How many creationists practise what they preach?

[OzSpen]

The poor sod should have read the bible. Creation week did involve some time. What a numbskull that guy was.

When you use an ad hominem logical fallacy, you use fallacious reasoning and prevent our having a reasonable conversation.

I suggest you quit your use of this and other logical fallacies.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ozspen, if you're looking for an interesting debate or even a reasonable conversation I suggest avoiding Dad, unless you enjoy pigeon chess of course!

 

[OzSpen]

Ozspen, if you're looking for an interesting debate or even a reasonable conversation I suggest avoiding Dad, unless you enjoy pigeon chess of course!

Why are you saying this? What evidence causes you to reach such a conclusion about Dad?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Haven't you read the number of posts I've made on this forum and how long I've been here? Take a look at the stats in association with my avatar and a link to my name. I'm no newbie here, but I sure know it when you are flaming me.

It was a joke, based on your reaction to other people behaving on here as they always have.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why are you saying this? What evidence causes you to reach such a conclusion about Dad?

Probably personal experience.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a red herring fallacy. Why do you do this?

Let me ask it again: What causes you to think that Augustine went to hell (or Hades)? Please provide the evidence from Augustine's writings.

If Augustine was saved, he went to Heaven.

If Augustine was not saved, he went to Hell.

As to where I think he went, I'm not his judge, but if I had to take a guess, I would guess Hell.

Against the Pelagians, Augustine strongly stressed the importance of infant baptism. About the question whether baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation, however, Augustine appears to have refined his beliefs during his lifetime, causing some confusion among later theologians about his position. He said in one of his sermons that only the baptized are saved. This belief was shared by many early Christians. However, a passage from his City of God, concerning the Apocalypse, may indicate that Augustine did believe in an exception for children born to Christian parents.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You also chastise those who are Christians.

Can you show me a post where you've said this same thing (or equivalent) to a non-believer who is attacking the integrity of Jesus Christ or His written word?

HogHead has gone after me before. He goes after a few others that have made less than flattering comments about scripture. Hey, you know me, AV, so you know I think the text contradicts itself and reality.

I'd say the reason why you don't remember that he does that, is because his diction doesn't lend to them being memorable.

 

[AV1611VET]

HogHead has gone after me before. He goes after a few others that have made less than flattering comments about scripture. Hey, you know me, AV, so you know I think the text contradicts itself and reality.

I'd say the reason why you don't remember that he does that, is because his diction doesn't lend to them being memorable.

Okay ... thank you, Sarah.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who created hydrogen?

Biblically, never stated to even be created.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay ... thank you, Sarah.

I remember him doing it because he happens to be extremely challenging to debate. In a good way. However, he is as humorless as experiencing PTSD, and I don't recall him saying anything that would draw your attention, so I don't blame you for not noticing.

He's a guy that will debate on both sides, like me, but he is more consistent on the evolution side than I am, and only talks scripture when it is brought up by someone else, from what I have seen. Gosh, just look at that atrocious run-on sentence. My English teacher would be rolling in her grave... if she wasn't alive... and didn't have worse grammar than I do by a nautical mile.

 

[dad]

Not according to 2 Peter 3:8 (NIV): 'But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day'.

How long was the 7th day of the creation week? See Genesis 2:2-3.

That verse says God is not bound to our time it does not say there is no real time on earth. Face it. There were days and mornings and evenings in creation week also.

 

[dad]

When you use an ad hominem logical fallacy, you use fallacious reasoning and prevent our having a reasonable conversation.

I suggest you quit your use of this and other logical fallacies.

Actually forget the fancy nonsense and remember this, lies are no good. Truth is good. It is not only fine, but our duty to fight the evil lies, and reject them. When some supposed 'saint' in the past goes against scripture and creation, yes we may demolish the lie.

 

[bhsmte]

Why are you saying this? What evidence causes you to reach such a conclusion about Dad?

His posts.

 

[Papias]

No, it has nothing to do with the OT genealogies being symbolic metaphors. It has to do with God being so wise he didn't give us all of evidence for us to squabble about. We squabble enough with knowing there are gaps in the genealogies.

God's intention was not to provide us with enough evidence for us to determine the exact age of the earth.

Oz

Oz, you didn't address any of the points in my post, nor even answer simple questions. You didn't explain why there is no mention of gaps (an idea that has to be made up and inserted into the text), nor did you explain why you suggest gaps when they do almost nothing to help the problems with a literal reading, such as the problem that just lengthening the days of creation week doesn't change the fact that the order still makes no sense, when read literally, etc.

Here's my post from above:

First of all, a plain reading of the text doesn't state there are gaps, anywhere. This is probably why pretty much everyone read them as plain, unbroken, gapless genealogies until the evidence showed that they couldn't be literally true (and hence the new idea of "yalad"). That's why there has been clear historic agreement on the date, and hence this being the Jewish year 5776. You have called nearly all of historical Christianity as well as Judaism "dishonest".

Secondly, and just as importantly - positing gaps doesn't help, and still leaves one hopelessly out of step with the evidence. One is still left with either deciding the OT genealogies are symbolic/metaphors vs. denying evidence. The evidence shows that humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, so if there are "gaps" in the 5,776 year chronology, then those "gaps" would have to account for over 90% of the time! So you are saying that the genealogies are 90% gap, with less than 10% of the time mentioned?

It gets worse - the evidence shows that the breeding population of our species was never just two people, and that the flood and many other Biblical stories could never have happened literally. The evidence also shows that there have been no humans for 99.9998% of earth's history - yet if one puts "gaps" in the genealogies to fill up the time (and keep creation week as 1 literal week), then humans appear after just 0.00002% of earth's history - the complete opposite. And the authors suggest that this is supposed to reconcile a literal reading of our scripture with the fact that droves of people are leaving the church due to the denial of scientific reality? Even allowing for longer "days" in creation week doesn't come close to agreement with the evidence - though if you've got some other approach that does help us stay in agreement with the evidence (as theistic evolution already does), then I'm all ears.

In Christ-

Papias
​

 

[Hoghead1]

Hardly a an even good sarcastic remark about Augustine, AV1611. If anything, it shows you know little about theology and seem mostly interested in taking cheap shots and making cornball remarks. Augustine's teaching are a basic foundation for both Protestantism and Catholicism. The Reformation as a rediscovery of Augustine. Calvin once said he would not have believed, had he not read Augustine. I and many other theologians do not agree with many points in Augustine, but we at least respect the fact he is a major figure to be reckoned with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hardly a an even good sarcastic remark about Augustine, AV1611. If anything, it shows you know little about theology and seem mostly interested in taking cheap shots and making cornball remarks. Augustine's teaching are a basic foundation for both Protestantism and Catholicism. The Reformation as a rediscovery of Augustine. Calvin once said he would not have believed, had he not read Augustine. I and many other theologians do not agree with many points in Augustine, but we at least respect the fact he is a major figure to be reckoned with.

Augustine can take a hike, and take Calvin with him.

Calvin hunted anabaptists down with a passion and slew them.

QV The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll.

 

[Hoghead1]

True, Calvin actually set himself up as the pope of Geneva, strongly supported the policies of other Reformers to exterminate the Anabaptists, and also had Servet cruelly burnt at the stake. True, Augustine sanctified torture as a way of winning converts. However, that is not the point here. They also had other teachings, which are of immediate interest here. These concern metaphysical issues such as the true nature of God and God's relationship to the world of time and change. Such teachings are the foundation of the classical or traditional Christina model of God. I and many other contemporary theologians are highly critical of the classical model. However, we just don't say that Augustine was a dope or a punk and walk away. We systematically go through all his arguments, one by one, and present a solid rational, empirically based rebuttal. We are scholars, not thugs who want to throw rocks through stained-glass windows.

 

[dad]

True, Calvin actually set himself up as the pope of Geneva, strongly supported the policies of other Reformers to exterminate the Anabaptists, and also had Servet cruelly burnt at the stake. True, Augustine sanctified torture as a way of winning converts. However, that is not the point here. They also had other teachings, which are of immediate interest here. These concern metaphysical issues such as the true nature of God and God's relationship to the world of time and change. Such teachings are the foundation of the classical or traditional Christina model of God. I and many other contemporary theologians are highly critical of the classical model. However, we just don't say that Augustine was a dope or a punk and walk away. We systematically go through all his arguments, one by one, and present a solid rational, empirically based rebuttal. We are scholars, not thugs who want to throw rocks through stained-glass windows.

Sometimes people mess up so bad, the rest of what they say is tossed out. Would you go through everything Judas said if we knew it? Would we start talking about how he at least had concern for the poor etc? No. I would think that believers would flush some would be leaders who do things like advocate killing babies, or Obama style perversions.

 

[AV1611VET]

True, Calvin actually set himself up as the pope of Geneva, strongly supported the policies of other Reformers to exterminate the Anabaptists, and also had Servet cruelly burnt at the stake. True, Augustine sanctified torture as a way of winning converts. However, that is not the point here. They also had other teachings, which are of immediate interest here. These concern metaphysical issues such as the true nature of God and God's relationship to the world of time and change. Such teachings are the foundation of the classical or traditional Christina model of God. I and many other contemporary theologians are highly critical of the classical model. However, we just don't say that Augustine was a dope or a punk and walk away. We systematically go through all his arguments, one by one, and present a solid rational, empirically based rebuttal. We are scholars, not thugs who want to throw rocks through stained-glass windows.

Well, unlike your Anabaptist-hating buddies, I take my pastor's advice:

"Don't take just my word for it. Look it up yourself in the Bible."

And quite unlike you, I salt many of my posts with Scripture.

And for the record, if it surprises you that I don't accept these ... men ... as my kind of theologians, then you may want to read up on what an Independent Fundamental Baptist is.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, unlike your Anabaptist-hating buddies, I take my pastor's advice:

"Don't take just my word for it. Look it up yourself in the Bible."

And quite unlike you, I salt many of my posts with Scripture.

And for the record, if it surprises you that I don't accept these ... men ... as my kind of theologians, then you may want to read up on what an Independent Fundamental Baptist is.

Interesting. Have you always been a Baptist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Baptist

Independent Baptist churches (some also called Independent Fundamental Baptist, or IFB) are Christian congregations, generally holding to conservative (primarily fundamentalist) Baptist beliefs.
Independent Baptist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_BaptistWikipedia

http://www.baptistdeception.com/

Exposing the Dangerous Teachings and Traditions of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Denomination


..............................................................