| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2006 04:58:43 AM |
| Object: |
Another Go Figure |
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their
present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were venomous
creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores all created
in the beginning and having to make do with just eating plants as God
told them to in Genesis 1:30.
So can anyone resolve this dichotomy for me?
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 06:41:15 AM |
|
|
"On 13 Oct 2006 02:58:43 -0700, in article
<1160733523.149084.296920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 stated..."
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their
present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were venomous
creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores all created
in the beginning and having to make do with just eating plants as God
told them to in Genesis 1:30.
So can anyone resolve this dichotomy for me?
(I preface this with an announcement that I don't accept any of these.)
*They were created with those capabilities in a latent form. God knew
that there would be a Fall, so designed creatures with those features,
even though they didn't use them until later.
*These features "de-volved" later. They represent a decrease in
"information". Or "micro"evolution.
*They are the work of Satan, who is, after all, also "intelligent" and
powerful.
By the way, one need not be a young earth creationist to have a
problem with this. After all, "intelligent design" tells us that features
like the bacterial flagellum is designed for its purpose of making
bacteria more virulent; while the immune system is designed for
its purpose of defense against bacteria.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:05:28 AM |
|
|
TomS wrote:
"On 13 Oct 2006 02:58:43 -0700, in article
<1160733523.149084.296920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 stated..."
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their
present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were venomous
creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores all created
in the beginning and having to make do with just eating plants as God
told them to in Genesis 1:30.
So can anyone resolve this dichotomy for me?
(I preface this with an announcement that I don't accept any of these.)
*They were created with those capabilities in a latent form. God knew
that there would be a Fall, so designed creatures with those features,
even though they didn't use them until later.
I couldn't find a biblical reference for this. Could you show me what
passages suggest this?
(Or, and it's okay, if you just made it up to account for the apparent
contradiction, you can just say that too.) Either way, I'm interested to
know what supports this idea. Thank you.
*These features "de-volved" later. They represent a decrease in
"information". Or "micro"evolution.
Are you saying they "reverted" to a previous state?
*They are the work of Satan, who is, after all, also "intelligent" and
powerful.
So, you're saying that Satan out-created the Creator? (Once again, if
you simply made it up, it's okay. But if you have a supporting biblical
reason for this answer about Satan, please point out the passages. I'd
be most grateful. Thank you.
By the way, one need not be a young earth creationist to have a
problem with this. After all, "intelligent design" tells us that features
like the bacterial flagellum is designed for its purpose of making
bacteria more virulent; while the immune system is designed for
its purpose of defense against bacteria.
So, death from bacteria was a design success? (Where the bacterial wins
and the body fails, what would be the design 'intent'?)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 08:25:41 AM |
|
|
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their
present form.
I certainly haven't always existed in my present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were venomous
creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores all created
in the beginning and having to make do with just eating plants as God
told them to in Genesis 1:30.
In all the years I've been reading this group, I don't think I've ever
seen a creationist even try to answer this one. And it's been brought up
many times.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 09:14:45 PM |
|
|
Cheezits wrote:
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of
evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always
existed in their present form.
I certainly haven't always existed in my present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were
venomous creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores
all created in the beginning and having to make do with just eating
plants as God told them to in Genesis 1:30.
In all the years I've been reading this group, I don't think I've ever
seen a creationist even try to answer this one. And it's been
brought up many times.
The lion who wouldn't eat meat is brought up now and then to show that lions
can be vegetarians.
It takes a bit of digging to find that it lives or lived on *cooked* grains
and eggs...
Without evolution to worry about I suspect we could just put a few thousands
spiders in cages with plants, wait a while and see how many start eating
grapes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 09:18:47 AM |
|
|
Cheezits wrote:
"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical
Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their
present form.
I certainly haven't always existed in my present form.
This creates a problem in as much as it means that there were venomous
creatures, camougflaged creatures, parasites and carnivores all created
in the beginning and having to make do with just eating plants as God
told them to in Genesis 1:30.
In all the years I've been reading this group, I don't think I've ever
seen a creationist even try to answer this one. And it's been brought up
many times.
Sue
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to the creationists?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 09:37:42 AM |
|
|
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to
the creationists?
No brainer. It is impossible to reason to scientific conclusions from biblical
accounts. There's simply too much missing information, and we need lots of
scientific research to fill in those gaps.
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate it's okay to
publish research that refutes biblical accounts, but it is impossible to conduct
research intended to support those accounts, because that's "not-science"
You expect me to engage in an intellectual exercise with you, where you have
access to evidence and I do not, and call me chicken or fool if I don't accept
your terms. You are a fool, or you think I am. Or both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimK" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 03:30:48 PM |
|
|
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:ego8bm01tnh@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate it's
okay to
publish research that refutes biblical accounts, but it is impossible to
conduct
research intended to support those accounts, because that's "not-science"
And in a scientific debate, stuff that is not science, by definition, gets
eliminated.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 01:18:19 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to
the creationists?
No brainer. It is impossible to reason to scientific conclusions from biblical
accounts.
Right there...should be the end of the conversation. Both sides conclude
this and agree with it!
No facts of scientific knowledge can come reliably from the bible.
Why, then, do you insist on judging the validity of science from the
bible...instead of the other way around?
Actually, we already know the answer to that question. If the bible is
wrong, the foundations of your beliefs are wrong. And if your beliefs
are wrong, no more heaven, no more immortality.
There's simply too much missing information, and we need lots of
scientific research to fill in those gaps.
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate it's okay to
publish research that refutes biblical accounts, but it is impossible to conduct
research intended to support those accounts, because that's "not-science"
You expect me to engage in an intellectual exercise with you, where you have
access to evidence and I do not, and call me chicken or fool if I don't accept
your terms. You are a fool, or you think I am. Or both.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:40:09 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to
the creationists?
No brainer. It is impossible to reason to scientific conclusions from biblical
accounts. There's simply too much missing information, and we need lots of
scientific research to fill in those gaps.
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate
Do you *really* think that G.W.B's administration and the political climate created by it is *contrary* to
religionist extremism? Do you *really* want religious bonfires with dissident grease sizzling?
<snip>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:27:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:40:09 +0300, SeppoP
<seppo_pietikainen@xyahoox.com> wrote:
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to
the creationists?
No brainer. It is impossible to reason to scientific conclusions from biblical
accounts. There's simply too much missing information, and we need lots of
scientific research to fill in those gaps.
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate
Do you *really* think that G.W.B's administration and the political climate created by it is *contrary* to
religionist extremism? Do you *really* want religious bonfires with dissident grease sizzling?
<snip>
Mmmm... grease sizzling.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 09:52:57 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9li7Fhv3pqU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
I've notice the same thing. Wonder why the question seems to be so difficult to
the creationists?
No brainer. It is impossible to reason to scientific conclusions from biblical
accounts. There's simply too much missing information, and we need lots of
scientific research to fill in those gaps.
Which isn't going to happen, because in today's political climate it's okay to
publish research that refutes biblical accounts, but it is impossible to conduct
research intended to support those accounts, because that's "not-science"
As a matter of idle curiosity, which scientists are carrying out
research in order to refute Biblical accounts of anything? I'm not
aware of any such research, and to the best of my knowledge none has
been carried out for well over a century.
RF
You expect me to engage in an intellectual exercise with you, where you have
access to evidence and I do not, and call me chicken or fool if I don't accept
your terms. You are a fool, or you think I am. Or both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:21:46 AM |
|
|
In article <1160751177.223959.210150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard
Forrest says...
[snip]
As a matter of idle curiosity, which scientists are carrying out
research in order to refute Biblical accounts of anything? I'm not
aware of any such research, and to the best of my knowledge none has
been carried out for well over a century.
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from which
it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be true. All
scientific research into the geologic record of the earth, from which it is
argued by some that the global flood of Genesis never happened, and from which
it is argued by some that the timeframes of the geologic records refute the
timeframes of Genesis. All scientific research that claims that life began as
simple organisms and evolved into more complex ones, from which it is claimed by
some that the account of Genesis, which argues that man has always existed in
approximately his present form, cannot be true. Pretty much the entire subject
of origins, come to that ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:27:16 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <1160751177.223959.210150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard
Forrest says...
[snip]
As a matter of idle curiosity, which scientists are carrying out
research in order to refute Biblical accounts of anything? I'm not
aware of any such research, and to the best of my knowledge none has
been carried out for well over a century.
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from which
it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be true.
Research showed quite clearly and categorically that the earth is far
older than the Genesis account implies two centuries ago.
All
scientific research into the geologic record of the earth, from which it is
argued by some that the global flood of Genesis never happened, and from which
it is argued by some that the timeframes of the geologic records refute the
timeframes of Genesis.
The timeframes of Genesis have not been an issue in science for over
two centuries. The earth is clearly far more ancient.
All scientific research that claims that life began as
simple organisms and evolved into more complex ones, from which it is claimed by
some that the account of Genesis, which argues that man has always existed in
approximately his present form, cannot be true.
Again, this has not been an issue in science for well over a century.
Pretty much the entire subject
of origins, come to that ..
There is no research which sets out the refute any Biblical account of
anything. A literal interpretation of those accounts was clearly and
categorically proven wrong two centuries ago. They are of no relevance
whatsoever to modern science.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:01:21 AM |
|
|
In article <1160753236.540980.28020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
richard@plesiosaur.com says...
Research showed quite clearly and categorically that the earth is far
older than the Genesis account implies two centuries ago.
Your post here answers the earlier one questioning what research is being
conducted that disputes biblical accounts of creation. And, the research
clearly and categorically shows no such thing .. For one thing, the timeline of
the Genesis account cannot be established with certainty, Bishop Ussher
notwithstanding, which means no valid comparison is possible.
The timeframes of Genesis have not been an issue in science for over
two centuries. The earth is clearly far more ancient.
And, you accuse me of believing fables.
There is no research which sets out the refute any Biblical account of
anything. A literal interpretation of those accounts was clearly and
categorically proven wrong two centuries ago. They are of no relevance
whatsoever to modern science.
Your second sentence contradicts your first. And, your third is irrelevant. I
seek to establish that research into the accounts of Genesis is a valid
scientific endeavor, which fact notwithstanding, there exists a political
environment which precludes that research.
Creationism is labeled "non-science", contrary to scientific method, irrelevant
as you say above, to modern scientific theory. Until the methodologies of
scientific research can be brought to bear in support of biblical accounts, the
scientific evidence that does not support those accounts is a priori prejudicial
and irrelevant to any discussion of the literal truth of those accounts ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:41:22 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <1160753236.540980.28020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
richard@plesiosaur.com says...
Research showed quite clearly and categorically that the earth is far
older than the Genesis account implies two centuries ago.
Your post here answers the earlier one questioning what research is being
conducted that disputes biblical accounts of creation. And, the research
clearly and categorically shows no such thing .
I suggest that you read a history of the science of geology if you
think that.
. For one thing, the timeline of
the Genesis account cannot be established with certainty, Bishop Ussher
notwithstanding, which means no valid comparison is possible.
Well, a "time-line" which is so uncertain that we cannot tell if refers
to 6,000 years or 15 billion years is completely and utterly useless in
that case.
Bishop Ussher set out to establish from the Biblical account when
creation occured. He did so using the best scholarship available to him
at the time. Gould wrote an essay on this which is worth reading.
The timeframes of Genesis have not been an issue in science for over
two centuries. The earth is clearly far more ancient.
And, you accuse me of believing fables.
I haven't accused you of anything. I'm merely pointing out that the
earth is clearly very ancient. If you want to dispute the conclusion
drawn from many different strands of evidence that the earth is very
ancient, feel free to address that evidence and give a better
explanation.
There is no research which sets out the refute any Biblical account of
anything. A literal interpretation of those accounts was clearly and
categorically proven wrong two centuries ago. They are of no relevance
whatsoever to modern science.
Your second sentence contradicts your first.
In what way?
And, your third is irrelevant.
Why?
I
seek to establish that research into the accounts of Genesis is a valid
scientific endeavor, which fact notwithstanding, there exists a political
environment which precludes that research.
It's not a political environment. It's a scientific environment.
Science has no need to test theories which were utterly refuted
centuries ago. We no longer doubt the age of the earth any more than we
doubt that it isn't flat, or that disease is caused by malign spirits.
Creationism is labeled "non-science", contrary to scientific method, irrelevant
as you say above, to modern scientific theory.
That's because it isn't science. Ask me. I'm a scientist.
Until the methodologies of
scientific research can be brought to bear in support of biblical accounts, the
scientific evidence that does not support those accounts is a priori prejudicial
and irrelevant to any discussion of the literal truth of those accounts ..
The methodologies of science *were* brought to bear on those biblical
accounts, and the biblical accounts were falsified. Read about the
history of science.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:25:41 AM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2006 09:01:21 -0700, George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net>
wrote:
In article <1160753236.540980.28020@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
richard@plesiosaur.com says...
Research showed quite clearly and categorically that the earth is far
older than the Genesis account implies two centuries ago.
Your post here answers the earlier one questioning what research is being
conducted that disputes biblical accounts of creation. And, the research
clearly and categorically shows no such thing .. For one thing, the timeline of
the Genesis account cannot be established with certainty, Bishop Ussher
notwithstanding, which means no valid comparison is possible.
The timeframes of Genesis have not been an issue in science for over
two centuries. The earth is clearly far more ancient.
And, you accuse me of believing fables.
There is no research which sets out the refute any Biblical account of
anything. A literal interpretation of those accounts was clearly and
categorically proven wrong two centuries ago. They are of no relevance
whatsoever to modern science.
Your second sentence contradicts your first. And, your third is irrelevant. I
seek to establish that research into the accounts of Genesis is a valid
scientific endeavor, which fact notwithstanding, there exists a political
environment which precludes that research.
Nonsense. Scientific research has been done which could have
validated or invalidated the Bible's account of history - your problem
is that the results didn't support your preferred interpretation, so
you want to discredit the research.
If you don't trust the research that has been done, do some research
of your own. Claiming "the political environment" is "precluding"
"creation research" is just whimpering over your scientific impotence.
Come back when you can get it up, wuss.
CT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:31:20 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <1160751177.223959.210150@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard
Forrest says...
[snip]
As a matter of idle curiosity, which scientists are carrying out
research in order to refute Biblical accounts of anything? I'm not
aware of any such research, and to the best of my knowledge none has
been carried out for well over a century.
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from which
it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
All
scientific research into the geologic record of the earth, from which it is
argued by some that the global flood of Genesis never happened, and from which
it is argued by some that the timeframes of the geologic records refute the
timeframes of Genesis.
Yes, the Noachic flood has been totally discredited, so, your refutation would be?
All scientific research that claims that life began as
simple organisms and evolved into more complex ones, from which it is claimed by
some that the account of Genesis, which argues that man has always existed in
approximately his present form, cannot be true. Pretty much the entire subject
of origins, come to that ..
Ummm... I expected a point there somewhere... Perhaps another day...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Peatty" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:51:11 AM |
|
|
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 12:03:37 PM |
|
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote:
[chain of logical weak links deleted]
.. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
Okay, have it your way. I don't believe any of it.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:08:21 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true.
Tough. Looks like your beliefs are in a rut...
If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either
Tough, looks like you're in for some heavy duty rethinking...
.. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
Tough, ain't it?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
16 Oct 2006 04:01:18 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
George, I have a question for you, why does it have to be literally
true? After all, theology is about moral behaviour and spiritual
advancement. The Bible is full of allegory, metaphor and parables, and
if we use your reasoning that it all has to be literally true then -
for example - the parable of the sower is merely telling those that do
the job of sowing to be more careful how they do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
16 Oct 2006 06:50:28 AM |
|
|
"On 16 Oct 2006 02:01:18 -0700, in article
<1160989278.184968.233930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, SJAB1958 stated..."
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
George, I have a question for you, why does it have to be literally
true? After all, theology is about moral behaviour and spiritual
advancement. The Bible is full of allegory, metaphor and parables, and
if we use your reasoning that it all has to be literally true then -
for example - the parable of the sower is merely telling those that do
the job of sowing to be more careful how they do it.
Given that the Bible itself says that some of the Bible is allegorical, and
says that sometimes a literal reading misses the point, it would seem
that it is a precarious position to insist upon a literal reading.
AiG has a "Statement of Faith", and item C2 says that all of mankind is
sinful. If we accept this literally, then either Jesus was not one of mankind,
or Jesus was not sinless.
"All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice)
and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation."
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
16 Oct 2006 10:43:44 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
George, I have a question for you, why does it have to be literally
true? After all, theology is about moral behaviour and spiritual
advancement. The Bible is full of allegory, metaphor and parables, and
if we use your reasoning that it all has to be literally true then -
for example - the parable of the sower is merely telling those that do
the job of sowing to be more careful how they do it.
===>Your reply is much too apologetic.
In fact the creations stories (plural) in Genesis are just that:
STORIES. Cllaing it "allegory" or "metaphor" is just obfuscating the
truth.
Of course they are not "literally true". In fact they contradict each
other. And no one except the human writer said that "He that made them
made them male and female", obnviously using a ctreationist argument,
the same humanj writer who wrote the STORIES about the "sinless Son of
God", which means the whole myth of "propitiation" and a "Redeemer" is
just so much FABLE.
Of course it is NOT "all true". NONE of it is. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woland" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 10:04:06 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
So, I thought I'd direct you to Joseph Campbell. What I am saying, and
Campbell, is that there is more than literal truth; there is also
metaphorical truth.
A recent compilation of many of his ideas is titled Thou Art That:
Transforming Religious Metaphor. In it Campbell writes:"...Mythology is
often thought of as other people's religions, and religion can be
defined as mis-interpreted mythology." In other words, Campbell did not
read religious symbols literally as historical facts, but instead he
saw them as symbols or as metaphors for greater philosophical ideas.
Campbell had previously discussed this idea with Bill Moyers in The
Power of Myth:
CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is
reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry,
reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the
connotation.
MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.
CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which
transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you
a line to connect with that mystery which you are (Campbell, 1988:57).
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimK" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
14 Oct 2006 07:31:53 AM |
|
|
"Woland" <jerrydeon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160795046.615763.242830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Campbell had previously discussed this idea with Bill Moyers in The
Power of Myth:
Flippin' great series, that. Well worth the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wvantwiller" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
14 Oct 2006 01:37:59 PM |
|
|
"TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:ZM4Yg.15514$Tq3.5954
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
"Woland" <jerrydeon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160795046.615763.242830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Campbell had previously discussed this idea with Bill Moyers in The
Power of Myth:
Flippin' great series, that. Well worth the time.
You might want to find out Campbell's reputation among real (didn't want to
say 'other') mythologists. I've heard him portrayed as a Great Asserter on
several occasions in that he asserts his beliefs but never really had
conclusive proof for a lot of it, besides his figures from his booksales
and class registrations.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimK" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
14 Oct 2006 02:52:44 PM |
|
|
"wvantwiller" <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> wrote in message
news:53771$45312e87$18ec69a4$22140@KNOLOGY.NET...
"TimK" <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in news:ZM4Yg.15514$Tq3.5954
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
"Woland" <jerrydeon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160795046.615763.242830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Campbell had previously discussed this idea with Bill Moyers in The
Power of Myth:
Flippin' great series, that. Well worth the time.
You might want to find out Campbell's reputation among real (didn't want
to
say 'other') mythologists. I've heard him portrayed as a Great Asserter
on
several occasions in that he asserts his beliefs but never really had
conclusive proof for a lot of it, besides his figures from his booksales
and class registrations.
And what else would someone in his line of work have to go on? He most
certainly was a real mythologist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:52:09 AM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
The strange idea that either it's all true or none of it is is one of
the dopiest things about fundamentalism, and why it's so much less
deserving of respect than mainstream Christianity. The primitive
goatherds passed the story of Genesis around for generations before it
was written down; they knew nothing of science and were separated by
thousands of years from Jesus and the people that wrote the New
Testament. There is absolutely no logical connection between the truth
value of the one and the other. The idea that inspiration by God was
sufficient to produce inerrancy is entirely made up and Christians owe
no loyalty to that notion.
Eric Root
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
15 Oct 2006 07:26:32 PM |
|
|
George Peatty wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true. If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
You missed a step there. What if the person that wrote down that
someone said "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong?
The person claimed to have said it may not have said anything of the
sort, and in fact may still be the sinless Son of God, your Redeemer
and all that good stuff.
Or you could take a step further back and argue that if none of it is
true, perhaps you don't need redeeming after all? Wouldn't that be a
weight off your mind? You could get on with doing all those good works
you've been putting off because you were working on your faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Another Go Figure |
13 Oct 2006 11:52:54 AM |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2006 08:51:11 -0700, George Peatty <pttyg47-1230@copper.net>
wrote:
In article <4p9pq8FhnlqdU1@individual.net>, SeppoP says...
[snip]
All scientific research that claims to know the age of the universe, from >>
which it is argued by some, that the creation account of Genesis cannot be >>
true.
Yes and Why? Would that destroy your religious beliefs?
The theology of creation is a core concept. If creation isn't literally true,
then none of it is true.
Bingo, George. And since creation theology is demonstrably *not* true,
it therefore follows...
If creation isn't literally true, then He who said
that "He that made them made them male and female" was wrong, and if He was
wrong, then He was not the sinless Son of God, which means He is not sufficient
in Himself as the propitiation for my sin, which means He cannot be my Redeemer,
either .. It's either all true, or none of it is ..
Come on, George. Take that next step. You can do it.....
.....or maybe not. I don't really think you'll take that step and join
those of us who've outgrown the need for the emotional security
blanket of religion and learned to deal with the world as it really
is, because that's difficult. Both admitting to yourself that what
you've believed your entire life is wrong and facing the real world
without that emotional cushion. It's hard. It's damned hard. But it's
worth it. And if you *do* take that step, I think you'll be pleased to
find that the *real* world, despite its pitfalls, is far more
wonderful, amazing, and yes, miraculous, than any just-so story.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
