Noah way?

[KWCrazy]

Well, many would disagree with your opinion of evolution not being supported by science and they would disagree with you quite strongly.

To be clear, you consider yourself an evolutionist, who refutes the theory of evolution?

No, I'm using an example to point out the obvious; that if one can be a Christian who considers the bible to be a work of mythology and fiction then I can be an evolutionists who believes evolution to mythology and fiction. If a Christian can say believe that Jesus was sadly mistaken in believing in the validity of the Gospels (I won't even ask why they worship such a person), then I can certainly call myself an evolutionist while rejecting the teachings of evolution.

 

[Aman777]

Well, most animals, anyway.

Genesis 3:1, 14-15
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Dear Valentine, The serpent is Satan. Rev 12:9 Rev 20:2

How can it be a destiny if were were never meant to have it, and in fact, punished for taking it?

Simple. God ALWAYS tells us the Perfect way. Have you actually read the Bible? IF so, WHY don't you know these things? Have you purposely rejected God's Truth? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Dizredux]

Mark, I was not going to deal with this but on reflection, I think I need to.

You said:

There is going to be a judgment and vengeance. The Lord is going to win.

We appear to have a very different theology. You appear to believe in a judgmental and vengeful God. That works for you and that is perfectly all right with me.

I hold to a different view of God. Mine is the God of tolerance, non judgmental acceptance and one of love. For me that works and yours would not be right for me in my relationship with God.

What I ask is that you not pass judgement on my personal feelings of God and I will not pass judgement on yours.

Dizredux

Now back to our regularly scheduled variations from the original topic.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I'm using an example to point out the obvious; that if one can be a Christian who considers the bible to be a work of mythology and fiction then I can be an evolutionists who believes evolution to mythology and fiction. If a Christian can say believe that Jesus was sadly mistaken in believing in the validity of the Gospels (I won't even ask why they worship such a person), then I can certainly call myself an evolutionist while rejecting the teachings of evolution.

Maybe they believe in what Jesus stood for, but the don't believe everything written about him by unknown authors decades after he lived, are reliable, or even make sense.

Thomas Jefferson had his own bible, in which he deleted all of the miracles attributed to Jesus, because he thought they were made up by the unknown authors for effect.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's also go over the other things that have no basis in scriptures.....

You do realize that there is a difference between not being mentioned and being specifically spoken against, right? You DO understand that Adam could not have evolved over millions of years AND be created from the dust of the earth as a mature man on day six, right?

Please show us the scripture where Jesus says that the flood was a real event.

I've posted this.
Jesus said that the Scriptures were true and accurate. He quoted from them. He spoke of Noah by name.
Matthew 24:
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For a more complete list of verses where Jesus affirms the truth of the Scriptures, read here. Note: Ignore the article if you don't like the source, and read the verses for yourself.

Scriptures says that God put a rainbow in the sky. Science says that rainbows are the product of light refracting through raindrops. Who is right?

Both. God created the water vapor with specific wave lengths which would refract light and create a rainbow. This way the rainbow could be replicated after any storm to remind us that God will never AGAIN destroy the earth with a great flood.

 

[selfinflikted]

Were there no rainbows before the Noachian flood?

 

[KWCrazy]

Yep, no true Christian. If you do not believe as KW tells you to believe, you reject the Bible.

If theistic evolution had any basis in the scriptures those who believe it would have posted those passages. They don't exist.

The love overwhelms.

A woman dresses for a party in a hideous gown and asks both her friend and husband how it looks. The friend says it looks fine. The husband says, "It's hideous. change it. People will laugh at you if you wear that."
Who shows greater love?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that there is a difference between not being mentioned and being specifically spoken against, right? You DO understand that Adam could not have evolved over millions of years AND be created from the dust of the earth as a mature man on day six, right?

I've posted this.
Jesus said that the Scriptures were true and accurate. He quoted from them. He spoke of Noah by name.
Matthew 24:
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For a more complete list of verses where Jesus affirms the truth of the Scriptures, read here. Note: Ignore the article if you don't like the source, and read the verses for yourself.

Both. God created the water vapor with specific wave lengths which would refract light and create a rainbow. This way the rainbow could be replicated after any storm to remind us that God will never AGAIN destroy the earth with a great flood.

That could easily have just been a poetic phrase, just as saying that someone is as old as the hills. You have failed in demonstrating that Jesus clearly believed the Flood to be true.

 

[Dizredux]

Y

Both. God created the water vapor with specific wave lengths which would refract light and create a rainbow. This way the rainbow could be replicated after any storm to remind us that God will never AGAIN destroy the earth with a great flood.

Help me understand. Are you saying that the the physics of light were not operative before the flood and a rainbow was not possible then? Refraction of light was not possible preflood?

Just curious.

Dizredux

 

[Subduction Zone]

The love overwhelms. [/QUOTE]
A woman dresses for a party in a hideous gown and asks both her friend and husband how it looks. The friend says it looks fine. The husband says, "It's hideous. change it. People will laugh at you if you wear that."
Who shows greater love?
[/QUOTE]

You are assuming the gown was hideous. What if the gown was lovely and the husband was. ooh... I better watch what I say here. At any rate what if the gown really was lovely and the husband was terribly wrong?

Science says that the "gown" of evolution is lovely. A few biased husbands think it is "hideous". They are demonstrably wrong.

Why can't you argue the science of evolution? If it is wrong you should be able to demonstrate it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A woman dresses for a party in a hideous gown and asks both her friend and husband how it looks. The friend says it looks fine. The husband says, "It's hideous. change it. People will laugh at you if you wear that."
Who shows greater love?

Reality is hideous and people should learn to accept it. However, both individuals care about this woman in their own way, and have a different way of going about it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Why can't you argue the science of evolution? If it is wrong you should be able to demonstrate it.

That's easy. It's not about the science. It never was.

 

[KWCrazy]

Paging KWCrazy:

The comment was this"
"So you are a parrot that just repeats what it hears and doesn't bother to think about it? Wanna cracker?"

For the record, I am not a parrot, and I don't appreciate personal attacks. I prefer to attack faulty thinking, not people. I may disagree with everything you say but that doesn't mean you're a mindless creature for posting it. For the record, I use the ignore feature for those who engage in personal attacks and outright blasphemy. I have no time for such things.

Because she asked, Sarah is removed from the ignore list.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The comment was this"
"So you are a parrot that just repeats what it hears and doesn't bother to think about it? Wanna cracker?"

For the record, I am not a parrot, and I don't appreciate personal attacks. I prefer to attack faulty thinking, not people. I may disagree with everything you say but that doesn't mean you're a mindless creature for posting it. For the record, I use the ignore feature for those who engage in personal attacks and outright blasphemy. I have no time for such things.

Because she asked, Sarah is removed from the ignore list.

Sorry about that, now that I read it again it sounds way more rude than I thought it was. I never intended to attack your character. I just thought it was funny that you said you wanted to repeat scripture without interpreting it, but I shouldn't make jokes like that without knowing how the individual is going to take it.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are assuming the gown was hideous.

That WAS the premise.

What if the gown was lovely and the husband was. ooh... I better watch what I say here.

Then I would have used that premise for the question, would I not?

Why can't you argue the science of evolution? If it is wrong you should be able to demonstrate it.

I did that for about a decade. The problem is, after that time, just about every argument and counter argument has been made. All you have to do is post the links. We all know the problems with evolution and we know that you won't admit them. I prefer to deal with the Biblical aspect at this point and leave the scientific evidence to those who wish to continuously research those arguments.

In short, I have little hope for the atheist. His mind is closed. I appeal more to the theistic evolutionists who has allowed his lack of faith to be exploited by the molecules-to-man devote's. He knows God is real and that Christ us the son of God. He simply has to reaffirm that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God and that which Christ taught as fact is indeed the truth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That WAS the premise.

Then I would have used that premise for the question, would I not?

I did that for about a decade. The problem is, after that time, just about every argument and counter argument has been made. All you have to do is post the links. We all know the problems with evolution and we know that you won't admit them. I prefer to deal with the Biblical aspect at this point and leave the scientific evidence to those who wish to continuously research those arguments.

In short, I have little hope for the atheist. His mind is closed. I appeal more to the theistic evolutionists who has allowed his lack of faith to be exploited by the molecules-to-man devote's. He knows God is real and that Christ us the son of God. He simply has to reaffirm that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God and that which Christ taught as fact is indeed the truth.

I am well aware and willing to admit some of the quirks of evolution; that mutations normally aren't beneficial and take extremely long to cause noticeable change in most cases is probably the most obvious. No one ever claimed evolution to be a perfect process; what we observe in nature isn't perfect at all, so it stands to reason that evolution wouldn't be perfect.

 

[KWCrazy]

Sorry about that, now that I read it again it sounds way more rude than I thought it was. I never intended to attack your character. I just thought it was funny that you said you wanted to repeat scripture without interpreting it, but I shouldn't make jokes like that without knowing how the individual is going to take it.

The problem lies with the interpretation because we each bring our own bias into that interpretation and we cannot see our own bias. Nearly every organized religion engages in practices that are not Scriptural. Not all of them are bad, but affirming things that are not taught in the Scriptures as doctrine is the same as creating doctrine; a major problem for those seeking evidence of such things in the Scriptures.

I have my own ideas of what many Bible verses actually mean, but I can't in good conscience tell anyone that my interpretation is correct. By quoting Scripture accurately we quote it perfectly. Interpretation is perfectly acceptable once we've established what is actually written. Jesus taught from the Scriptures, and in just what words we have recorded He said "It is written 25 times. Clearly, Jesus revered the Scriptures and intended for us to as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

Help me understand. Are you saying that the the physics of light were not operative before the flood and a rainbow was not possible then? Refraction of light was not possible preflood?
Just curious.
Dizredux

It was not possible; possibly because of the lack of water vapor due to a completely different cycle, possibly due to different atmospheric conditions, but mostly because God created the process for generating rainbows afterward.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem lies with the interpretation because we each bring our own bias into that interpretation and we cannot see our own bias. Nearly every organized religion engages in practices that are not Scriptural. Not all of them are bad, but affirming things that are not taught in the Scriptures as doctrine is the same as creating doctrine; a major problem for those seeking evidence of such things in the Scriptures.

I have my own ideas of what many Bible verses actually mean, but I can't in good conscience tell anyone that my interpretation is correct. By quoting Scripture accurately we quote it perfectly. Interpretation is perfectly acceptable once we've established what is actually written. Jesus taught from the Scriptures, and in just what words we have recorded He said "It is written 25 times. Clearly, Jesus revered the Scriptures and intended for us to as well.

I respect that you make an effort to try to escape your own bias, but I am not sure that is the best way to go about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It was not possible; possibly because of the lack of water vapor due to a completely different cycle, possibly due to different atmospheric conditions, but mostly because God created the process for generating rainbows afterward.

Water vapor not in the air would be a very unpleasant environment.