Strong Nuclear Force

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Know what the full title of Darwin's greatest hit is? "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." He certainly thought that he was the favored, or chosen race.

If Darwin was of the favored race, then no other races would exist, since other races would have been naturally rendered extinct.

First off, the Jews didn't kill Christ. It was the Roman soldiers. But He gave up his life willingly. If Hitler had wanted to punish the ancestors of those responsible for Christ's death, he'd have to start a war against Moussolini and the Italians.

It was, in fact, a trumped-up Jewish hearing that sentenced Him to death. But they asked the Roman govt to execute Him because the Jews weren't allowed to do it.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
Well, you don't hear that very often, but I happen to agree with you. IMO our ability to see things clearly and rationally was severely crippled by the fall.

If Eve was that intelligent, then how was she tricked by a reptile?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by humblejoe

If Eve was that intelligent, then how was she tricked by a reptile?

Oh, you see, that was actually Satan, not a *literal* snake. Remember, literalism is all about picking the words you like.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I hate to point this out but Honest ol' Abe did not set out to free the slaves out of some alturistic sense of honor. I know, I know it is all part of the fable, kind of like ol' George admitting to chopping down the cherry tree. The emacipation proclimation did NOT apply to all the slaves in the country. It was ment to apply to those slaves in "rebel" states so as they would rise up against thier masters and fight for the union - thereby earning their freedom. It should also be pointed out that it applied to slaves living in states not under union control (It would be like china proclaiming that all prisoners in taiwan be freed today). This was military strategy, not humanitarianism. And those slaves in the union states (yeah they did have them), well no such grace was ever intended for them.
Prior to being president, lincoln was an Illinois legislator, then a congressman. During that time he actually OPPOSED abolitionists and enforced Fugitive SLave Laws. He also endosed relocating slaves to Africa, and endorsed laws banning black people from voting, holding office, jury duty and intermarrying with caucasians. The same year he (1858) he gave an address affirming th equity of all men he also gave a speech where he opposed ""bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races." "

By today's standards Abraham Lincoln would considered a racist. But then so would most of his contemporaries.

Ask school kids today "why was the American civil war fought?" and many would likely answer "To free the slaves". Unfortunately, that was little more then a tactical move.

Wow, revisionist history, gotta love it.

This reminds me of the joke: What did Lincoln say after a four day drinking binge? ... " I freed the what?!"

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe
If Eve was that intelligent, then how was she tricked by a reptile?

Intelligent does not equal wise. Unfortunately, understanding the difference takes wisdom, which is why evolutionists have trouble with such distinctions.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
Intelligent does not equal wise. Unfortunately, understanding the difference takes wisdom, which is why evolutionists have trouble with such distinctions.

So an animal was more wise than a superiorly intelligent human Eve? How is that possible?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Freodin
Strange. I have seen quite a few people who claimed that science was responsible for moral decay, crime, inappropriate contentography and all kinds of "immoral" acts.

Can you please give some references on this? I've never heard or read anything like that except in science fiction books. I've seen people blame a lot of stuff on evolution, and I can understand that perfectly. But science? Sure would like to see an example.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe

So an animal was more wise than a superiorly intelligent human Eve? How is that possible?

No, the point isn't whether or not the serpent was wise, but the fact that the serpent was a liar and Eve believed what the serpent said. The reason Eve did not know the serpent was lying probably has something to do with the fact that she hadn't eaten the apple yet. Figure it out.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
No, the point isn't whether or not the serpent was wise, but the fact that the serpent was a liar and Eve believed what the serpent said. The reason Eve did not know the serpent was lying probably has something to do with the fact that she hadn't eaten the apple yet. Figure it out.

Show me where the serpent lied.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Maybe Amish folks say this

I don't know what the Amish give for reasons, but I'm not under the impression they're against science just because they feel they're better off living the way they do. I love science and I often think they're better off, too.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe

Show me where the serpent lied.

I get the impression you're not at all interested in the truth, but I'll go that far. Genesis 3:4. If you want to argue that this wasn't a lie, then we're not even talking the same language, so there's no point in discussing it further. Perhaps someone else will want to waste his or her time.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
I get the impression you're not at all interested in the truth,

I assure you that I'm interested in the truth.

but I'll go that far. Genesis 3:4. If you want to argue that this wasn't a lie, then we're not even talking the same language, so there's no point in discussing it further.

Did she die when she ate the fruit?

Perhaps someone else will want to waste his or her time.

I don't see honest inquiry as a "waste [of] his or her time".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe

"By the way, I wonder if the non-believers here have any idea how much information contained in the geneologies starting with Genesis 9 is directly traceable to today (in other words, confirmed by our current state of knowledge). That's only 8 chapters away from the stuff they say is fairy tale."

In this passage, it appeared as though you were saying that people that believe in a mythological interpretation of Genesis 1-11 are automatically "non-believers". That is what provoked me.

I honestly don't see how you can get that interpretation out of what I said, but I think you understand now what it was I was saying. Non-believers are non-believers, not "believers who interpret Genesis differently than I do."

Originally posted by humblejoe
And on judging salvation, I don't think it's possible for one person to absolutely know another person's eternal destiny, esp. using only the criterion of an amoral issue such as this. However, I do apologize if I misinterpreted or offended you at all with my statement.

No offense taken. I do think it is possible to know someone's current state, but I don't know if it's at all possible to know what someone's eternal destiny will be. The only reason I think there's a remote possibility one can know another person will never be saved has to do with Hebrews 6. For example, I suspect I know someone who has "tasted of the heavenly gift" but in the end has rejected Christ. If that's what Hebrews 6 is talking about, then this person could not possibly come to repentence and is permanently lost. If that's not what Hebrews 6 is saying, then there's no way to know (at least as far as I know.)

Anyway, I just wondered where you got the idea that it was a sin to believe or say that someone else is a non-believer. It certainly isn't Biblical.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
Anyway, I just wondered where you got the idea that it was a sin to believe or say that someone else is a non-believer. It certainly isn't Biblical.

What I meant was that I found it rather bizarre and quite unfair to judge someone's eternal destiny based solely upon their belief in a mythical interpretation of a portion of Genesis. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by humblejoe

Did she die when she ate the fruit?

Yes, and this is what made it the worst kind of lie. It was a half-truth. She did not immediately die physically, but she and Adam died spiritually, which is how they lost their innocence and freedom. And thanks to that sin, everyone afterward with the exception of Jesus has been born the same way - spiritually dead slaves to sin.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


Yes, and this is what made it the worst kind of lie. It was a half-truth. She did not immediately die physically, but she and Adam died spiritually, which is how they lost their innocence and freedom. And thanks to that sin, everyone afterward with the exception of Jesus has been born the same way - spiritually dead slaves to sin.

So,you are also accusing God of telling the "worst kind of lie" since he was the first to say "The day you partake of this fruit you shall surly die".

Calling God a liar isn't exactly a healthy thing to do....

 

[Freodin]

Yes, the Amish sprang to my mind in regard to "evil science". But Nick is also right: this claim is mostly made towards evolution theory - which, as we all know, is not science.

But it also sums up all the opposition from religious minds to the scientific advances of their age: "If God had wanted us to ..., he would have given us ... "

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Nick, maybe you should try reading the "testament of truth" from the gnostic gospels. It gives the garden of eden story from the serpent's point of view.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by npetreley
Yes, and this is what made it the worst kind of lie. It was a half-truth. She did not immediately die physically, but she and Adam died spiritually, which is how they lost their innocence and freedom. And thanks to that sin, everyone afterward with the exception of Jesus has been born the same way - spiritually dead slaves to sin.

Are you sure the serpent was talking spiritually and not just physically?

You say that Eve was unwise. How, then, could she understand spiritual death? And the serpent being an animal, and thus a "lower" creation, how much more could it know about spiritual death than Eve?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Nick I alsowantyou to answer this one too.

quote:

Originally posted by npetreley


Yes, and this is what made it the worst kind of lie. It was a half-truth. She did not immediately die physically, but she and Adam died spiritually, which is how they lost their innocence and freedom. And thanks to that sin, everyone afterward with the exception of Jesus has been born the same way - spiritually dead slaves to sin.

So,you are also accusing God of telling the "worst kind of lie" since he was the first to say "The day you partake of this fruit you shall surly die".

Calling God a liar isn't exactly a healthy thing to do....