Help me out here guys.

[omarrocks]

I'm familiar with the Great Commission --- why do you think I'm here? And surely you're not telling me that if anyone has any questions concerning God, we can't answer because this ministry of reconciliation applies only to the Gospel message?



I can, though --- and so can my wife --- and so can my pastor, and so can his wife, and so can most in our church, etc.

I will admit though, that my pastor is YEC, with Embedded Age explanations; whereas I'm Embedded Age, with YEC explanations; but that doesn't cause us to disfellowship at all.



Is that what you call a viable explanation to this universe? An arguementum ad delirium?

No, but your Bible verse was in the incorrect context.

In answer to the final part, yes. Or argumentum ad excognatum. Take your pick, friend.

Blessings and love.

Omar

 

[Assyrian]

No --- I ignored it. Your statements sliced and diced the Bible up like a veg-o-matic,

Pointing out you are taking 1Cor 15:26 out of context is slicing and dicing the bible? 1Cor 15:26 says death is now God's enemy and is talking about the future when God destroys the last enemy. It does not say death was God's enemy before the fall, in fact it says nothing about the fall. Using the verse to claim there was no death before the fall twists the verse completely out of context, especially when we find in the creation accounts another who is now the enemy of God and whom Revelation describes as sharing the same fate as death.

and I usually don't answer allegorical exegeses.

I was pointing out how Jesus and Paul were using the very same form of exegesis you refuse to talk about. But that was on a different point, nothing to do with your claim about death.

As J. Dwight Pentecost put it, the Allegorical Method establishes the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpretation.

You prefer to listen to J. Dwight Pentecost instead of looking at how Jesus and Paul interpreted scripture? Literalism is simply man's attempt to make scripture fit into a box he can manage. It has already made man sole authority for interpretation.

Debating literal vs allegorical is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

That is why literalists prefer to stick with their literal interpretation regardless of what the bible says and ignore their Saviour's love of parables and metaphor. Literalism is so much more manageable. It may not be what scripture is saying, but at least it fits it all into a neat box.

Because I believe it.

Even when I point out you are taking it out of context, and you realise being an enemy of God now does not mean he didn't originally create it? Doesn't the bible teach us the human race is enemy of God? Yet God created it.

Is Satan an enemy of God?

Yes.

Why do we see him in the Garden before the fall?

You don't.

You trimmed out the verse I quoted showing that the angel who was later called Satan is the ancient serpent Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. You are playing this game even though you know the one now called Satan was there are the creation?

I pointed out more than that, Assyrian. I pointed out that Lucifer shouted for joy and sang praises to God the day the earth was created.

You pointed it out even though it is irrelevant to your case.

Did this angel become God enemy? You know God created the angel. You admit he was there at the creation of the world. Yet you think because death is now described as God's enemy, it could not have been part of God original creation?

Just because death is described as God's enemy now does not mean it was always God's enemy.

I strongly disagree. Is death going to be friendly in Eternity Future? (Please answer this.)

Is Satan?

You seem to think Eternity is going to be a repeat of Eden. Do you think Adam and Eve were married? Mark 12:23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife." 24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. God created the human race flesh and blood Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. But Paul tells us 1Co 15:50 flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. There will be no death because the flesh and blood of the first creation will be transformed from perishable to imperishable.

There was no snake in Genesis 3:1.

You are hiding behind the AV translation 'serpent' to ignore the fact that one who is God's enemy later in scripture, was found in Eden before the fall. Death was changed when mankind sinned too. 1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. Before we broke God's law what was death's power and sin? Just because Paul describes death now, complete with this power and sting as the enemy of God, it does not mean it was God's enemy before the fall.

 

[Assyrian]

Picture Adam and Eve eating from that tree after the Fall, then growing old, teeth falling out, arthritis, aches and pains, bone degeneration, cancer, etc., and they can't die. What do you think they would look like today, if they lived next door to you?

Should have called it the tree of perpetual decrepitude instead of the tree of life. Why would Jesus promise such a ghastly fate to the Christians in Ephesus? Rev 2:7 To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.' If you want to take the tree of life literally, (though it is a much better as an allegorical picture of the cross), don't forget the tree brings healing too Rev 22:2. I don't think the cancers, arthritis and gingivitis would be a problem.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm familiar with the Great Commission --- why do you think I'm here? And surely you're not telling me that if anyone has any questions concerning God, we can't answer because this ministry of reconciliation applies only to the Gospel message?

Well that was what Paul was talking about, calling people to be reconciled with God and telling them how that can be. Given that Paul said we now only know in part and only see in a mirror dimly, thinking that God has given you a ministry of answering every question, or worse that every answer you think up comes with divine inspiration, is not what Paul was talking about in his ministry of reconciliation.

 

[flicka]

[bible]Matthew 4:4[/bible]

Cute. But out of the mouth of god might mean your holy-spiritual guide NOT the english words written in the bible.

 

[Open]

Hi Danyc,

As usual these threads have gone way off topic. I hope you find this post amongst all the ‘noise’.

I have gone through the same type of questioning myself as have many others here. (Many times)
Anyone who is truly intellectually and indeed spiritually honest and wants to tackle these issues will come up against the question of how we interpret the bible in relation to evolution Vs YEC/OEC (amongst other issues). So Kudos for having the bravery to admit your position and honestly look at a subject that so many Christians are in denial about, and refuse to objectively analyse.

I am curious to know why you see belief in evolution and Christianity as mutually exclusive.
Indeed, even if, you got a satisfactory answer to your question (there is no honest answer other than to say ‘I don’t know’-(just saved you a lot of time there)) is there something deeper challenging your faith?
On answering that question would you then find another question that must be answered that would put you at the same crossroads?
Form reading your last threads it seems that there are many and varied/wider questions at issue.

Just to let you know, many of us have been there. It is worth the battle to find answers to help you decide.
In my own experience I found that the most unhelpful persons at a time of doubt such as this tend to be Christians. (Sorry guys). You are likely to be met with a lack of compassion and understanding. You are likely to be hit with many bible verses and highly convoluted explanations to fit a literal interpretation of the bible, or suit the denomination of the advocate. Explanations that defy logic, physics, science and stretch credibility. If you can believe those explanations, so be it, good for you.
But do try to ignore the poor behaviour of such people who will try to tell you that you were never a Christian and to ‘go ahead cross over’. They quite often do more to push people away from the saviour they profess and are blindly unaware of their negative affect on others. Don’t let them do that.
Do try to see past the fundies (I call them modern day Pharisees).

Ultimately I found the decision is between taking the bible literally or applying common sense to it to decide what stories you take as historical fact and what ones you take as the popular myths/creation stories of their time and what parts to take as metaphors.
This issue scares most fundamentalists.
Why? Because if you take a literal view you either have to defend what logically looks indefensible (a fundie) or alternatively face having to maturely consider the bible as a product of many centuries and interpret it with a little logic and understanding of the time in which it was written and admit that not all of it makes sense. That is not incompatible with Christianity (although many will have you believe it is). – The Pharisees again.

Indeed I would urge you to take a look at other Christian writings of the early church – other gospels etc (I particularly liked the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which shed some life on the early life of Christ). Search in to history beyond the sound bites you will see here it will broaden your understanding. Look beyond the propaganda and make up your own mind.
It is a good thing to ask questions, just be aware that you may not always find answers & those that profess to know them all, rarely do.

Good luck with your search.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Hi Danyc

Not surprisingly this thread has been hijacked into the usual pointless headbutting matches... but if you're still reading...

Back to the point of the OP ::shock horror:: I'd like to second the excellent points made by sbvera13 in post #18, sfs in #30 and plindboe in #23. I was raised in a fundamentalist/literalist environment; when I was about your age I started to realize what a huge heap of problems that causes. The end result is to throw away that belief, deny reality for the rest of your life, or tie yourself in knots trying to reconcile the gulf (a la AV's bizarre Omphalike "embedded age" semantic tapdance). I think abandoning literalism is the sensible option.

I would recommend to you Bishop John S Spong's book Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism. (BTW, sfs, this would be a good resource for your point (3).) It's not long or overly dense; a good read, and will probably help you see that throwing away literalism is in no way throwing away faith.

Good luck and peace be with you!


EDIT to Add: Include Open's post above in the list of thumbs ups!

Also, while I'm here... I just realized that I could be close to a rule violation! So: the above comments have not been approved by the Nicean Council; they are not intended to diagnose or treat any theological crises.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I had determined to quit this discussion but I couldn't pass up commenting on AV typical excercise in self-contradiction.

Posted by the Assyrian: Is Satan an enemy of God?

AV answers: Yes.

Assyrian:Why do we see him in the Garden before the fall?

AV You don't.

Yet on the Thread Snakes with Legs AV argued quite vociferously that the serpent in the garden was a dragon based on the very verse he now ignores in his repy to the Assyrian (post 12)and that dragon is clearly identified as Satan in Revelations.

AV There was no snake in Genesis 3:1.

So you seem to be claiming again that the serpent was actually a dragon and in fact this dragon referred to in Revelations
"the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world"


and yet you claim that Satan was not present in the garden.

Why should anyone ever take anything you say the least bit seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do try to see past the fundies (I call them modern day Pharisees).

See what you went and did now, Assyrian?

 

[Danyc]

Open and Krikkit, thank you very much for your replies. I'm heading off to dinner right now (Outback Steakhouse, which coincidentally may be proof of God in and of itself), and I will reply to you two later.


Yes, I'm still reading. =)

 

[flicka]

Open and Krikkit, thank you very much for your replies. I'm heading off to dinner right now (Outback Steakhouse, which coincidentally may be proof of God in and of itself), and I will reply to you two later.


Yes, I'm still reading. =)

Watch the video I linked in post #2 as well. It will tell you more than you will get here.

 

[consol]

Is a born again Christian just a person who has changed their mind?
one minute they don't believe, the next minute they do,
who said religion was ALL IN THE MIND? well they were right, it is.

No. A born again Christian has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Thus, it's not all about the mind at all.

Blessings and love.

Omar

Is the Holy Spirit a physical thing? or is it just something that makes you feel good?
and how do you know it's not all in the mind, was it the people around you who told you about this Holy Spirit?
has anyone ever seen one of these Holy Spirits? let's hope you are not just being conned into believing in it?
(although you would never admit it even if you knew you were being conned)
how does a person who has never heard of Jesus or the bible become born again?
apparently a person can not get into heaven unless they are born again, you are OK if you happen to be born to the right parents,
but it's not very fair to the rest of the human race, is it? did a God decide this, the believers or the bible?
how many billions of people have lived who knew nothing about the bible? that certainly doesn't seem fair,
condemning all of those people to eternal damnation through no fault of their own, just because they didn't know.

And if later you decide not to be a Christian anymore, how would you get rid of this Holy Spirit? if it's not all in the mind?

It's surprising how many questions can be asked about something that doesn't exist, or should I say, can't be seen, just felt.
Fear, love, hate, anger, happiness and sadness are all in the mind, but not the Holy Spirit, strange that.

 

[plindboe]

Chalnoth, dealt with your claims and arguments very well, but I just wanted to play as well.

Again, this is the typical response of the opposition to anyone who questions any tenant of evolutionary theory. The problem is that the primary rationale for neo-Darwinist evolution through random mutations and genetic drift...is the lack of conclusive evidence of non-randomness, intentionality or design.

The lack of conclusive evidence for hyptheses #2 and #3 doesn't constitute support for hypothesis #1. It violates Chamberlain's Rule of Multiple Working Hypotheses.

Random mutations happen. Spread a culture of E. coli on a plate with a certain antibiotic and nutrients and incubate it for a few days. The result is a few surviving colonies that have developed resistance due to random mutation. You can also apply a mutagenic agent like UV light for instance, which will increase the number of mutations and thereby number of surviving colonies. These simple experiments doesn't need any other guiding forces than the light randomly cutting DNA and the cells trying to repair the damage often resulting in mutations. You're free to believe some God is directing these light beams towards specific places on the DNA strings and guiding the enzymes in such a way that these mutations somehow always seem to happen within a certain probability distribution, making it look completely random, go ahead and believe that. But before you can show that these processes are directed, "random" is how it looks and how best to describe it.

Genetic drift is inferred from evidence and holds explanatory power. And you neglected to mention natural selection in your entire post, which is of course overwhelmingly supported by both evidence and logic.

These things certainly aren't accepted based on the rejection of other things, but because they are well supported on their own and holds explanatory and predictive power.

If evolution is driven by an external (or innate) intelligence...and that intelligence happens to be God...Then the banishment of the subject from the classroom is a War on Science.

Science requires evidence. It could be that your God somehow interferred with the process of evolution, or that magical gnomes did it, or we could just as easily suggest an infinite number of other unevidenced explanations. But without evidence it's not science, and shouldn't be taught as such.

We don't know what drives evolution of species. We pretty well know what drives evolution within species.

It's the exact same process, simply on a longer timescale. Within species variants naturally arise when there's a geographic barrier or distance that prevents or complicates interbreeding. Sooner or later the populations will be so different that the members won't be able to produce fertile offspring together even if the geographic barrier is removed. These things has been observed, it's not just in theory.

I don't have any problem at all with teaching that the neo-Darwinist hypothesis is the most widely accepted version of evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with the dogmatic defense of neo-Darwinism as the only acceptable theory.

Thing is, the TOE is the only scientific theory that explains biodiversity. If there was a valid alternative, supported by the same amount of evidence, it would indeed deserve equal time. But there just isn't. ID is as far from science as it gets. It's untestable, unfalsifiable, unevidenced, subjective speculation and it's proposed in a fallacious manner (i.e. argument from ignorance and false dichotomy). There's no scientific work done using ID, there's only an effective propaganda machinery that strives to increase public pressure on politicians to force it into science class. This cartoon illustrates the issue quite nicely:

If God did it...God is not supernatural.
If the universe has a collective consiousness...it's not supernatural.
If it's random mutation and genetic drift...the fossil record shouldn't constitute clear evidence of punctuated equilibrium.

Actually the evidence both indicates instances of phyletic gradualism and of punctuated equilibrium (which is also gradualistic, but with greatly varying speeds). Gould made some good points, though he was quite the provocateur using too strong language from time to time and often had to back peddle and clarify. Notice however that even though he misbehaved like he did, his (and Eldredge's) ideas were considered and absorbed by many scientists. This fact alone shows clearly that evolutionary scientists are anything but dogmatic, even though Gould loved calling them that.

Peter

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

An old earth has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

What does this say for Christianity?


How can we reconcile this with the Bible?

I'm wondering, because right now I'm at a crossroads:

Become an atheist, or an OEC.

Thoughts?

There is NO scientific knowledge held true beyond reasonable doubt. The same is true for the two you mentioned.

So, you need to make your decision based on other criteria.

 

[Chalnoth]

There is NO scientific knowledge held true beyond reasonable doubt. The same is true for the two you mentioned.

So, you need to make your decision based on other criteria.

You're wrong. There is plenty of scientific knowledge held true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, in fact, what occurs when something reaches scientific consensus. There just isn't any scientific knowledge held true beyond any possibility of finding it false. There's always the possibility. But, quite often, the possibility is so absurdly minuscule as to not be worth mentioning. This is the case with universal common descent, for instance.

 

[Athrond]

Evolution has not been proved beyond 'reasonable' doubt. No scientist on either side of the issue would ever state that a theory has been 'proven.' Geez, the 'theory of gravity' isn't even an absolute.

And Mark makes a good point. The term 'evolution' is defined by naturalist who allow for no other definition of the term than theirs. They then go on to sub-define the process using the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, clearly establishing a differentiation between the two processes while maintaining that 'any' change in a species proves both processes.

And then they take people to court for daring to question.

actually it is yec cracpots who use the term macro and micro evolution.

 

[Vene]

actually it is yec cracpots who use the term macro and micro evolution.

For the most part, but microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms as well. It's just that no barrier exists between the two so biologists aren't particularly concerned about differentiating between the two.

 

[Naraoia]

Evolution has not been proved beyond 'reasonable' doubt. No scientist on either side of the issue would ever state that a theory has been 'proven.' Geez, the 'theory of gravity' isn't even an absolute.

So far, so good. Science doesn't deal in proofs. But I think we all understand what Danyc is talking about, don't we?

And Mark makes a good point.

Where?

The term 'evolution' is defined by naturalist who allow for no other definition of the term than theirs. They then go on to sub-define the process using the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, clearly establishing a differentiation between the two processes while maintaining that 'any' change in a species proves both processes.

You are thoroughly confused, man. First, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific concept, and as such, is defined as rigorously as possible. You can't discuss something if you don't even agree on what it is. If you want to talk about evolution, conform to the accepted definition. You can invent your own terms for your other definitions, thanks.

Second, the micro/macro divide simply means evolution below/above species level (whatever a species is... species is a dodgy word to define). There was, and I think there still is, some debate over whether there are different mechanisms involved, but this doesn't affect the definitions.

And then they take people to court for daring to question.

No, they take people to court for trying to teach pseudoscience as science.

 

[Split Rock]

There is NO scientific knowledge held true beyond reasonable doubt. The same is true for the two you mentioned.

So, you need to make your decision based on other criteria.

Do you understand the concept of "reasonable doubt?" It is what we use in our judicial system. Science does the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand the concept of "reasonable doubt?" It is what we use in our judicial system. Science does the same thing.

Hiding behind a judge's robe to support "science" now, are we?