Question for creationist and "evolutionists"

[AV1611VET]

If Christians do their job right and understand their own theology, then creationism will disappear.

When Jesus ceases to be a Creationist, then I will as well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When Jesus ceases to be a Creationist, then I will as well.

Jesus wasn't a creationist -- he was smarter than that.

He was, however, a darn good storyteller.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Clearly divided by you -- nothing in the Bible itself makes any such distinction.



Not necessarily -- it could be that Wesern criminal law is based on the same original source those 6 commandments are based on.

When these laws are broken society breaks down. Turning a blind legal eye to some of these laws, such as adultery, doesn't mitigate the damage done by breaking them.

So what is the damage done by adultery -- or by "coveting," for that matter?

Jesus said, 'Love God, and, love your neighbor, UPON THESE TWO COMMANDS hang all the law and the prophets'. Thus the distinction. Adultery may not the most damaging societal crime broadly speaking, but many believe that it is the most damaging offense to the individual victim, surpassing even the murder of a loved one in it's overall effect. Regarding the origin of our laws, didn't I say, 'regardless of their origin'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[/color]

The bible is not the definitive source of morality to all people, just Christians. Morality changes across culture and across time-frames. And I’d have to say if you need to resort to shame, guilt and fear to teach morality you’re not explaining it very well. Morality should stand up on its own. If you only teach in this way how can you be sure your pupils are acting in a particular way because they consider it moral, rather than because they are afraid of the consequences?

Young people especially should 'fear' to do evil, until they are mature enough to understand and embrace true morality. Shame, guilt, and fear are not something that one 'resorts' to as in a last ditch effort, but necessary elements of a balanced conscience; what the bible calls a 'sound mind'. Only people who lack soundness of mind are devoid of these principle elements.

 

[Delphiki]

When Jesus ceases to be a Creationist, then I will as well.

Well, Jesus has simply ceased to be. So welcome to rational thought, noob!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, Jesus has simply ceased to be. So welcome to rational thought, noob!

I wasn't aware Jesus' non-existence was a prerequisite for rational thought.

 

[Delphiki]

I wasn't aware Jesus' non-existence was a prerequisite for rational thought.

"Dur, I forgot what I posted two posts ago!", says AVET.

Since you came up with the offer, I'll let you scroll back up and figure it out. I'm getting really tired of explaining the most simple things to you people.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not necessarily -- it could be that Wesern criminal law is based on the same original source those 6 commandments are based on.

So we're down to six commandments -- good to know.

Let's get at those monuments and chisel out the 4 irrelevant ones.

Jesus said, 'Love God, and, love your neighbor, UPON THESE TWO COMMANDS hang all the law and the prophets'. Thus the distinction.

Still doesn't explain the aribtrary distinction you made between the apparantly vital and apparantly irrelevant "commandments" -- now down to the six commandments and the four strongly worded suggestions.

Adultery may not the most damaging societal crime broadly speaking, but many believe that it is the most damaging offense to the individual victim, surpassing even the murder of a loved one in it's overall effect.

"Many believe" that little men live inside their radios and make music -- what do I care for what "many believe"?

Regarding the origin of our laws, didn't I say, 'regardless of their origin'?

You also said that our laws were based on the six commandments and the four strongly worded suggestions -- so apparantly origins does mean something to you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I wasn't aware Jesus' non-existence was a prerequisite for rational thought.

Well, we've seen what happens without this prerequisite -- and it's hardly encouraging.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So we're down to six xommandments -- good to know.

Let's get at those monuments and chisel out the 4 irrelevant ones.



Still doesn't explain the aribtrary distinction you made between the apparantly vital and apparantly irrelevant "commandments" -- now down to the six commandments and the four strongly worded suggestions.



"Many believe" that little men live inside their radios and make music -- what do I care for what "many believe"?



You also said that our laws were based on the six commandments and the four strongly worded suggestions -- so apparantly origins does mean something to you.

The 'many that believe' are the professional social scientists as well as law enforcement professionals that deal with problems caused by adultery. Also, no one can honestly deny the strong connection between our laws and our Judeo-Christian history. Our founding documents prevent the first four commandments to be incorporated into our laws. Even as far back as the apostolic period there was a separation of the commands; those (six) that dealt with criminal behavior were left to the civil authority, the magistrates, as the newly formed church was not in the business of law enforcement.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The 'many that believe' are the professional social scientists as well as law enforcement professionals that deal with problems caused by adultery.

I'd love to see something besides your own say-so that supports this assertion.

Also, no one can honestly deny the strong connection between our laws and our Judeo-Christian history. Our founding documents prevent the first four commandments to be incorporated into our laws.

(emphasis mine) so much for them being a basis for our laws -- considering we went out of the way to exclude them.

Even as far back as the apostolic period there was a separation of the commands; those (six) that dealt with criminal behavior were left to the civil authority, the magistrates, as the newly formed church was not in the business of law enforcement.

And I think you'll find that civil authority was already emforcing the six commandments (without the four strongly worded suggestions) long before the church was ever formed. The church never had a say in it.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Historically, whenever science and the Bible clash, things in the Bible suddenly become "symbolic" "metaphorical", or "just poetic." Flat earth with "edges", set on pillars, Sky made of hard metal dome? Just symbolic, poetic language. Creationism will die the way geocentric world views died.

 

[AV1611VET]

Historically, whenever science and the Bible clash, things in the Bible suddenly become "symbolic" "metaphorical", or "just poetic." Flat earth with "edges", set on pillars, Sky made of hard metal dome? Just symbolic, poetic language. Creationism will die the way geocentric world views died.

Book, chapter and verse, please?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Book, chapter and verse, please?

Ah forgive me. I went back and looked up the verse again. It seems that the sky is just hard LIKE a mirror of cast bronze. Not ACTUALLY a mirror of cast bronze. My mistake.

Job 37:18

But of course it's still wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Historically, whenever science and the Bible clash, things in the Bible suddenly become "symbolic" "metaphorical", or "just poetic."

Book, chapter and verse, please?

Ah forgive me. I went back and looked up the verse again. It seems that the sky is just hard LIKE a mirror of cast bronze. Not ACTUALLY a mirror of cast bronze. My mistake.

Job 37:18

But of course it's still wrong.

Let me get this stratght:

1. You rant that we defend certain claims by stating they are poetic.
2. I ask for a specific passage in the Bible.
3. You then quote a known poetic passage* to me.

Is this correct?

Are you saying that Job 37:18 is poetic, only when we want it to be?

* The Bible contains five major books of poetry: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Let me get this stratght:

1. You rant that we defend certain claims by stating they are poetic.
2. I ask for a specific passage in the Bible.
3. You then quote a known poetic passage* to me.

Is this correct?

Are you saying that Job 37:18 is poetic, only when we want it to be?

* The Bible contains five major books of poetry: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon.

Wow I didn't think it would be that easy to prove my point. Couple questions, who would ever describe the sky as "hard" unless they thought it was hard? Shiny, maybe. Likening it to water, sure. But a hard dome? And why would God accost Job with symbolism and poetry? Why would he say "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" when God has never done that either because the earth does not have edges? It'd be like me telling my son "When you're older and have slain dragons like I have, then you'll understand!"

Was Isaiah being "just poetic" when he said that God spreads out the heavens like a canvas and stretches them out like a tent to live under? Would the ancient Hebrews have had any reason to take it any other way but literally? How is that kind of imagery helpful? Does it increase the sense of awe for God's creation to imagine all of the stars as tiny holes in a thin cloth over a glass dome? If Isaiah had simply described the heavens accurately, it would have gone a long way towards proving that he had special divine access to knowledge that no one else had at the time. And it would have blown the Israelites minds in a way that a thin canvas a few hundred miles over head never could.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow I didn't think it would be that easy to prove my point.

What point?

Couple questions, who would ever describe the sky as "hard" unless they thought it was hard?

Robert Frost? Shakespeare? Robert Browning? Eliza Cook? T. S. Eliot? Ralph Waldo Emerson? Agatha Christie? Edgar Allan Poe?

Just to name a few.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

What point?

Robert Frost? Shakespeare? Robert Browning? Eliza Cook? T. S. Eliot? Ralph Waldo Emerson? Agatha Christie? Edgar Allan Poe?

Just to name a few.

Way to skip over almost everything I said.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Way to skip over almost everything I said.

You didn't expect him to actually address an issue, did you?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

You didn't expect him to actually address an issue, did you?

No but if I didn't bring it up and just ignored this thread, he would probably see it as a victory.