Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Assyrian]

On a side note, the motivation for an atheist to pretend to be a Christian and promote atheist/Darwinist doctrine

1)Grants one the opportunity to infiltrate a Christian-only section.
2) It grants mental infiltration through the illusion of fellowship.

I actually have to defend the bible against an attack from a another Christian. But thats Darwinism. Your transformation is nearly complete. The above query was already addressed.

Why would athiests pretend to be Christians to promote evolution? There are more than enough Christians around who accept evolution and are much better at discussing the biblical issues than most atheists. What puzzles me is why Christians turn on their fellow believers who were saved by Christ's death on the cross as they were, and call them atheists.

 

[laconicstudent]

On a side note, the motivation for an atheist to pretend to be a Christian and promote atheist/Darwinist doctrine

1)Grants one the opportunity to infiltrate a Christian-only section.
2) It grants mental infiltration through the illusion of fellowship.

I actually have to defend the bible against an attack from a another Christian. But thats Darwinism. Your transformation is nearly complete. The above query was already addressed.

YouTube - Laugh track

 

[laconicstudent]

Why would athiests pretend to be Christians to promote evolution? There are more than enough Christians around who accept evolution and are much better at discussing the biblical issues than most atheists. What puzzles me is why Christians turn on their fellow believers who were saved by Christ's death on the cross as they were, and call them atheists.

Because Maitreya/Anti-christ is launching a conspiracy in cahoots with the Illuminati and the Freemasons. Duh.

 

[laconicstudent]

A christian promoting atheism does not change the fact that there are atheists who pretend to be Christian to promote atheism. This is deflection. Since I've been here there have been at least two accounts.

So because a Christian is propagating Darwinism, we're just supposed to accept it because he's a "fellow believer". That was actually no. 2. Infiltration through fellowship.

This is entertaining. Pray continue.

 

[Mallon]

On a side note, the motivation for an atheist to pretend to be a Christian and promote atheist/Darwinist doctrine

1)Grants one the opportunity to infiltrate a Christian-only section.
2) It grants mental infiltration through the illusion of fellowship.

Are you accusing me of being an atheist? Please be clear because that's a ban-able offense on these forums. My faith in Christ is what makes me a Christian, not my faith in scientific concordism.

The above query was already addressed.

I don't find your arguments particularly convincing. Yes, the Bible uses many similes to describe the shape of the earth. But that doesn't mean you get to pass on every passage that compares the earth to a flat piece of clay or the sky to a solid crystalline dome. Those comparisons were drawn for a reason. Have you never wondered why the Bible only compares the Bible to flat objects? Have you never wondered why Matthew and Daniel describe the whole surface of the earth as being visible from a tall tree or mountain? The Hebrews had a word for sphere (or ball), after all -- duwr. Why did they never use it to describe the earth?
You have to do a lot of dancing and twisting of Scripture in order to make it say the earth is a sphere. Why not just accept the fact that the Bible contains an ancient science, accommodated to the understanding of the early Hebrew people? Is that so un-Christian? We already do it when it comes to the Bible's description of the sun's circuit about the earth. The Bible never claims to be a science textbook, after all.

 

[Assyrian]

And another Christian. All this was already given. And we also have a word for sphere (sphere).

You searched around for a dictionary that would conflate circle and sphere, and you find it way down the list.

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.​

Hardly the standard meaning of circle. Worse it is an obscure use of circle in English. Isaiah wrote in Hebrew. And look at where this use comes from. It is quoting Isaiah, it means you have had people reading Isaiah in English coming across the phrase 'the circle of the earth' and thinking of it as an orb which is what they knew the earth was. The use of the word 'orb' here is interesting, it is a very old fashioned word for the shape of the earth, We think of the earth as a sphere or an oblate spheroid. In medieval times and after it was an orb. This is people reading the King James bible and thinking circle must mean orb because it is talking about the earth and the earth is a sphere. It tells us nothing of the meaning of the Hebrew word for circle.

You think you are defending the bible. Yet you don't want to look at what the plain meaning of the text is, instead you fish around for some excuse to make it fit the sciences you actually do believe.

The Greek already knew the earth was round.

Very true. Cosmas was rejecting well established science. But he had his bible interpretation so he knew the science must be wrong, and he condemned his fellow believers for supping at the table of demons and being unequally yoked together with unbelievers when they accepted pagan Greek science instead of his interpretation of the word of God.

Cosmas' interpretation was rejected by the church.

Thank God. You see the standard approach to scripture and science from Augustine to Aquinas was if science contradicted your interpretation of scripture, then you misunderstood what the bible was saying.

Darwinism/atheism is rejected.

By some church and preachers. But there were churches and preachers who rejected Copernicus and Galileo too. For a while. Within a century or so most people realised heliocentrism wasn't going to go away that the science was beginning to mount up supporting it, so he church found new new ways to interpret the geocentric passages because the old interpretation were clearly wrong. Science had shown them it was wrong.

Cosmas' attempt is right on par with finding bacteria turning into men in the creation of man.

Right. Cosmas based his ideas on his interpretation of scripture and rejected the science of his day and the scientific evidence that supported a spherical earth.

You base your ideas on your interpretation of scripture and you reject the modern science of evolution and the evidence that supports it. And you think I am the one like Cosmas.

We should really learn from him.

You really should. "Those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them"

 

[pgp_protector]

Are you accusing me of being an atheist? Please be clear because that's a ban-able offense on these forums. My faith in Christ is what makes me a Christian, not my faith in scientific concordism.
..snip....

That's the way I was reading it, though I didn't think it was ban-able, but was flaming.

 

[Greg1234]

Are you accusing me of being an atheist? Please be clear because that's a ban-able offense on these forums. My faith in Christ is what makes me a Christian, not my faith in scientific concordism.

Where did I accuse you of being an atheist? Uh oh.

I don't find your arguments particularly convincing. Yes, the Bible uses many similes to describe the shape of the earth. But that doesn't mean you get to pass on every passage that compares the earth to a flat piece of clay or the sky to a solid crystalline dome.

This was already given.

Those comparisons were drawn for a reason. Have you never wondered why the Bible only compares the Bible to flat objects? Have you never wondered why Matthew and Daniel describe the whole surface of the earth as being visible from a tall tree or mountain?

Actually, the tree also touched the sky in the vision. Did he also believe that the trees touched the sky?

The Hebrews had a word for sphere (or ball), after all -- duwr. Why did they never use it to describe the earth?

"Circle of the earth" means a "sphere".

You have to do a lot of dancing and twisting of Scripture in order to make it say the earth is a sphere.

All I had to do was look up circle of the earth and its right there. You are the one who needs to twist it to fulfill a Darwinist persuasion. Listen to yourself. I bet they're rejoicing right now.

Why not just accept the fact that the Bible

I have already accepted that "circle of the earth" means a "sphere". Nowhere in the bible is a flat earth referenced and there is an explicit reference to sphericity. To depend so largely on the defamation of the opposition to prove Darwinism speaks for itself. Even so, it fails.

The Bible never claims to be a science textbook, after all.

It explicitly states that man is created. Every piece of evidence we gather is in accordance with this. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. When looked at properly, it is the Darwinist/atheist theocracy which is heavily rejecting evidence that the earth is round.

 

[laconicstudent]

It explicitly states that man is created. Every piece of evidence we gather is in accordance with this. The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. When looked at properly, it is the Darwinist/atheist theocracy which is heavily rejecting evidence that the earth is round.

This is bordering on the surreal.

 

[Greg1234]

You searched around for a dictionary that would conflate circle and sphere, and you find it way down the list.

16. a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth.​

Hardly the standard meaning of circle.

Now you know.

You think you are defending the bible. Yet you don't want to look at what the plain meaning of the text is, instead you fish around for some excuse to make it fit the sciences you actually do believe.

I just had to open a dictionary

Very true. Cosmas was rejecting well established science.

As you are right now. All we see is creation. Bacteria remain bacteria. Adaptation is a coded process but we still have random mutational advocates. And the list goes on.

By some church and preachers.

And rightly so. One of these days, you are going to be next Cosmas "the times when the Christian church used to advocate that random mutation could take bacteria to men".

But there were churches and preachers who rejected Copernicus and Galileo too.

Nowhere in the bible is there even a reference to geocentricism. What we have today is the Darwinian church rejecting established science that random mutation is not viable. This is after numerous testing. Even though tests reveal that the earth orbits the sun

Right. Cosmas based his ideas on his interpretation of scripture and rejected the science of his day and the scientific evidence that supported a spherical earth.

This was already given.

You base your ideas on your interpretation of scripture and you reject the modern science of evolution and the evidence that supports it. And you think I am the one like Cosmas.

There is the interpretation of Hebrews 9. This has nothing to do with a flat earth. There is the interpretation of Genesis. This has nothing to do with bacteria becoming men.

You really should. "Those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them"

 

[laconicstudent]

is the Darwinian church

Never heard of them, do they have a website I can visit to familiarize myself with them?

YouTube - Nin Maathave Vishudhanmaan - Only Begotten Son

 

[Greg1234]

Never heard of them, do they have a website I can visit to familiarize myself with them?

They'll find you first. Don't worry about it.

 

[laconicstudent]

They'll find you first. Don't worry about it.

Oh. I see. No such thing as "the Darwinian Church/religion" exists.

 

[Mallon]

Where did I accuse you of being an atheist? Uh oh.

In the very last post that I cited you. You clearly believe that one is saved, not by faith in Christ, but by faith in the Bible as a science textbook. Otherwise, you wouldn't be calling me an atheist. I can't help but wonder whether I'm really the heretic here.

This was already given.

I know. And I addressed it in my last post.

Actually, the tree also touched the sky in the vision. Did he also believe that the trees touched the sky?

Probably. The ancients clearly thought the heavens were attainable. Tower of Babel and all that.
The point is, one can only see the entirety of the surface of the earth from a high vantage point only if it is flat. To say that the earth is spherical clearly flies in the face of what the Bible says about the shape of the earth.

"Circle of the earth" means a "sphere".
All I had to do was look up circle of the earth and its right there. You are the one who needs to twist it to fulfill a Darwinist persuasion. Listen to yourself. I bet they're rejoicing right now.

Actually, it doesn't mean sphere. Your source is clearly retrojecting the modern understanding of the shape of the earth onto the Hebrew text.
Again, the Hebrews had a word for sphere -- duwr. This is never used to describe the earth. The word typically used is chuwg (as in Isaiah 40:22), meaning circle, circuit, or compass. Check out Strong's Concordance:

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2328

I have already accepted that "circle of the earth" means a "sphere". Nowhere in the bible is a flat earth referenced and there is an explicit reference to sphericity.

As I've just shown, this is wrong.

Here's what the Bible clearly tells us about the earth and its relation to the heavens:

- it's shaped like a piece of clay flattened under a seal (Job 38:13-14)
- it is like a floor, and the sky is like a tent (Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 19:4, Psalm 104:2)
- it has edges (Job 38:13-14, Psalm 19:4)
- it is immobile (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5)
- it sits on a foundation of pillars (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 38:4, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3)
- its entire surface can be seen from a high vantage point (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11)

Again, the picture that the Bible paints is pretty clear: The earth isn't a sphere. To argue otherwise is to distort the Bible.

To depend so largely on the defamation of the opposition to prove Darwinism speaks for itself. Even so, it fails.

I haven't defamed you at all. You're the one who's being insulting, calling me an atheist and whatnot. You'll no doubt be reported for it.

It explicitly states that man is created.

I'm not arguing that man isn't created.

The interpretation of Genesis has nothing to do with Darwinism.

Nobody here is arguing that it does. The Bible has nothing to do with science. It's a book about faith. That's my point: Let's not read the Bible as a science textbook.

 

[Greg1234]

In the very last post that I cited you. You clearly believe that one is saved, not by faith in Christ, but by faith in the Bible as a science textbook. Otherwise, you wouldn't be calling me an atheist. I can't help but wonder whether I'm really the heretic here.

Nowhere in the bible does it state that bacteria can turn into men. The interpretation has nothing to do with this.

Probably. The ancients clearly thought the heavens were attainable. Tower of Babel and all that.

My goodness.

The point is, one can only see the entirety of the surface of the earth from a high vantage point only if it is flat. To say that the earth is spherical clearly flies in the face of what the Bible says about the shape of the earth.

See Isaiah 40:22

Actually, it doesn't mean sphere. Your source is clearly retrojecting the modern understanding of the shape of the earth onto the Hebrew text.
Again, the Hebrews had a word for sphere -- duwr. This is never used to describe the earth. The word typically used is chuwg (as in Isaiah 40:22), meaning circle, circuit, or compass.

And we also have a word for sphere. The typical word for circle is circle. When used in context, it means a sphere, as given by the dictionary.

As I've just shown, this is wrong.

You responded by saying that you find the counter argument to your liking and how I should wonder why the bible compares the earth to flat skipping over the part where you have been shown that none of your references say that the earth is flat and explicitly references a sphere.

Here's what the Bible clearly tells us about the earth and its relation to the heavens:

- it's shaped like a piece of clay flattened under a seal (Job 38:13-14)
- it is like a floor, and the sky is like a tent (Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 19:4, Psalm 104:2)
- it has edges (Job 38:13-14, Psalm 19:4)
- it is immobile (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5)
- it sits on a foundation of pillars (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 38:4, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3)
- its entire surface can be seen from a high vantage point (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11)

All this was already given. You havent countered the counter argument. You've changed it takes shape like clay under a seal, to its shaped like a piece of clay flattened under seal. The earth can take shape like molten metal in an iron cast. It can take shape like a piece of clay between my hands. It cannot take shape like clay on top of a seal because clay on top of a seal does not take shape. The act of the earth taking shape is therefore relinquished. The only way for clay to be shaped is between two objects. For references to a spherical earth see Isaiah 40:22.
For the earth's relation see Job 26:7
Your appeal to geocentricity is already given

Again, the picture that the Bible paints is pretty clear: The earth isn't a sphere. To argue otherwise is to distort the Bible.

Using the dictionary is not distorting the bible

I haven't defamed you at all. You're the one who's being insulting, calling me an atheist and whatnot. You'll no doubt be reported for it.

Firstly, you are saying that being an atheist is an insulting state. To some, that is an insult. Secondly, you need to show exactly where I called you an atheist.

And it explicitly states that the earth is immobile and sits on pillars.

Already given

Scientists -- the people who actually study the evidence -- disagree.

We all study the evidence. We only see Creation

Nobody here is arguing that it does. The Bible has nothing to do with science. It's a book about faith. That's my point: Let's not read the Bible as a science textbook.

We use science to confirm creation, and reject Darwinism

 

[laconicstudent]

We all study the evidence. We only see Creation
We use science to confirm creation, and reject Darwinism

Love to see the relevant research.

 

[Greg1234]

Love to see the relevant research.

In progress

 

[laconicstudent]

In progress

Well, its excellent to see that you at least are willing to retract your earlier statement:

We all study the evidence. We only see Creation
We use science to confirm creation, and reject Darwinism

We can accept Evolution and move on, then.

 

[Greg1234]

Well, its excellent to see that you at least are willing to retract your earlier statement:

You guys really have a weird way of reading text

We can accept Evolution and move on, then.

If you want to convert to Darwinism, thats fine

 

[laconicstudent]

You guys really have a weird way of reading text

You just admitted absolutely no support for your position existed.

If you want to convert to Darwinism, thats fine

Convert? You make it sound like a religion. I'm a Christian who believes in Evolution the same way I believe in atomic theory, gravity, general relativity and germ theory. Why are you pretending its some big mystical thing?