Evolution vs Creationism

[Wiccan_Child]

To me it is like asking whether air is necessary. Personally, it is pretty hard for me to respond. I am certainly limited in responding as a man dependent upon air. But, if air were the issue, how exactly would we figure out whether such a discussion is even worth having. Either I am way too limited in my dependence upon air or you are way too open to discuss entirely imaginary things as if they are real. I am not trying to be cute. Rather, I think there is a very real logical problem in even having the discussion. The discussion can be had, but arguably we involved in a completely imaginary exercise, if not a blasphemous exercise.

I disagree: someone (I forget who) claimed that God was necessary, and I asked for justification for that claim. I'm not entirely sure what the difficulty is: either they can back their claim up, or they can't.

If they claimed that air was necessary, then that could be easily justified: without a ready supply of O[sub]2[/sub], we die.

There are some things in this world that are inherently in opposition one to another.

Perhaps, but a collection of pixels are just that: pixels. I'm struggling to see what is so offensive about a geometric shape. Would you take offence at the symbol '8', because of its mystical connotations in China?

If pointing that out is "stabbing", then "stabbing" is unavoidable. Some would call it kindness.

The phrase is not meant to imply that offence was taken.

You get to call it what you wish. Allah is satan. Ohm is his word. The "prophets" of Allah have themselves made very clear, as I have said, that there are articles of faith inherently in opposition one to another. Taking them at THEIR word, the "adversary" (this is what "satan" means) of Jesus Christ is Allah.

Muslims would beg to differ. But you miss my point: you lambaste me for having an "overtly satanic or pagan" avatar, but would you lambaste me if I had the Ohm instead?

The only way to refute the opposition of your religious symbols to the God of my faith is to deny that what the most sacred utterances of both faiths have to say about the matter.

Well, my faith says nothing about it. And it's interesting that, though you oppose my avatar, you claim your god opposes it. I'm not aware of any Biblical condemnation of internet aliases...

One question is whether this forum and this particular OT area holds itself out as Christian.

The staff recently made this abundantly clear: only Nicene Christians are True Christians, as far as this forum is concerned.

Those who own it can define it however they wish. I have no say. I can only state my preference. And, look, this is a chatroom, not an inquisition. Its not like I have any real power over you or anyone else here. How big of an offense could that possibly represent?

It doesn't, and none has been taken (by my, at any rate). You are the one who seems to have a problem with my presence.

The only problem I have in discussing the matter is 1. when we simply cant deal in mutuality with fact; and 2. when discussion necessarily requires that one compromise one's dedication to the principles of the forum. On the latter point, if this forum is dedicated to the Christian God, it is not the place to begin discussion with a challenge to the foundation of that truth. One can still be a pagan and enter another person's place of worship humbly. Honestly, I dont think your avatar represents the latter.

If I was to enter a Christian church, I would not be so rude as to carry an enlarged version of my avatar with me. However, this isn't a church, or any other place of worship: it is an internet forum for discussion and debate.

It may presume a certainly tolerance of many faiths (though to some satanists it is the essence of satanism), the equivalence as between various gods that it suggests is nothing but a very direct attack upon the most essential commandments of the one true creator God.

This is an INTRACTIBLE dispute. Again, inherent opposition.

I have no idea what either of those sentences is supposed to mean.

Please also note: all of the above takes time to say without calling names. That is a measure of kindness.

If you took pains not to be insulting, I wouldn't call that a measure of kindness, but rather a measure of your temper. Do you often have to restrain yourself so?

Kindness is not the same thing as simply agreeing that you could be right about Allah. While you may not be confused about that distinction, many people are. Again, trying to gloss over an inherent conflict is not kindness. Taking the time and saying things nicely and carefully is kindness.

Kindness is giving a bum your spare change, or nursing an injured bird to recovery. What you are describing, however, is mere politeness.

 

[busterdog]

I disagree: someone (I forget who) claimed that God was necessary, and I asked for justification for that claim. I'm not entirely sure what the difficulty is: either they can back their claim up, or they can't.

If they claimed that air was necessary, then that could be easily justified: without a ready supply of O[sub]2[/sub], we die.

Removing God to see if we die is not only hypothetical, but impossible. That we disagree on such things suggests discussion is difficult at best.

Perhaps, but a collection of pixels are just that: pixels. I'm struggling to see what is so offensive about a geometric shape. Would you take offence at the symbol '8', because of its mystical connotations in China?

You already know the obvious answer about the number 8.

The pentagram has a history. Some episodes not as bad as other. But, one doesn't simply pretend there is no history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

Note the earliest portions of that history: Ishtar and the Queen of Heaven. This particular type of worship was "lambasted" as you say in Hebrew Scripture. There was an extremely serious spiritual and physical war over such matters.

The phrase is not meant to imply that offence was taken.

Good.

Muslims would beg to differ. But you miss my point: you lambaste me for having an "overtly satanic or pagan" avatar, but would you lambaste me if I had the Ohm instead?

Some offenses are less obvious than others. I would probably have less to say about Ohm simply because the errors it represents are more complicated and less specific in Scripture. And, I lambasted the avatar, not you -- if you consider these rather modest postings to be "lambasting."

Well, my faith says nothing about it. And it's interesting that, though you oppose my avatar, you claim your god opposes it. I'm not aware of any Biblical condemnation of internet aliases...

The theology of unintentional sin is rather complicated. But, this particular symbol has two associations: 1. a well established history; and 2. your rejection of biblical faith. The God of Abraham certainly opposes rejection of Him.

It doesn't, and none has been taken (by my, at any rate). You are the one who seems to have a problem with my presence.

There are lots of different levels of "problems". But, I am engaged, am I not? Anyone who has any faith at all must defend it at some level, no?

If I was to enter a Christian church, I would not be so rude as to carry an enlarged version of my avatar with me. However, this isn't a church, or any other place of worship: it is an internet forum for discussion and debate.

1. Very good. And, 2., As I said, I don't make the rules, I just have the right to comment.

If you took pains not to be insulting, I wouldn't call that a measure of kindness, but rather a measure of your temper. Do you often have to restrain yourself so?

Far less than I used to. But, I have never been to brawling or assault. It has been a long, long time since I ever smacked anyone. As some testimony to what "restraint" I enjoy, you would still say that what the Lord has done for me is a miracle. Real, lasting joy is a miracle.


And, kindness is sharing the truth.

As far as I am concerned, you are messing with powers that have led many to torment upon torment, in this life and the next. Apparently, all I have within my own strength is the ability to be clear about it. I don't have any authoritative source of wisdom that would be convincing to you on the subject.

 

[Melethiel]

This thread isn't about pentagrams, but I'd like to point out that pentagrams have a historical Christian use as well.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, there is little truth in what you post here in this thread. When you fail to show a desire for truth, what exactly are those to do in response?

You could actually deal with the judgemental and condemnatory attitude I am challenging you about. Is it a strategy to try to make YEC look godly by finding any excuse to condemn people who agree with evolution whether Christian, pagan or atheist? Or do the accusations bubble up naturally from some deep rooted bitterness you have towards evolution. Whatever the reason you have been coming out with this stream of accusations and condemnations recently. What has gotten into you? Why does YEC produce this bitter attitude in followers of Christ?

More charitably,

Hardly...

maybe you don't understand what you are writing.

So either moral foolishness of loving not the truth, or the foolishness of low intelligence that I don’t even understand what I write myself…

Frankly, I dont think you care as long as you get a notch in your holster.

…or pride. What? Have I suddenly walked onto some cowboy film set?

No this is an issue that I have been concerned about long before I heard of a hired gun called busterdog. It was the ugliness of antievolution preaching using judgement and condemnation to bully believers that turned me away from YEC. Sadly I come across it again and again. It seems to infest the Creationist movement. YEC preachers keep their faithful in line by warning how evil and sinful evolutionists are, and godly believers who should be growing in the love and grace of God, suck in the poison. At times it seems they want to believe these evil accusations. It is really cultic. It’s not an attitude we should see in the church.

I did not "condemn Wiccan Child". I did condemn his signature and his avatar. He has a whole life that the Lord only will judge. Much of it is complete, much of it is yet to come. I do not presume to know what is to come. Nor am I judging his ethics, his morals, his legal standing, his various covenants with those he works for or is in relationship with. For the future, he certainly has my blessing, that he receive the love of the Lords guidance.

And do you think your condemnation of his avatar has brought him closer to knowing the love of God? We can still treat people with respect and courtesy while telling them the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ.

I don’t think it matters you can think up a long list list of things you didn’t criticise, it is the things you do criticise, and the fact you are so eager to jump in with a word of condemnation that is the problem.

You condemned the way Wiccan Child expresses his religious view as ‘offensive’. That is pretty personal. You used Kyrisch’s avatar to accuse him of blasphemy and The Lady Kate’s sig to claim she was ‘insensitive to blasphemy'. You certainly get a lot of mileage using impersonal avatars as a basis for personal abuse. In reality, avatars and sigs are one of the ways people can express their individuality online. Attack their avatar and you attack them. If nothing else you attack their choice of avatar and their morality in daring to display such evil images.

 

[busterdog]

And do you think your condemnation of his avatar has brought him closer to knowing the love of God? We can still treat people with respect and courtesy while telling them the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ.

Heckfire, I was even told I was polite.

 

[USincognito]

Not to get too far off topic, but Om is a Hindu mantric word and Ohm is a unit of electrical resistance. It's symbol is the Omega.

 

[busterdog]

Not to get too far off topic, but Om is a Hindu mantric word and Ohm is a unit of electrical resistance. It's symbol is the Omega.

Yes, I have studied Kriya Yoga. Quite literally is part of spirit binding, which is a good translation for Yo Ga. But, I am not into bondage anymore.

From the Wikipedia:

The Katha Upanishad has:
"The goal, which all Vedas declare, which all austerities aim at, and which humans desire when they live a life of continence, I will tell you briefly it is Aum""The one syllable [evākṣara, viz. Aum] is indeed Brahman. This one syllable is the highest. Whosoever knows this one syllable obtains all that he desires."This is the best support; this is the highest support. Whosoever knows this support is adored in the world of Brahma." (1.2.15-17)[1] The Chandogya Upanishad (1.1.1-1) states:
om ity etad akṣaram udgītham upāsīta / om iti hy udgāyati / tasyopavyākhyānam"The udgitha ["the chanting", that is, the syllable om] is the best of all essences, the highest, deserving the highest place, the eighth." The Bhagavad Gita (8.13) has:
Uttering the monosyllable Aum, the eternal world of Brahman, One who departs leaving the body (at death), he attains the superior goal.

It bears some functional similarity (at least conceptually) to calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus. As you know from John 1, In the beginning was the Word .... The Christian has a philosophical or mystical concept of a first or eternal order or things, sort of like Brahman. Certain words are to create an association with that first order.

Although the concepts are intended to be parallel, the question becomes whether that intention or similarity in the human construct is enough. If it were enough, intention would be enough to dignify satan worship. Since we are inherently under authority in a spiritual sense, we retain the obligation to submit to the proper authority, by name.

Paul dignified the idol to the unknown God in Acts, but there is a huge difference between preaching to those in darkness and teaching that human intention makes all teaching about such matters equivalent. Once you have the names, the histories (e.g., Ishtar/Astarte and the pentagram) and an understanding of what these authorities represent, you have an obligation as a teacher to make these distinctions. Mercy and tolerance are not the same thing. Mercy for the confused is not a license to expect mercy for all deliberate obfuscation on such matters.

Paul's speech to the Athenians is that much more brilliant where one understands idolatry and its source. As is Jude dense, deep and hugely misunderstood letter.

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;
Act 17:23 "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
Act 17:24 "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
Act 17:25 "Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.
Act 17:26 "And He has made from one blood[fn3] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
Act 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Act 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'
Act 17:29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.
Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."
Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."


Jud 1:8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

What is Jude implying? It is not all about our intentions as humans. There are other intentions, hidden from us. There is a spiritual war raging and rampant evil intentions. We need some kind of a playbook to understand which names are trustworthy and which are not. What is the fall of man in Gen. 3 but a case of inviting the wrong authorities or guides without a full knowledge of their intentions (ie, curse and blessing, good and evil)? You don't mess with them - not even to call them names. The Lord says, My grace is sufficient for you.

Jam 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Removing God to see if we die is not only hypothetical, but impossible. That we disagree on such things suggests discussion is difficult at best.

I would put it down to your stubbornness, not to an innate inability to discuss.

You already know the obvious answer about the number 8.

Indeed. I chose an obvious example to highlight your double-standard.

The pentagram has a history. Some episodes not as bad as other. But, one doesn't simply pretend there is no history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

Note the earliest portions of that history: Ishtar and the Queen of Heaven. This particular type of worship was "lambasted" as you say in Hebrew Scripture. There was an extremely serious spiritual and physical war over such matters.

In Judaeo-Christo-Islamic mythology, no: the pentagram is a symbol shared by many religions (including Judaism and Christianity), and the war was fought over things more important than trivial symbology.

Some offenses are less obvious than others. I would probably have less to say about Ohm simply because the errors it represents are more complicated and less specific in Scripture. And, I lambasted the avatar, not you -- if you consider these rather modest postings to be "lambasting."

Given your heated tone? Yes, I would. I'm still perplexed as to why your offended sensibilities warranted your initial post in the first place.

The theology of unintentional sin is rather complicated. But, this particular symbol has two associations: 1. a well established history;

A history which includes usage by Jews and Christians.

and 2. your rejection of biblical faith. The God of Abraham certainly opposes rejection of Him.

My rejection of Christianity is unrelated to my adoption of the pentacle as my avatar. I rejected Christianity, and became an atheist. A few years after that, I converted to Wicca. A few years after that, I registered to CF. Finally, a few years ago (early 2007?), I uploaded the pentacle as my avatar.

So I don't see what my avatar has to do with my rejection of Christianity.

There are lots of different levels of "problems". But, I am engaged, am I not? Anyone who has any faith at all must defend it at some level, no?

There is a certain compulsion to defend one's beliefs, yes. But you talk as if your faith is under attack; is your faith so weak as to be threatened by a mere symbol?

1. Very good. And, 2., As I said, I don't make the rules, I just have the right to comment.

Indeed. And you comments imply that you think I should respect the forum as I would a house of worship.

As far as I am concerned, you are messing with powers that have led many to torment upon torment, in this life and the next. Apparently, all I have within my own strength is the ability to be clear about it. I don't have any authoritative source of wisdom that would be convincing to you on the subject.

That seems likely. Why, then, did you begin this discussion, if you knew it would lead nowhere? You're free to be offended if you wish, and you can believe whatever you want about me and my religion, but what was the point in posting it in this thread?

 

[busterdog]

Indeed. And you comments imply that you think I should respect the forum as I would a house of worship.

Yes, LIKE a house of worship. Though it isnt one.

That seems likely. Why, then, did you begin this discussion, if you knew it would lead nowhere? You're free to be offended if you wish, and you can believe whatever you want about me and my religion, but what was the point in posting it in this thread?

Y'all have your magic. I have mine. The Word is going forth.

Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, LIKE a house of worship. Though it isnt one.

Precisely. This isn't a house of worship, nor should it be treated as one, so what's the problem?

Y'all have your magic. I have mine. The Word is going forth.

Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

So you thought you'd throw in a bit of "turn or burn"? How very Christian.

 

[busterdog]

So you thought you'd throw in a bit of "turn or burn"? How very Christian.

That is not even close to what I said, but thank you none the less.

I find most non-Christians prefer to think of everything we say in such terms. Too bad they never are terribly curious about what they are missing.

 

[SLP]

Here's how it usually goes.

1. Point: A creationists makes a point that challenges the mainstream paradigm or provides evidence that refutes macro-evolutions theory.

Counter-point: Macro-evolutionists counters with articles from off the internet that speaks to the original point or evidence but does not refute it.

2. Re-confirmation of original point or issue of evidence:

Counter response: To attack the original poster as being ignorant not understanding the facts.

Sound familiar?

God bless
Jim Larmore

Yes - it smacks of the usual distortion of reality and persecution complex that creationists seem to rely on.