No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[AV1611VET]

I've posted before about why I'm church of england rather than atheist.

Would you refresh my memory, please?

The difference to you would be essentially meaningless, so you can consider me an atheist for the purposes of this debate (by the way i hadn't seen greg's amended post when i replied).

Now why would I consider you an atheist for any purpose?

Matthew 5:22b ... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I'm not like your contemporaries, who call me everything but what's in my profile.

If you have an Anglican icon, I would assume you're espousing Anglican doctrine.

 

[Greg1234]

If you have an Anglican icon, I would assume you're espousing Anglican doctrine.

Precisely.

 

[Tomatoman]

Would you refresh my memory, please?

All right, I'll have a quick go.

Like most people I have my 'isn't life just too astonishing to be accidental' moments. In those moments I pull out very broad aspects of the church of england I grew up in and enjoy entertaining and playing with those ideas.

The rest of the time I look at things dispassionately and come to atheistic conclusions.

It all depends on my mood on a particular day.

Not a very satisfactory answer I'm sure. And it certainly won't impress you as to my anglican symbol, but that's too bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

The rest of the time I look at things dispassionately and come to atheistic conclusions.

Then I take it your 'isn't life just too astonishing to be accidental' moments are more frequent than your 'the rest of the time I look at things dispassionately and come to atheistic conclusions' moments?

 

[Tomatoman]

Then I take it your 'isn't life just too astonishing to be accidental' moments are more frequent than your 'the rest of the time I look at things dispassionately and come to atheistic conclusions' moments?

No, I don't think so. Why, is that important to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't think so. Why, is that important to you?

Well, I'm just wondering why you would use the Anglican icon over an Atheist icon if you only have momentary moods of 'life is too astonishing'.

Don't get me wrong -- I [kinda] do the same thing when I say I believe 95% of the conclusions of science, yet my tag line says science can take a hike; but it's not because I have mood swings.

In any event, it's none of my business; but you might want to consider that you're giving Anglicans a bad name.

It makes you come across as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

No offense.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

Well, I'm just wondering why you would use the Anglican icon over an Atheist icon if you only have momentary moods of 'life is too astonishing'.


In any event, it's none of my business; but you might want to consider that you're giving Anglicans a bad name.

It makes you come across as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

No offense.

I don't think anglicans are going to worry very much about me targeting particularly obtuse creationists for ridicule here. I've noticed one or two anglicans targeting them myself. Besides, you may have noticed I leave most people alone and only lay into those who are clearly talking out of the back of their necks.

 

[Greg1234]

Besides, you may have noticed I leave most people alone and only lay into those who are clearly talking out of the back of their necks.

So this is your "talking out of the back of their necks", account. When people employ such peculiarities as writing "AV:" instead of leaving the default [quote=av..., its often a means of divergence and distraction so a speech pattern is not easily recognized or brought to mind in comparison with the host account. Funny you would choose to present yourself as an Anglican.

 

[Tomatoman]

So this is your "talking out of the back of their necks", account. When people employ such peculiarities as writing "AV:" instead of leaving the default

I'm unfamiliar with how the default quote option you refer to works, Greg.

(By the way, is English your first language?)

 

[Greg1234]

So this is your "talking out of the back of their necks", account. When people employ such peculiarities as writing "AV:" instead of leaving the default

I'm unfamiliar with how the default quote option you refer to works, Greg.

(By the way, is English your first language?)

So they don't have it for Anglicans?

 

[Split Rock]

I'm unfamiliar with how the default quote option you refer to works, Greg.

You simply select the "QUOTE" button underneath and to the right of the particular post you wish to address. You can then edit the post you are quoting if you wish and then respond after the quote. I often break up a quote or edit out the parts I am not responding to.

 

[Tomatoman]

You simply select the "QUOTE" button underneath and to the right of the particular post you wish to address. You can then edit the post you are quoting if you wish and then respond after the quote. I often break up a quote or edit out the parts I am not responding to.

Well I never. That makes life easier. Thanks, split rock. I've just noticed the multi-quote and quick response buttons too now. The mind boggles at the possibilities. I suppose there's a page somewhere explaining how all these functions work. You can tell things like this have been a high priority for me.

 

[Tomatoman]

double post

 

[Tomatoman]

Anyway, where were we?

The unpardonable sin is not accepting the prompting of the Holy Ghost to turn to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins.

Nope -- no exceptions, no fine print, no hidden fees -- nothing.

I don't understand how anybody can even begin to justify this. On grounds of common sense alone it's laughable. One either accepts the story of jesus as given or it's off to hell with you, old bean. Well, excuse me!

It's nonsense.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think you would feel very at home in the church of England...

[FONT=&quot]A QUARTER of Church of England clergy do not believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ, according to a new survey...However, most of those who expressed scepticism said they would conduct traditional Christmas services that emphasised the miraculous nature of Christ's birth, which is a vital part of the Nativity.[/FONT]

Your church is celebrating what they don't believe in and you are critical of others for celebrating what they believe in? Is there no limit to being liberal?

What's the point of having a worship service to God when you don't believe in what you are serving? Is there any common sense here?

Even if the story of Cain and Abel was a mere metaphor, you can still learn from it: Don't be like Cain.

"The LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering." - Gen 4:4-5.

 

[lucaspa]

And yet, each Christian believes they're the one who's right, the True Christians (tm).

That's not the case. There is quite a bit of both tolerance and ecumenism within Christianity. There have been instances in the history of Christianity where individuals/groups have believed this. There have been wars fought over it, as Christianity got entangled with secular politics. And yes, you see the "True Christian" trotted out quite frequently on the boards by some. But that does not justify the above statement.

But there has also always been tolerance and ecumenism. Today you find Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations all recognizing the beliefs held in common.

 

[lucaspa]

OK, then what is the origin of panspermia? The seeds of lives have to come from somewhere. So we have three ideas of origin: creation, evolution, and (multi)-abiogenesis. Is that right?

Remember, the question is the origin and diversity of life on earth. That was what Split Rock said originally and that is how the "debate" is usually framed. It was an embarrassment to creationists at the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial that one of their witnesses introduced panspermia and destroyed their "two model" argument.

The three ideas for the origin of life on earth are: creationism, abiogenesis, and panspermia. Evolution happens after you have the first life. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life.

Panspermia also influences evolution because it introduces whole new sequences of DNA into organisms.

Creation = Spontaneous Generation.

Spontaneous Generation is the emergence of complex organisms from rotting organic material. Maggots from rotting meat, mice from rotting grain, etc.

Creation is the religious idea that God created. Both creationism and evolution can be Creation.

Creationism is the theory that God directly manufactures whole species, the first cell, or parts of living organisms in their present form. Creationism is thus a very diverse idea. It includes direct manufacture of the first cell, direct manufacture of DNA and the genetic code, direct manufacture of "kinds", direct manufacture of Adam and Eve, direct manufacture of "irreducibly complex" features, etc.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose by chemistry.

Evolution is the theory that the diversity of life on the planet arose by descent with modification. The first cell could be directly manufactured, but after that no living organism was directly manufactured. Evolution can be viewed as how God created, or it can be viewed as happening without God.

So, now do we have the terms straight?

 

[lucaspa]

The theory of geocentrism does not contradict the Scriptures anywhere that I know of; and neither does heliocentrism. The Bible is silent on those two subjects -- (that I know of).

There appear to be parts of the Bible you are unaware of. Several OT verses say very plainly that the earth does not move. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5.

Heliocentrism says that the earth moves. So these passages were used, at the time, as an argument against heliocentrism.

That you "don't know of" this shows how everyone has re-interpreted these passages in the light of science.

That's news to me -- I certainly don't think heliocentrism is an essential part of Christian (Independent Baptist) theology.

It's not. But geocentrism was viewed as an essential part of Catholic theology back in 1600. Is creationism viewed as an essential part of independent Baptist theology today?

If only Galileo and his ilk were teaching heliocentrism, but the mainstream scientific community was against him (esp. independent of the Catholic church), then I can understand the Catholic's position.

As I have said before, I don't think just the Catholic church was against Galileo -- I think the scientific community was as well.[/quote]

By the time of Galileo, the scientific community was for heliocentrism. Kepler had published his theories on elliptical orbits before Galileo was arrested. The problem was that Kepler was a Protestant. The Catholic scientists -- including Galileo -- didn't accept his findings.

A major problem was that Galileo was a jerk. He didn't just disagree with people, he personally attacked and insulted them. Thus, when Galileo came to trial, there were Catholic scientists who were willing to argue scientifically with Galileo -- for personal reasons. Also, Galileo's arguments about heliocentrism were flawed. As I said, Galileo refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits and insisted on circular ones. If you did that, then the observations of the planets didn't fit heliocentrism any better than they did geocentrism. Most scientists thought comets were extraterrestrial, and their existence and observed periodicity were a powerful refutation of geocentrism. But Galileo insisted that comets originated on earth, so he eliminated a powerful set of evidence for heliocentrism.

Keep in mind that the Catholic church placed Galileo under house arrest -- the best thing that could have happened to him, as it freed him up to concentrate on this new theory.

And in fact, the Catholic church encouraged him to continue his studies.

Actually, NO. Galileo had to renounce his heliocentric teachings and, thus, Galileo was not allowed to pursue heliocentrism while under house arrest. Galileo worked on other aspects of physics, but did no more work on heliocentrism. The Galileo Controversy

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, religion, in all its forms, ought to be kept out of schools.

Hmmm. I wonder if you agree then that atheism should be kept out of schools. Or are you one of those that deceive themselves that atheism is not a faith?

We are not allowed to preferentially teach any religion as true. However, religion can be taught in public schools. Religions are taught now in history classes, because it is not possible to teach the history of mankind without also teaching the religious beliefs of cultures. Several scientists and educators have noted that a school could indeed have a course on the creation stories of different religions.

You cannot, however, teach a creation story as tho it is a valid scientific theory in science (or any other) class. Oftentimes this prohibition is simply shortened to "cannot teach creationism in schools". It's not a Freudian slip, AV, but simply a verbal shortcut.

 

[AV1611VET]

There appear to be parts of the Bible you are unaware of. Several OT verses say very plainly that the earth does not move. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5.

Perhaps you are unaware of these:

Ps 68:8 The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel.

Ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Ps 99:1 ¶ The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.

Isa 24:19 The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.