story of history in the bible.

Perhaps more reading would clear some misconceptions up.

Your views don't line up with what the Quran teaches. You should do some reading.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So The only way to restore that was to do something that would re establish the balance and power to man. Sin and death had to be defeated. The only thing that could do that was the sacrifice of God Himself.

So much for your god being omnipotent then.

So Jesus became man and took on that sinful nature and be tempted and know the experiences of man.

And so much for your god being omniscient then.

But He was obedient to God all the way to His death.

Being god in human form it would be something of a surprise if he hadn't.

That is why He was always going along with the trial and what people were saying.

Which was his plan in the first place.

They accused Him of blasphemy when He claimed to be the Son of God. They wanted Him out of the way because deep down they didn't want to face the truth of what He was saying. They didn't want to lose their power and position and wanted to be the Gods of their own empires. This is what killed Jesus the pride and lies of man and this was the sinful nature of man.

Being a pain in the neck and getting himself nailed to a cross might have had something to do with it as well.

But Jesus was raised from the dead and defeated sin and the physical death so that no longer it had the power over mankind.

So, not dead at all. Hurrah!

All this is associated with how the Jews had sacrificed animals to God as a way to atone themselves before God.

Yes, primitive blood sacrifice. Not religion's most sophisticated idea.

But it was a constant process and they had to do it over and over for their sins. Jesus was given as the ultimate sacrifice that is the one and final sacrifice that will atone us before God for Good if we accept it.

Except it wasn't a sacrifice at all as you've just pointed out yourself.

Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that takes away the sin of the world. It is really a great sacrifice and as the saying goes greater love has no man but to lay down his life for another.

Just for clarification, who does the forgiving in this story? Who is the sacrifice supposed to impress enough to allow some forgiving to take place?

 

[EternalDragon]

Your views don't line up with what the Quran teaches. You should do some reading.

I have read the Quran. It is not a holy, inspired book. It is also only one book, written by one man by the way, that first read the bible and plagiarized it.

As apposed to the bible that is many books, written by many different people, in different time periods and walks of life that all harmonize. As well as being actual, historical, eyewitness accounts.

 

[Split Rock]

I have read the Quran. It is not a holy, inspired book. It is also only one book, written by one man by the way, that first read the bible and plagiarized it.

I could also claim that Christians plagiarized the Hebrew Bible.

As apposed to the bible that is many books, written by many different people, in different time periods and walks of life that all harmonize. As well as being actual, historical, eyewitness accounts.

They harmonize (for the most part), only because the ones that didn't were rejected as non-canonical. I could also claim that the Quran is a historical, eyewitness account, as is the Book of Mormon.

 

[bhsmte]

I could also claim that Christians plagiarized the Hebrew Bible.



They harmonize (for the most part), only because the ones that didn't were rejected as non-canonical. I could also claim that the Quran is a historical, eyewitness account, as is the Book of Mormon.

And a bit of editing along the way, like the addition of 12 versus added to Mark, so it would align with the other gospels.

 

[EternalDragon]

I could also claim that Christians plagiarized the Hebrew Bible.

It wouldn't hold up as the NT merely references the OT.

They harmonize (for the most part), only because the ones that didn't were rejected as non-canonical. I could also claim that the Quran is a historical, eyewitness account, as is the Book of Mormon.

You could but they don't read that way nor claim that. At least the Quran doesn't. I have not read the book of Mormon. Have you?

 

[Split Rock]

It wouldn't hold up as the NT merely references the OT.

I was referring to the OT itself. You are aware of where the OT comes from.. right?

 

[EternalDragon]

I was referring to the OT itself. You are aware of where the OT comes from.. right?

Most of it was direct from God. The rest is written historical accounts about the history of Israel.

Lev. 1:1 And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,....

Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,...

Judges 1:1 Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
2 And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.

 

[Split Rock]

Most of it was direct from God. The rest is written historical accounts about the history of Israel.

Lev. 1:1 And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,....

Joshua 1:1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,...

Judges 1:1 Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them?
2 And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand.

It is derived directly from the Hebrew Bible, with the addition of Deuterocanonical books (in some denominations). Thus, according to you, it was plagiarized.

 

[EternalDragon]

It is derived directly from the Hebrew Bible, with the addition of Deuterocanonical books (in some denominations). Thus, according to you, it was plagiarized.

The OT is the Hebrew Bible. Translated of course...