Why do some Christian's dismiss Creationism?

[ThaiDuykhang]

AS a Catholic you should know that papal infallibility only applies to statements made ex cathedra. Please tell us in which papal document, proclaimed ex cathedra, the Catholic church named December 25 as the birth date of Christ.

That the Catholic church chose to celebrate the nativity on December 25 does not mean the date has papal infallibility behind it.

You're wrong. only 2 times papal infallibility are explicitly called, both relating to Virgin Mary. but other papal teachings are considered infallible as long as the pope is considered valid and the teaching hasn't been condemned as heresy by popes that follow.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

*edit* duplicate post sorry

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Shabby argument. Let's go over 2 Timothy 3:16 again - and throw v.17 into the mix for kicks.

...

See? That wasn't so insurmountable an argument after all.

All you work goes in vain as they all except the one below explicitly takes the form of a parable or speaker admits it's a parable in time.

this paragraph caught my special attention:

2. A myth can be useful for teaching.

Anybody who's told their children fairy tales before tucking them into bed knows this.

First "Anybody" isn't God. only Satanists believe "Anybody" is god. Second most parents told their kids it's a fairy in advance or after the story. if a parent told his kid that it's historic fact, he's lying and sinning

Find a phrase in Genesis indicating it's a parable. You can't as it's simply written using the same way as decribing other historic facts

 

[shernren]

You have obviously missed the point of my post. The whole post was in response to lismore who said that since 2 Timothy 3:16 says this about Scripture, and this can't be true about Genesis 1 if Genesis 1 is a myth, therefore Genesis 1 is not a myth. I have proved otherwise by showing that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not preclude Genesis 1 being a myth. Genesis 1 may preclude Genesis 1 being a myth, but that's a story for another day.

Or is it?

Find a phrase in Genesis indicating it's a parable. You can't as it's simply written using the same way as decribing other historic facts

1. Genesis is written using an ancient scientific framework.

The ancient scientific framework in question is that there is earth, and there is a large hard dome above it called the "firmament", in which the stars shine at night, and which is coloured blue by day by "the waters above the horizons".

The fact that ancient science is used is comparable to fairy tales where, say, animals talk.

2. Genesis is written as a poetic parallel account.

This is seen in the tohu (formless)-bohu (empty) parallelism of Days 1-3 and Days 4-6. On Days 1-3 God gives form to certain elements of the universe and on Days 4-6 God fills the form He has created.

Day 1 - Day and Night Day 4 - Sun over the day and Moon over the night
Day 2 - Sky and Sea Day 5 - Birds to fill the Sky and Fish to fill the Sea
Day 3 - Earth Day 6 - Animals and Man to fill the Earth.

3. The Seventh "Day" is 6000 years long!

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
(Genesis 2:2-3 NIV)

When has God stopped resting from all the work of creating and started creating again? Why, He hasn't! So much for claiming that "yom + number = 24 hour day" ... the "7th day" is at least 6,000 years long!

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You have obviously missed the point of my post. The whole post was in response to lismore who said that since 2 Timothy 3:16 says this about Scripture, and this can't be true about Genesis 1 if Genesis 1 is a myth, therefore Genesis 1 is not a myth. I have proved otherwise by showing that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not preclude Genesis 1 being a myth. Genesis 1 may preclude Genesis 1 being a myth, but that's a story for another day.

Or is it?

I'm showing you God never lie to teach something.

1. Genesis is written using an ancient scientific framework.

The ancient scientific framework in question is that there is earth, and there is a large hard dome above it called the "firmament", in which the stars shine at night, and which is coloured blue by day by "the waters above the horizons".

The fact that ancient science is used is comparable to fairy tales where, say, animals talk.

Wrong! the first firmament mean sky which birds fly. the second firmament is the out space. and there're water above horizon before the flood which make enviroment much better so human can live 912 years on average.
You can believe Jesus can heal by laying hand, why can't you believe animals possessed by Satan can talk?

2. Genesis is written as a poetic parallel account.

This is seen in the tohu (formless)-bohu (empty) parallelism of Days 1-3 and Days 4-6. On Days 1-3 God gives form to certain elements of the universe and on Days 4-6 God fills the form He has created.

Day 1 - Day and Night Day 4 - Sun over the day and Moon over the night
Day 2 - Sky and Sea Day 5 - Birds to fill the Sky and Fish to fill the Sea
Day 3 - Earth Day 6 - Animals and Man to fill the Earth.

That's the way he created everything. that's the way He told Bible writers to record it. I don't know why something written beautifully can't be true. do things have to be full of blasphemies to be true? think about it.

3. The Seventh "Day" is 6000 years long!

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
(Genesis 2:2-3 NIV)

When has God stopped resting from all the work of creating and started creating again? Why, He hasn't! So much for claiming that "yom + number = 24 hour day" ... the "7th day" is at least 6,000 years long!

Then Jews could work 6 days and rest for the rest of their lives! you observed any macroevolution? no scientist agrees with you. so God created everything in the first 6 days.

 

[lismore]

Jesus healed the sick by laying his hands on them...]
[/quote]

Do you believe what the gospels say about Jesus are accurate?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

TLK's comments automatically proved point #8 in post #1

 

[lismore]

I'm showing you God never lie to teach something.

Hi there

I agree.

 

[ebia]

I'm showing you God never lie to teach something.

I agree.

No one has suggested he did. Until you realise that, you aren't "getting" the T.E. position at all.

If you put an implication on something God said that he never intented, and that implication if false, that does not make God's statement a lie.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No one has suggested he did. Until you realise that, you aren't "getting" the T.E. position at all.

If you put an implication on something God said that he never intented, and that implication if false, that does not make God's statement a lie.

Is it you that I ask what his understanding of "false witness" is?

 

[Numenor]

I'm showing you God never lie to teach something.

Very true. Of course non-literal literature is not analogous to a lie. And this is why YEC is false, God's work of Creation shows it to be so.

 

[The Lady Kate]

][/SIZE]Do you believe what the gospels say about Jesus are accurate?

Yes. And don't even think of trying the old "Jesus was a YEC because he spoke about Genesis" routine... try to be original.

 

[lismore]

Yes. And don't even think of trying the old "Jesus was a YEC because he spoke about Genesis" routine... try to be original.

Do you believe the OT prophets are accurate?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Do you believe the OT prophets are accurate?

I'm not big on prophecy... any prophet can be "accurate" if you're non-literal enough.

So to answer your question...don't know, don't care.

 

[lismore]

I'm not big on prophecy... any prophet can be "accurate" if you're non-literal enough.

So to answer your question...don't know, don't care.

Hi

I only asked because Im curious to see where the line is drawn.

Many OT prophets spoke about Jesus and his birth/life, some spoke about events that are happening now and some have spoken about events that are yet to come to pass.

Like when Zechariah speaks about the last battle. Do you take this as literal or allegorical? When isaiah said the virgin would be with child do you take this as literal or allegorical? When Isaiah spoke about Israel becoming a nation in israel again is this literal or alleorical?

Please note, Im not arguing or debating with you, just curious.

Ta

 

[The Lady Kate]

Hi

I only asked because Im curious to see where the line is drawn.

Many OT prophets spoke about Jesus and his birth/life, some spoke about events that are happening now and some have spoken about events that are yet to come to pass.

Well, most of the events that pertain to Jesus' birth/life/death are pretty specific...Those that involve present or future events aren't so clear. It seems to me that prophecy can be interpreted to predict any event which has already happened. Did you see my post in another thread about prophecies involving Napoleon?

Like when Zechariah speaks about the last battle. Do you take this as literal or allegorical? When isaiah said the virgin would be with child do you take this as literal or allegorical? When Isaiah spoke about Israel becoming a nation in israel again is this literal or alleorical?

Please note, Im not arguing or debating with you, just curious.

Ta

The problems with prophecies that pertain to current events (current being those after the Bible and Christianity rose to prominence) is that they can become self-fulfilling. People engage in certain actions because such-and-such passage in the Bible says it will happen... and so it succeeds.

Also, as I said, many prophecies are notoriously vague... and aren't usually recognized as "prophecy" until after an event has come to pass which could be said to fit it.

In any case, it's not something I spend too much time worrying about... the fulfillment of OT prophecy was one of the many events which confirmed that Jesus was the Messiah... and I can believe that with or without prophecy.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I'm showing you God never lie to teach something.

Who said that he did?

Wrong! the first firmament mean sky which birds fly. the second firmament is the out space.

And you know this how?

and there're water above horizon before the flood which make enviroment much better so human can live 912 years on average.

Aside: you mean "above the atmosphere" not "above horizon"

A vapor canopy capable of producing 40 days of heavy downpour would:

• nearly completely block out the sun
• produce nitrogen narcosis
• dump a huge amount of potential energy during the rainfall arguably causing the rain to be scalding hot if not boiling by the time it reached the earth.

That's the way he created everything. that's the way He told Bible writers to record it.

You asked for an internal indication that this was not literal and he gave you one. (I would suggest the 900 year long lifespans may be another indication.)

I don't know why something written beautifully can't be true. do things have to be full of blasphemies to be true? think about it.

Were you under the impression anybody disagreed?

 

[gluadys]

You're wrong. only 2 times papal infallibility are explicitly called, both relating to Virgin Mary. but other papal teachings are considered infallible as long as the pope is considered valid and the teaching hasn't been condemned as heresy by popes that follow.

I think that only applies to dogma.

Is the date of Christmas dogma or just the date on which the Church chose to celebrate the nativity?

The actual date of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is not known either, so the Church set up rules for determining when Easter is to be celebrated. I don't think anyone claims the date of Easter coincides with the actual date of the resurrection.

The same applies to Christmas. Since there was no birth record, no birth registration or certificate to say what the date of Christ's birth was, it was the Church who set a date to celebrate his birth. No claim is made that the date is historically correct.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I think that only applies to dogma.

Is the date of Christmas dogma or just the date on which the Church chose to celebrate the nativity?

The actual date of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is not known either, so the Church set up rules for determining when Easter is to be celebrated. I don't think anyone claims the date of Easter coincides with the actual date of the resurrection.

The same applies to Christmas. Since there was no birth record, no birth registration or certificate to say what the date of Christ's birth was, it was the Church who set a date to celebrate his birth. No claim is made that the date is historically correct.

Wrong. Papal infallibility means a pope can't teach wrong. don't you think B16 is still teaching Christmas is Jesus' birthday? you can't find a date in the Bible however it's passed down orally from generation to generation until it's written down --- Dec 25. Because of Papal Infallibility, orthodox Catholics believe it is right.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Who said that he did?

you TEs. Suppose someone said "Jesus is an idiot" do you think he's lying? Well, perhaps not you TEs, since this sentence can be metapherically interpreted "Jesus is an idiot but He's smarter than all of us". you figure it out!

And you know this how?

By putting faith in God and read Bible literally.(can even a symbolic reading of Bible reduce the opposite conclusion? I doubt so )

Aside: you mean "above the atmosphere" not "above horizon"

A vapor canopy capable of producing 40 days of heavy downpour would:

• nearly completely block out the sun
• produce nitrogen narcosis
• dump a huge amount of potential energy during the rainfall arguably causing the rain to be scalding hot if not boiling by the time it reached the earth.

Water Vaper is colorless and meanly block X-ray UV and Gamma Rays. It doesn't block visible light very much.
You have seen rain every once in a while. are they scalding hot? think about it.
About nitrogen narcosis, I'm asking you to show any connection with the water layer. and keep in mind, airbubbles find in ambers supposedly million of years old contains 35% oxygen. and much higher air pressure.

You asked for an internal indication that this was not literal and he gave you one. (I would suggest the 900 year long lifespans may be another indication.)
Were you under the impression anybody disagreed?

900 years is literal, climate was better then. and fossil evidence show someone can live for 200 years thousands of years ago(your millions of years) There's little doubt with better climate in the beginning human can live even longer.