Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'd give some real consideration - and rightly so! - to people's assertions that their interpretation of bible verses was god inspired and therefore infallible, IF they all were god inspired to the same interpretation.
I did have a deranged person, who evidentlyOnly the Christian Nationalists.
I did have a deranged person, who evidently believed he was a good christian, tell me I'd be hanging from a lamp post the day he got Word that it's time to start killing all the atheists.
I agree, but if it wasn’t intended to be literal I have a hard time understanding how it could be used metaphorically.If a person believed such stories as literal, the supernatural route would have to be the only explanation.
Bible tells you to do that. Why won't you?
Why won't you? The Bible tells you to do that.
So it's like a cafeteria for you; take some of it, and reject the stuff you don't like. That's not what I think of when I say "Biblical creationist."
I'm just noting that you believe only the parts you like.And your attempts to make Bible believers into vigilantes are deplorable.
I don't know what Louie Armstrong saw in himself, but I certainly see the Creative aspect of the Divine going on there.You make Louie Armstrong sound like a panentheist.
The quote of course was reference to a quote from humanist (humanist sometimes tagged with secular religion) John Dunphy, who promotes the idea of presenting humanism in the public classroom with the purpose of removing traditional religion from our culture.Nothing in the right to free expression allows teaching sectarian religious doctrine to public schoolchildren, whether that doctrine is Christian or not, popular or not.
If you found a line in the Bible that said 2+2=5, would you believe it and accept it as true?1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
Why won't you? The Bible tells you to do that.
You figure the Earth doesn't move, since the Bible says it won't be moved?
I'm just noting that you believe only the parts you like.
If you found a line in the Bible that said 2+2=5, would you believe it and accept it as true?
A metaphor is a comparison of one thing to another for explanatory purposes. The object serving as the basis of the comparison need not be literal.I agree, but if it wasn’t intended to be literal I have a hard time understanding how it could be used metaphorically.
The reference was to the common claim that if God created the earth in a mature state, the earth would be lying to us because it would give us a false history, even though 6 day creation is implied in His Word.I don't know whether you can properly say it is a lie. But it seems like an odd thing to do. Do you have any theological rational for it? It's the same with any version of "Last Thursdayism." Sure, it's possible, God can do anything, But why?
Maybe, but I have yet to see anything beyond merely stating Genesis to be figurative, allegorical, or mythical. I have yet to see a breakdown of, or references to specific scripture in relation to evolution, as at least we see (to some degree) with OEC.As we discussed, evolution is entirely compatible with scripture. Most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that acknowledge evolution is compatible with scripture.
Out of curiosity, are all OE creationists theistic evolutionists?We are biblical creationists, but not YE creationists.
Being given a bad name in itself isn't necessarily bad. All of the biblical heroes of faith were given a bad name. But it might depend on what you mean. I'm not familiar with a lot of them, so I don't know if you're talking about their beliefs, or something like their character.I think YEC is completely wrong. However, I notice that intelligent and honest and even sincerely Christian YE creationists do exist.
Problem is, many of the most prominent among YE creationists are giving you guys a bad name.
Whether you see it as an attack depends on what you mean by "traditional religion" and why you think it should have a unique standing in our culture.The quote of course was reference to a quote from humanist (humanist sometimes tagged with secular religion) John Dunphy, who promotes the idea of presenting humanism in the public classroom with the purpose of removing traditional religion from our culture.
So while the right to free expression doesn't allow teaching sectarian religious doctrine in public classrooms, it also doesn't allow discouragement of any sort against them.
To keep religion out means to not promote any religion, nor attack any religion. Neutrality being the key factor.
It can only be called a religion in a very loose sense. Like someone saying the NFL is a religion due to fanaticism, pre-game rituals, icons, etc.That's pretty much a religion, if it can't free itself of its religious assumptions.
The problem goes much deeper than that. The need for the unnecessary double verdict is plain to see. The judge actually stated that ID might be true, but just not science. If the verdict would have been; ID might be true, just not constitutional, there'd be a problem.True. If a mouse is not a manufactured device, then there's no point arguing whether or not it's a motorcycle.
Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe. Just like we don’t know exactly how long it takes for radiation to accumulate in different material or how long it actually takes for radioactive isotopes to decay. All of this is based on predictions and estimates based on what we can observe now, not what we observed millions of years ago. Furthermore they incorporate geological predictions and estimates into the calibration process in an attempt to get a more accurate prediction.Those are not predictions. Those are estimates. If you will take the time (no conscious pun intended) to investigate the nature of those updates over the past couple of hundred years you will discover the following:
I am not clear why you would view a systematic improvement in technology that reduces the errors of the estimates to be a "constant insult". Rather it seems a tribute to human ingenuity and perseverance; something to be celebrated, not denigrated. It seems that your motivation is frustration that the evidence based estimates do not align with your beliefs. That does not justify your baseless and ill informed attack. By all means declare that your faith forbids you to accept the evidence, but please do not misrepresent that evidence, as you have done here.
- The early estimates of age were , compared with the current ones, quite small - tens, or hundred of millions of years
- There were large error bars attached to those ages
- As technology and understanding increased the age estimates grew and the error bars shrank
- For around half a century the age has been estimated at approximately 4.5 billion years.
- Changes in this interval have been refinements of tens of millions, then millions of years, so that we are now discerning the age of distincct phases in planetary formation
It starts with Henry Morris, the founder of modern YECism: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." This at once misrepresents the science and impugns the integrity of the scientists who work on it. In addition, it is an attempt to conceal his real motive for opposing the theory of evolution, which is not to defend the existence of God but a narrow sectarian view of the Bible. It's all downhill from there.Being given a bad name in itself isn't necessarily bad. All of the biblical heroes of faith were given a bad name. But it might depend on what you mean. I'm not familiar with a lot of them, so I don't know if you're talking about their beliefs, or something like their character.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?