The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Tachocline]

Hitler was also a jew. He killed all who sat in opposition. Guess who sat in opposition. True Christians with the moral fortitude to say no.

Urban legend #1098 'Hitler was a Jew'


No he wasn't. His mother worked in the house of a Jew.

 

[Aeschylus]

The idea that Hilter's father was Jewish came from one of Hitler's propagandists (after the war), it is however it is highly unlikely and the story contains sveral incosistiencies.

Simaliry the idea that Hitler was a Christian is also a bit of an urban legend propagated in books like 'Hitler's Pope'. Hitler was brought up a Catholic, but he was not a practicing Cathlic and held very dim views of both the Catholic church and the Church in general, though that idnd't necessarily mean he was ann atheist or that he wouldn't use relgion to his own advantage when it suited him.

 

[Tachocline]

Wouldn't have even mattered if his dad was Jewish which he probably wasn't (he was illegitimate I believe) because being Jewish is passed through the maternal line. He wasn't an atheist he was basically an ex-Catholic Christian who had no time for the church itslef.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't assume on a work you have little knowledge of. I do not assume I understand science to the degree that TE's or AE's, but I know scripture, because it is the foundation.

Foundation of what? of theology, or of physical science?

I would say that would lead me to be in a slightly more advantageous position for understanding his ways. It astounds me that you would prefer those that do not follow it's teachings to be on equal par in its exegesis as those that do.

It's all too common that those who do not follow its teachings understand them better than those who do.

In any case, when you hide behind the Bible in a science discussion, you place it in jeopardy.

Are you familiar with Augustine's writing on arguing science with non-believers?

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?"

Your claim of what God might have done shouldn't come from some mystical feeling about which there is no basis for comparison. Instead it should come from careful consideration of the text left gleen of his ways. If God wants anything it is for us to know him. We wont find him in the fossil record. I argue it will be in the law, the prophets, and in Jesus teachings, and the word wich he gave us.
-JMHO

So we can learn nothing about God from studying His creation?
Your own sacred scriptures say otherwise...

[BIBLE]Romans 1:20[/BIBLE]

 

[nyjbarnes]

Hey, Reality proves everything.

I suppose you've never heard the old adage, perception is reality.

 

[nyjbarnes]

And round and round we go. All you can do at this point is dodge as best you can, evading key questions that would pin you down.

This is fun actually.

Who's dodging who? Answer the question.

 

[nyjbarnes]

So it makes perfect sense for God to have put the world in motion to develop according to His Plan, and then let each step work out according to that Plan, by natural means. And we need not read the story literally to believe in its truth -- in fact, focusing on the six-day account obscures the more important truths that the story conveys -- because the point why it's in Scripture the important thing, not the detail. Story doesn't have to be factually accurate to contain important truths -- just look at Jesus's parables to see that proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

From the link that you posted earlier.

This is a question I can't seem to get an answer to, while what you say above certainly flows, and there are no clear indications of scientific or sinful impedence, at what point do you determine literal from figurative?

And then that said, is a literal interpretation wrong and a figurative correct? Apply this same principle accross the entirety of the Bible. Now what do you have? Somewhat of a paradox because who provides sovreign discernment?

Moreoever, as w81minit pointed out, if the Genesis account isn't literal or cannot be relied on as such, then is the noahican flood wrong? What about Sampson and Delilah? Do we only allow God to be right when science can back it up? This is poor theology IMHO, because anything less than faith is sin.

I do not apply science to God. In my limited, weak and unimaginitive capacity I try to understand what there is to understand, but where science contradicts the Bible, I allow the Bible to trump because I base my faith on a holy, rightous, O, O , O God who has provided to me scriptures by which I can verify all I need to about him and my anticipated arrival in heaven.

Another note.

In this same post you made mention about there being no proof that the soul actually survives death....I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. We you parroting what other people say? Or is that your view?

Please don't read contempt, I am just curious. BTW, I thought your post was well thought out and an enjoyable read.

 

[Philosoft]

nyjb,

Can you explain what you mean by "literal" given the fact that, presumably:

1) You don't believe insects have four legs.
2) You don't believe rabbits chew cud.
3) You don't believe the earth has corners.

These are all instances whereby science directly contradicts Scripture. Based on your testimony, it would be inconsistent of you to accept the word of science on these matters.

 

[Lonnie]

"If you suggest that God created the world in six days in 4004 BC, and made it replete with evidences of being far, far older, you have made Him into one of those trickster gods"

The people that think the world is far older are evolutonists.
Just because it you guys could have been mistaken, does not mean God is a liar.

 

[Freodin]

"If you suggest that God created the world in six days in 4004 BC, and made it replete with evidences of being far, far older, you have made Him into one of those trickster gods"

The people that think the world is far older are evolutonists.
Just because it you guys could have been mistaken, does not mean God is a liar.

Mistaken about what?

Do you agree that the universe looks older than 6000 years?
Then there has to be an explanation for why it looks older than it is.

Or you disagree that the universe looks older - then you have to explain all the instances (and I mean ALL) that lead people - people who weren´t eveolutionsis - to think it was.


All that comes down to a single point: creationists CANNOT be mistaken. They might talk about a God how "send deluding spirits", but it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that they might be the one who are deluded.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

"If you suggest that God created the world in six days in 4004 BC, and made it replete with evidences of being far, far older, you have made Him into one of those trickster gods"

The people that think the world is far older are evolutonists.
Just because it you guys could have been mistaken, does not mean God is a liar.

Why do you keep missing the point?

Here's what you said:

Anyone else noticed that so far(still going through the thread) evolutonists can't scientifically prove that God did not create the world with fossils, stars that are vissible to earth, ect about 6,000 years ago?
[...]
As I said, YOU guys made God the liar.

The evidence indicates that the earth is much older than 6 ky.

Your implication in the above quote is what makes God is a liar. YOU are the one that is making that implication because a false history would be presented:

Fossils of animals that never actually existed
Burrows and tracks of organisms that never actually crawled/burrowed there
Radiogenic daughters whose radioactive parents never actually existed
Seasonal layers of alternating algae and carbonates of seasons that never actually existed
Sedimentary rocks whose parent rocks never existed
Dissolved materials in the ocean whose source never existed

The list goes on and on.

A fallacy with the appearance of age argument was brought up by people like notto and Brahe and was never really addressed. An earth can exist with the appearance of age WITHOUT also containing a significantly false history recorded therein. So why the false record?

YECists have two options: either the earth is young and the evidence indicates this (which means that they have to present the evidence and deal with the falsifying evidence) or the earth is young but contains evidence that it is old (which means that they can ignore evidence, but in turn make their deity into a deceiver). So which is it?

Or perhaps the earth isn't actually young at all, which is exactly what all the evidence indicates, and that gets rid of both problems...hmm...a young earth does not seem to be the only answer, but that is the limit you insist on imposing upon yourself.

 

[Lonnie]

"The evidence indicates that the earth is much older than 6 ky.

Your implication in the above quote is what makes God is a liar."

I wont name who said that if God did make the World 6,000(or so) years old, that it would make God the liar. So I dont think it would make God a Liar, but you guys sure seem to think so.

"So why the false record?"
You guys(evolutionists) are the ones that say its a false record. Not creationists, so the whole "God is a liar thing" is rather, annoying to me(and other people too), as it does not effect me(and many others too), cause they where not "decieved"/Tricked/think things look older than they really are.

But I agree with what some other people said about this thread, its not very intresting any more. And I am tired of it. I am not learning to many new things from it lately(last 20+ posts). Ill go find some more intresting threads/topics.

Later

 

[nyjbarnes]

nyjb,

Can you explain what you mean by "literal" given the fact that, presumably:

Quote chapter and verse, include context. I will refute...

 

[mhess13]

the earth doesn't look old. it looks like it was wiped out by a catastophic flood about 4400 years ago. God hates sin and judges it. The "old"features we see today should remind us of a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. It should make us aware of the judgment that is yet to come upon sinful humanity, and point us to the answer for our sin problem-CHRIST

 

[Arikay]

So, have the creationists here dropped the idea that creationism is science?

 

[Arikay]

Questions to creationists:
Do you believe God created Adam and Eve with belly buttons?
Do you believe God would create adam with false memories and a scar from a bar fight he never had? Why, why not?
Does Adam have any toys from his childhood?



Mhess: Start a new thread and show us how the earth looks like it was flooded 4000 years ago (please remember the PRATTs).

 

[Polycarp1]

From the link that you posted earlier.

This is a question I can't seem to get an answer to, while what you say above certainly flows, and there are no clear indications of scientific or sinful impedence, at what point do you determine literal from figurative?

And then that said, is a literal interpretation wrong and a figurative correct? Apply this same principle accross the entirety of the Bible. Now what do you have? Somewhat of a paradox because who provides sovreign discernment?

Hmmm. Lots of stuff to take into account here. If you were to paraphrase what I said above, and report it using words other than mine, but get every detail of what I meant accurate, could you be accused of misrepresenting me? I think not. If I construct an analogy that helps you make sense of something confusing, and you use my analogy to explain the concept to somebody else, but change the details so that, e.g., it's a British warship rather than a Roman trireme, and the King of Tonga rather than the head of a Celtic tribe, but keep the point that the analogy makes accurate, you're certainly accurately reporting what I said -- the details don't matter; it's the point that counts.

That's how I see inspiration. It's not God dictating words or even facts to Moses, Paul, Isaiah, & Co.; it's him implanting the idea that they should write down in their own words the message that he's "written on their hearts" -- which may not be in words, but in a sense of assurance of His love and redemption, contrition for sins, His will that all men treat others as their brothers, etc.

"Myth" in the anthropological sense is a story that conveys an underlying truth in memorable conceptual format, explaining the "why" of the world better than dry-as-dust factual exposition ever could. Jesus as portrayed in John's Gospel is adept at this sort of mythological metaphor. "I am the bread of life" -- "I am the vine; you are the branches" -- "I am the gate of the sheep." None of these are literally true (except insofar as He is really present in the communion bread) but all of them are truer in a much deeper sense than Paul Tillich or Martin Buber's paraphrase about "the salvific eschatological nourishment of the Christus figure" could ever be. They speak past our analytical senses to our heart.

And that's the point to Genesis 1 -- it's myth -- not in some pejorative sense that makes it false, but in the sense that it's taking simple concepts like speaking words, night and day, and goodness, and investing them with new and rich meaning.




Now, how can I tell whether something is literally true or figurative language? Well, Scripture itself will give me a handle. An apparent contradiction (40 days or 150 days for the rains of the Flood story?) indicates that the number is not literal but symbolic. The secular world can give some indication -- if the Chronicler or Isaiah makes some offhand reference to Tarshish, I need not take him as literally conveying to me some facts about pre-Roman Spain, but rather as though you or Nathan Poe, casting about for a distant place to explain a point, used "Timbucktu" as your referent -- you're not interested in conveying to me the cultural details of northwestern Mali, but in saying that somewhere far away they don't use the same concepts as in North Carolina.

But most especially, I look at the language used, the meaning it had, the cultural context in which it's written, and all that sort of thing. Nobody setting out to write a history of World War II makes a point of grouping everything that happened into six year-long units, as if there were no continuing action across year boundaries and as if everything that happened in one such year was of a piece with the rest of itself. It gets into a lot of nitty-gritty details and explains Stalin's reactions to Operation Torch, and all that sort of thing. But I once saw an essay, done mostly as a tour de force to show it could be done, where the history of World War II was written up as a myth -- and every word was factual, but it was all conveyed in mythic style.

Genesis 1 has the style of someone telling a story and intent on getting some basic points -- the ones I mentioned in that post -- across to his listeners/readers. The formulaic usage is not how the events of David's court in II Samuel or Luke's account in Acts are reported; it's much more like the summaries of kings' reigns in I and II Kings, where point is not what Ahaz or Jehoash did, but quite simply how long they reigned and whether they did the Lord's will while they were reigning.

Some people think that the details of Matthew's account where he conveys a detail of Jesus's life and then the OT prophecy relating to it are cherry-picked simply to prove Jesus as Messiah, and may not be factually accurate but rather a "slanted" version of the literal action done with the point of showing Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy. (I reserve judgment on this, but report it simply to show a more extreme example of this sort of critiquing.)

I rely on the living God, who created all things and redeemed and saved me and you, who works within us to sanctify and remodel us through his Holy Spirit. That's where I find my absolute. Scripture speaks of Him, and it's precious to me for that reason -- but I find my absolute in Him, not in it. I don't need the certitude of His verbal inspiration of Jeremiah 22:34 (which I picked at random) to assure me of the truths that He vouchsafed to us and caused to be presented in the words of Scripture.

Moreoever, as w81minit pointed out, if the Genesis account isn't literal or cannot be relied on as such, then is the noahican flood wrong? What about Sampson and Delilah? Do we only allow God to be right when science can back it up? This is poor theology IMHO, because anything less than faith is sin.

Hey, we're not talking about whether "God is right only when..." but whether the Bible is a verbatim record of His words and deeds. Do you think that one needs to have faith in the Pope, or in the Archbishop of Canterbury? Probably not -- your faith is in God, and you trust them only insofar as they are His servants, trying to do His will and teach His word. Extend that to the Bible -- it's a lot of important things, but one thing it is not is God Himself. And failure to trust somebody's opinion about a given passage in the Bible is not lack of faith in the God who inspired it.

In this same post you made mention about there being no proof that the soul actually survives death....I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. We you parroting what other people say? Or is that your view?

The Jewish people did not place great store in the afterlife, by and large, because they did not conceive it as "going to Heaven" but as merely survival after bodily death, bereft of the abilities our bodies give us. Look at the expectations in Psalms and Ecclesiastes, and they're not talking about a better Place after death, but of God's salvation in terms of saving them here on Earth -- if they mention the afterlife, it's in terms of going down to the Pit, where they will be powerless to glorify God or do much of anything else. This same view was held by the Greeks -- "we may more or less survive death as something -- but it won't be anything to look forward to." So do the right thing, the will of God, here and now while you can.

Now, look at a secular view, and presume that the term "soul" has a meaning of some sort within that view. In that case, the soul is what envivifies the body, makes it live, moves it to act -- the "operating system" of the body's "CPU," to continue my computer metaphor from that post. But the OS cannot continue existence without a CPU on which to run, and if the motherboard is fatally burned out, the OS of that machine is defunct.

The idea is that the natural condition is one in which soul either perishes with the body or survives as a disembodied spirit that is powerless and if anything can be said of it is filled with regret, for all practical purposes scarcely better than perishing utterly with the body. It is God's grace that we are promised new and everlasting life in Christ -- not something inherent in being human.

So I'm not preaching falsehood here -- we who have been saved and made members of Christ's mystical Body, have a rich and full afterlife to look forward to -- but as His gift of grace, not because we're going to live forever anyway, and can earn God's favor and hang out in His place. See the difference?

 

[Freodin]

YECists have two options: either the earth is young and the evidence indicates this (which means that they have to present the evidence and deal with the falsifying evidence) or the earth is young but contains evidence that it is old (which means that they can ignore evidence, but in turn make their deity into a deceiver). So which is it?

Or perhaps the earth isn't actually young at all, which is exactly what all the evidence indicates, and that gets rid of both problems...hmm...a young earth does not seem to be the only answer, but that is the limit you insist on imposing upon yourself.

Most YECs seem to chose option 1B: the earth is young, the evidence indicates this, but I don´t have to explain because you are deluded.

Handwaving is always the easiest argument.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"The evidence indicates that the earth is much older than 6 ky.

Geology and astronomy back that up.

Your implication in the above quote is what makes God is a liar."

I wont name who said that if God did make the World 6,000(or so) years old, that it would make God the liar. So I dont think it would make God a Liar, but you guys sure seem to think so.

If the universe is 6,000 years old.God made us see things that aren't there, and gives us a history of things which never happened.

How does that not make God a liar?

"So why the false record?"

You guys(evolutionists) are the ones that say its a false record. Not creationists, so the whole "God is a liar thing" is rather, annoying to me(and other people too), as it does not effect me(and many others too), cause they where not "decieved"/Tricked/think things look older than they really are.

So that star in the sky really isn't 10 million light-years away? The light really isn't getting to us just now?

This is simple math now...

But I agree with what some other people said about this thread, its not very intresting any more. And I am tired of it. I am not learning to many new things from it lately(last 20+ posts). Ill go find some more intresting threads/topics.

Later

Farewell...

 

[Nathan Poe]

So, have the creationists here dropped the idea that creationism is science?

Did they ever try to claim it in the first place? I've seen little but PRATT-list potshots at the age of the universe... and the mandatory references to Hitler.