- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,278
- 52,672
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Dartmouth is probably where he learned it.You need to head back to Dartmouth harbour before you sink and take down good pilgrims with you...
Second century churchman who were afraid that the traditional creation ex materia of the Jews and early Christians would lead to Gnostic dualism. and who wanted in an case to bring Christian theology more into line with Greek philosophy where the idea originated.I try to go with scripture over time honored traditions.
I was looking for creation Ex Nihilo but couldn't find it.
So now I wonder who made it up?
True, just collide with things insteadDartmouth is the Royal Naval Academy. If I had learned anything at all there I would be unlikely to sink.
No wonder you said this then:Dartmouth is the Royal Naval Academy.
I worked up a calculation once upon a time based on cedar (since we don't really know what "gopher wood" was) and the idea that the Ark was really a raft with superstructure. That is, the part of the Ark below the waterline was solid wood. It wouldn't leak, and it would withstand considerable more flexing than a conventional hull.
Creationists didn't like the idea, even though it solved a number of the engineering problems which skeptics come up with.
i'm sorry I don't know how to make myself clearYou have to look at each from it's own values and perspective.
Under evolution, we start low and mortal, and ascend - needing a teacher not a punishment.
But the doctrine of the fall says we started high and immortal, and fell, bringing death into being and needing a redemptive sacrifice to pay the price of the failing.
The two are polar opposites.
We wound up "high" after eons of God-guided evolution, then we fell by the first, initial act of disobedience in the God-directed history of this star system.
we suddenly rejected God's Authority -- due to the "snake" (Hebrew nachash) -- and have been falling ever since, save through the Cross back up towards salvation.
the deceptive interventions & influences into terrestrial affairs of "the Dragon" and co. (apparently a race of serpentine beings vaguely reminiscent of say Ridley Scott's Aliens).
TE has no problem with that, but that line of ascension to pure rather than made pure and fell denies the need for a substitutionary atonement sacrifice (because the fall becomes a fault needing correction rather than a crime needing punishment).
Think of it as some IF/THEN statements....
If TE then "teach not punish"
If "punish not teach" then not TE
I am aware of the hebrew word for serpent, but I'm not sure of its relevance here....
*blink*
Well THAT came out of left fieldand (although an interesting idea) is a little beyond the scope of this thread.
But it is one of the five "Fundamentals" so creationists are stuck with it.Penal substitution is a Protestant doctrine that is a VERY late comer in the world of Soteriology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_in_Christianity#Penal_substitution_and_faith
You have to look at each from it's own values and perspective.
Under evolution, we start low and mortal, and ascend - needing a teacher not a punishment.
But the doctrine of the fall says we started high and immortal, and fell, bringing death into being and needing a redemptive sacrifice to pay the price of the failing.
The two are polar opposites.
Ok your not interested in the best historical narratives from antiquity, that's your prerogative
What evidence?You see unlike most atheists I actually took the time to explore the evidence before getting embroiled in my pet dogmas.
Why would you hold to any evolutionary view, theistic or not?
Is that what the Germans and Russian Communists did ?
Dont need evolution for that.
Relativity theory?For the same reason as one would hold to theories like relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics,....
You know. Because science.
I know, you'll continue to ignore that natural changes by mating are two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutations. Nothing will change. You will continue to believe that your mutations are the cause of everything.....You can call it by a different name, if that makes you sleep better.
Won't change anything though.
Why were they racists? Because evolution led them to believe they were the biologically superior race????No.
Germans were racists who made macabre use of over 2000 years of prosecution of jews by catholics. Due to that history, they didn't have a lot of problems rallying their people against that "common enemy" through propaganda.
As for the Russians, they pretty much installed a state religion where the state and the dictator were to be worshipped as if they were practically gods.
In any case, none of what they did had anything to do with an explanatory scientific theory of biology.
That is almost certainly correct. Evolution of humans occurred within tribal groupings that consisted of only a hundred or so individuals. This setting encouraged suspicion of anyone outwith the familiar group, with moderate acceptance of groups one came into occassional contact with, but hostility towards any alien group. This is the basis of racism.Why were they racists? Because evolution led them to believe they were the biologically superior race????
Relativity theory?
You mean the theory that is applicable to .1% of the universe?????
Let's look at that. We know it is 99.9% accurate in describing planetary systems (non-ionized matter). But the second one tries to apply it beyond the solar system to ionized matter (plasma) you suddenly have to add 96% ad-hoc theory to what was just tested to a 99.9% accuracy without it.
So I agree with you. All those theories are perfectly valid in .1% of the universe, and fail miserably in 99.9% of the rest. In fact, the other three are valid at most in .0000001% of the universe.....
So evolutionary theory may explain .1% of life......
I know, you'll continue to ignore that natural changes by mating are two to three orders of magnitude greater than that produced by mutations. Nothing will change. You will continue to believe that your mutations are the cause of everything.....
That's how fanaticism works.....
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?