Let's talk about man

[JonMiller]

How do you come to that conclusion Creation occurs all the time. Humans create things all the time. How does past creation invalidate extrapolatin into the past? Any why do you opt for literal over true?

I have several times, at least once explicitly, told you that literal != true. However, I know that there are a lot of people who believe that it is literal on this board, and so am replying in that way. The issue of literal != true is one that I have a couple times thought about posting, but have been too lazy.

Our science doesn't show any evidence for any supernatural creation. Therefore, if any occured, that would mean that extrapolation doesn't go into the past.

JM

 

[mva1985]

You said that it is pointless to consider whether man was made with one organ system. I simply asked the question of another organ system. There are several I could choose from. I did not decontextualize your comment.

Unfortunately, you did take it out of context. All anyone has to do is go back and read it for themselves.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

You have accepted a misinterpretation of that passage. Love is the solution for the sin problem. Love will always do whatever is necessary to protect the object of its affection. The moment I decided to have children I automatically was committed to doing whatever is necessary to protect them. That is all the text means. Too many have made it seem that God had this plan for when man would sin. The writer was simply stating in practical terms the extent of His love. God did not "prepare" for sin.

I understand your point but don't fully agree with it. God IS Love and yes, the writer was showing the extent of His love, but I believe God also prepared for what He knew was coming.

When you decided to have children, did you prepare any parenting philosophies for situations you knew would be a part of their growing up? Did you discuss and settle on with your wife how you would discipline them when they broke the rules? Did you make plans for their health care, their educations?

 

[sentipente]

I have several times, at least once explicitly, told you that literal != true. However, I know that there are a lot of people who believe that it is literal on this board, and so am replying in that way. The issue of literal != true is one that I have a couple times thought about posting, but have been too lazy.

Our science doesn't show any evidence for any supernatural creation.

Since we both believe that true != literal there is no need to respond to me as if we don't. It only causes confusion. Nor do I believe in the supernatural. The universe consists of life and non-life. It consist of physical and spiritual. All of that is natural. My inability to do something does not mean it is supernatural. Humans make automobiles. This does not mean humans are super-automobiles.

Creation is a natural process. Humans create all the time so I don't see why you think that creation by a being who is superior to humans is a scientific problem. Ants create anthills. Creation is natural.

 

[sentipente]

Where are all the serious Bible students?

 

[StormyOne]

Where are all the serious Bible students?

well the issue is simple... there are those here on this forum (not to mention throughout our church) who believe that they have the truth, all of it, so its not necessary to engage you in dialog because you are attempting to undermine the "truth" they believe they have... so the takers for this topic will be few and far between.... though I could be wrong...

 

[JonMiller]

Since we both believe that true != literal there is no need to respond to me as if we don't. It only causes confusion. Nor do I believe in the supernatural. The universe consists of life and non-life. It consist of physical and spiritual. All of that is natural. My inability to do something does not mean it is supernatural. Humans make automobiles. This does not mean humans are super-automobiles.

Creation is a natural process. Humans create all the time so I don't see why you think that creation by a being who is superior to humans is a scientific problem. Ants create anthills. Creation is natural.

The natural world is that which I can probe with my detectors, and model with my mathematics.

If I can't do either, I label it as supernatural. Note that things can change, lightning use to be supernatural, and is now natural.

Additionally, I know that msot people think that true == literal. And I think that my points stand either way, and so can emphasize true != literal or not depending on the audience.

JM

 

[sentipente]

The natural world is that which I can probe with my detectors, and model with my mathematics.

And that is all we need to do. I don't know why we are obsessed with the idea of explaining our Creator. It's like cars trying to explain Henry Ford. You can't. Give it up.