Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 189

Thread: i am a born again, evangelical christian

  1. #1 i am a born again, evangelical christian 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    hi all

    my name is Angelo. I am swiss, and live over ten years in Brazil. I am a born again evangelical christian. I am open to talk with everyone, that would like to know better my faith. I think, there exist many pre - judgements, that might be clarified.
    I am not disposed and interested to convert anybody here. This is a personal decision. I am just here to testify my faith to anyone, that would like to know more and understand it better. i do not want to disrespect your faith, philosophy and convictions, and expect the same from you. So who has pre judgements , and has no interest, to change it, i am asking at least to respect my faith.

    So now to my first question : what is your faith/religion, and why ?

    Angelo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: i am a born again, evangelical christian 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi all

    my name is Angelo. I am swiss, and live over ten years in Brazil. I am a born again evangelical christian. I am open to talk with everyone, that would like to know better my faith. I think, there exist many pre - judgements, that might be clarified.
    I am not disposed and interested to convert anybody here. This is a personal decision. I am just here to testify my faith to anyone, that would like to know more and understand it better. i do not want to disrespect your faith, philosophy and convictions, and expect the same from you. So who has pre judgements , and has no interest, to change it, i am asking at least to respect my faith.

    So now to my first question : what is your faith/religion, and why ?

    Angelo
    Hi Angelo, I am a American, living in Salt Lake City Utah. I am a born again Evangelical Christian. Pre-judgments in regards to that are ill advised because the evangelicals are a rather broad group of churches with quite a variety of approaches to Christianity. Some are more fundamentalist and some are more charismatic. Some are more anti-Catholic and narrow minded and for some its all about Jesus not what church you go to. Some are anti-science and dogmatic while other are just trying to find a more effective way to help people see the relevance of Christianity and the the power of the gospel to change people's lives. Some are more Calvinist and some are more Wesleyan. Some are self-righteous and legalistic, while others are more of a sinners anonymous group helping each other deal with the sordid realities of human life. For some its just a "you gotta know that you know" get out of hell free card and for others it is a way to live life to fullest in a relationship with a living God. So, can you tell me which particular evangelical group you are involved with? That would clarify some of these things quite a bit.

    I was not raised a Christian but was in fact a scientist before I was ever a Christian and so the irrational anti-science fundamentalists groups could never be anything but stupid to me. So fortunately there are other evangelical groups who don't condemn scientists as agents of the devil.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I was not raised a Christian but was in fact a scientist before I was ever a Christian and so the irrational anti-science fundamentalists groups could never be anything but stupid to me
    so much for objectivity in his opinions.

    So fortunately there are other evangelical groups who don't condemn scientists as agents of the devil.
    promoting the stereotype, exposing his superiority complex and self-righteousness.

    the rest of his post is ignored as it is filled with anti-christian sentiment and hatred.

    my name is Angelo. I am swiss, and live over ten years in Brazil. I am a born again evangelical christian. I am open to talk with everyone, that would like to know better my faith. I think, there exist many pre - judgements, that might be clarified.
    BEFORE anyone else tells you, this is a science forum and they will expect you to present evidence for what you say. hearsay won't cut it and good luck to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    hi Mitchell

    good question, and good description of the existing kind of evangelicals. I've actually never analysed , to which group i belong, and never thought about it.
    I am acostumed to testify my faith at forums of all sorts, atheists, magicians, spiritism, catholic etc. Since i converted, i used to testify and explain to others the gospel. Since in my daily life, up to some point, i see it limited, to do so, i use the internet a lot. There are some controversies, if it is effective, to testify at forums, where most have already made up their mind. I seem myself more on the rational side, less charismatic. I don't speak in tongs, and sort like that. Since i grow up as catholic, i know this church well, and to be frank, quit against it, as its flaws are clear. So you might call me narrow minded. But thats what i am. At this moment, i learn a lot through debates with atheists, since many points they make, i need to find a answer, which is apropriate, specially to some questions and arguments, i never heard before. I believe, once saved , forever saved. For a long time, i oposed this view. But Spurgeon influenced me in some aspects of my faith. I think , in regard of legalistic, and sinners, i am in the middle, wheter extreme at one side, nor the other. Just normal. I have my weakness in some points, as everybody else, and strong points. I posted recently at following atheist forum. So feel free to have a look, if wish so.

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/5797/

    Angelo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    BEFORE anyone else tells you, this is a science forum and they will expect you to present evidence for what you say. hearsay won't cut it and good luck to you.
    I bet i have good evidence, i can present, of the existence of god.... might you tell what you believe in ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Im just curious zebaoth. Why are you a follower of a middle eastern death god who kills more people than satan, which means adversary in latin? For all we know, satan could be the good guy who is trying to prevent The death God from killing his own creations simply for being free. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge in order to gain knowledge of their surroundings and was banished for it. Hell, if I was lucifer, I would rebel as well. According to the myths, he kept killing his own followers simply for wanting freedom and knowledge.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Thank you archy for providing an example of what I was talking about, otherwise he might not even have believed me. It does beggar the mind sometimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I was not raised a Christian but was in fact a scientist before I was ever a Christian and so the irrational anti-science fundamentalists groups could never be anything but stupid to me
    so much for objectivity in his opinions.

    So fortunately there are other evangelical groups who don't condemn scientists as agents of the devil.
    promoting the stereotype, exposing his superiority complex and self-righteousness.

    the rest of his post is ignored as it is filled with anti-christian sentiment and hatred.
    As you can see archaeologist is one of these fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, narrow minded, dogmatic, legalistic types who immediately equates being a scientist with being anti-christian. Strangely, he seems to find offensive (calling it anti-christian) the idea that Chrisitanity can be about sinners helping each other to live life to the fullest in a realtionship with God through the power of the gospel, or that it can be all about Jesus rather than about what church you go to and what particular dogma you ascribe to.

    Others here have called him a religionist and I think it is an apt description because I don't think religion is what the gospel is all about for it is about liberation not submission to those who would use religion as a tool of power and manipulation.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Im just curious zebaoth. Why are you a follower of a middle eastern death god who kills more people than satan, which means adversary in latin? For all we know, satan could be the good guy who is trying to prevent The death God from killing his own creations simply for being free. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge in order to gain knowledge of their surroundings and was banished for it. Hell, if I was lucifer, I would rebel as well. According to the myths, he kept killing his own followers simply for wanting freedom and knowledge.
    I think you have quit a distorted view of things. You might refere yourself to the killing of Canaanites, and Amorites. This is a frequent argument made, to portray a God, which has a sadic apetite for killing innocent children and women. I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit shure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    good question, and good description of the existing kind of evangelicals. I've actually never analysed , to which group i belong, and never thought about it.
    But your church has a name doesn't it. That is what I meant.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I seem myself more on the rational side, less charismatic. I don't speak in tongs, and sort like that.
    Me too. I am very much on the rational side (but the fundamentalist side ain't the rational side) and I don't speak in tongues and that stuff either but do not judge those that do either. I would only draw the line at those who say that you must do that stuff in order to be saved, because that ain't Christian anymore.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Since i grow up as catholic, i know this church well, and to be frank, quit against it, as its flaws are clear.
    I know the Catholic church well too, and I have many disagreements with them. I am an evangelical Christian after all. But you don't have to make these disagreements more important than Jesus.

    So yes, of course they have flaws and so do the Evangelicals - EVERY KIND of Evangelical as a matter of fact. All are are flawed because all are human beings. It is only Christ who surpasses our inabilities and makes us one body under His leadership so that together we surpass the weaknesses of any part of it. It is all about Jesus not what church you go to because a church is an organization of fallable sinful human beings who delude themselves and stumble.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    So you might call me narrow minded. But thats what i am. At this moment, i learn a lot through debates with atheists, since many points they make, i need to find a answer, which is apropriate, specially to some questions and arguments, i never heard before.
    Being willing and able to learn doesn't sound narrow minded to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I believe, once saved , forever saved. For a long time, i oposed this view.
    Of all the Calvinist doctrines eternal security is indeed the most logical, and the very last which I finally rejected. I oppose it not on the grounds that the arguments for it are wrong but on the grounds that the question itself is improper - even borderline blasphemous. We must live by faith and that means putting ourselves in the hands of God, surrendering to His will. Eternal security lacks the proper fear of God transforming faith into a contract by which you think you can bind God to your will. It is a spiritually dangerous doctrine and one I believe that ultimately sabatoges your relationship with God. Your faith is only pure if it is free of such attempts to manipulate God.

    I have no problem with you coming to a different conclusion on this issue, but only if you do not make that a basis for the judgement of others, because if you do that then it becomes salvation by dogma rather than salvation by God. Salvation by correct dogma relies on the knowledge of man rather than on the knowledge and power of God. That is more a kind of Gnosticism (salvation by a secret knowledge) and salvation by works of correct beliefs, which is not really Christian at all. Making your system of beliefs a requirement for salvation is to make yourself the way, the truth and the life rather than Jesus, and that is very perilous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I think , in regard of legalistic, and sinners, i am in the middle, wheter extreme at one side, nor the other. Just normal. I have my weakness in some points, as everybody else, and strong points.
    Yes, as long as you understand that it is not you that has the answers and thus that God is the only savior, then whatever errors you have in dogma or practice, these are things that God can eventually change in you if that is even necessary (for only God would know if it is necessary in your case). If you understand this then you dare not judge except to judge how God is leading you in a relationship with Him. So, for example, I certainly judge that the Catholic church is not where God is leading me but I do presume to speak for God on that matter in judgement of the lives of other people.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    I am quit shure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    But so have you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Since you called attention to your participation in the other forum, I did look at it and I will offer what I hope is some constructive criticism to one part of it.

    You don’t take in account that the bible is not a scientific book.
    I think this is an important observation and one you should explore the implications of even more.

    Just the fact is relevant and remarkable, that Genesis 1 actually names all 5 elements, which do describe all what exists.
    This is a mistake because I don't know what you think the word "elements" means but what it means in modern science has to do with the periodic table in which there are more than a hundred elements, not just 5. Atempting to convince people that the Bible is remarkable because it has a medieval understanding of science (or something like that) is not going to work.

    And it took a looooong time, until Spencer made his description in the 19th century. It might not be as scientifically well described, as science is able today, but in “ grosso modo “ Spencer was right, and should anyone really make to think, how the bible could be so accurate in describe all that exists, that much time ago.
    But that is hardly a universal interpretation of the Bible and so making such an argument when you have Young earth creationists claiming that the Bible says God created the universe 6000 years ago, is not going work very well.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    As you can see archaeologist is one of these fundamentalist, anti-Catholic, narrow minded, dogmatic, legalistic types who immediately equates being a scientist with being anti-christian. Strangely, he seems to find offensive (calling it anti-christian) the idea that Chrisitanity can be about sinners helping each other to live life to the fullest in a realtionship with God through the power of the gospel, or that it can be all about Jesus rather than about what church you go to and what particular dogma you ascribe to.

    Others here have called him a religionist and I think it is an apt description because I don't think religion is what the gospel is all about for it is about liberation not submission to those who would use religion as a tool of power and manipulation.
    this is why a person cannot have respect for MM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Hi Angelo

    I study all religions, their popular and occult versions, and try to piece the secret teachings together.

    I have faith that the tree of knowledge feeds the tree of life and vice versa, and that this is the symbol of the Star of David. As above, so below. One tree with it's roots in heaven and it's flowers on earth(Tree of Knowledge, taking wisdom and using it to fulfill carnal desires), one with it's roots on earth and it's flower in heaven(Tree of Life, taking joy and suffering and making it love).

    Death being the price of Knowledge and the flaming sword guarding Eden don't seem to be a way of telling us not to do something, but seem a way of making sure only the willing and/or the worthy are capable of doing it.

    It is said that if you eat from knowledge you will surely die, but it is the case that you must choose to die first before you eat from knowledge. So it is not a threat, but a filter. God doesn't say "Do this because I want you to" He says "Do this or this will happen" He doesn't mean "Do this or I will punish you" He means "Do this or you will forget me" It is not punishment as some would have you believe, it is no different than a street sign. The street sign could have a warning that says "Follow directions or you will get lost" But this is not a punishment, it is cause and effect.

    Faith, to me, is required for objective reasoning, and is not the same as belief. Belief is the focus on one part of the infinite God, whereas faith is embracing all of God.

    Faith is what you feel in the act of observation, and observing makes way for objective reason. So faith and science go hand and hand.

    I don't believe in beliefs. I just compare things and try to interpret as little as possible, taking it all as it is, as it comes.

    What people believe says more about the person than reality.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I am an Agnostic.

    I have some reservations about the old testament and I don't think atheism is a satisfying life choice. I personally think theres something more to life... not that I'm against atheism (unless its the complete and utter crap being spouted bye Dawkins et al).

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    BEFORE anyone else tells you, this is a science forum and they will expect you to present evidence for what you say. hearsay won't cut it and good luck to you.
    If religion forum users stick to religion, my response will be in regards to religion. If they try to take on evolution, or any scientific theory, my response will be scientific.

    I've got nothing against religion, except in myself.

    Hey, angelo. I'm an atheist/nihilist, because I was raised christian but my faith only ever disappointed me, and I saw no reason why I should believe. I also started to realise that the things around me did not happen for a reason, and that there was no point to anything.

    I'm a very joyful person.....
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    I am an Agnostic.

    I have some reservations about the Old Testament and I don't think atheism is a satisfying life choice. I personally think there’s something more to life... not that I'm against atheism (unless its the complete and utter crap being spouted bye Dawkins et al).
    ""Mysteries do not lose their poetry when solved. Quite the contrary: the solution often turns out more beautiful than the puzzle... " Dawkins

    Atheism isn't really a life choice, it merely an objective evaluation of the facts as we know them. If the past couple centuries have shown us anything its that neither theistic or atheistic philosophies inoculate people from great evil by most common measures of morality: whether that be a bible genocides supposedly commanded by god, a Buddhist suicide bomber in India or genocide of entire classes of people by the former Soviet Union and China.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Since you called attention to your participation in the other forum, I did look at it and I will offer what I hope is some constructive criticism to one part of it.

    You don’t take in account that the bible is not a scientific book.
    I think this is an important observation and one you should explore the implications of even more.

    Just the fact is relevant and remarkable, that Genesis 1 actually names all 5 elements, which do describe all what exists.
    This is a mistake because I don't know what you think the word "elements" means but what it means in modern science has to do with the periodic table in which there are more than a hundred elements, not just four. Atempting to convince people that the Bible is remarkable because it has a medieval understanding of science (or something like that) is not going to work.

    And it took a looooong time, until Spencer made his description in the 19th century. It might not be as scientifically well described, as science is able today, but in “ grosso modo “ Spencer was right, and should anyone really make to think, how the bible could be so accurate in describe all that exists, that much time ago.
    But that is hardly a universal interpretation of the Bible and so making such an argument when you have Young earth creationists claiming that the Bible says God created the universe 6000 years ago, is not going work very well.
    hi Mitchell

    positive criticism is something , everybody should welcome. So do i. I've never heard about this periodic table, and more than 100 elements. Could you go more into detail ? Do you believe in a old, or young earth , and what is the main reason ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell

    positive criticism is something , everybody should welcome. So do i. I've never heard about this periodic table, and more than 100 elements. Could you go more into detail ?
    I would love to. That is why I am a science teacher and someone willing to learn is a positive delight.

    Wikipedia as a good introductory explanation and picture of the periodic table with 118 elements listed:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
    while
    http://www.chemicool.com/ has only 111
    and
    http://www.elementsdatabase.com/ has only 110
    This is because they keep making new ones in nuclear reactors. In all these sites you can click on each of the elements to get more information about each one.

    Basically the elements are the different kinds of atoms, with different chemical properties because they have a different number of protons in their nucleus. Atoms are the smallest chemical units of matter, that is the smallest units in chemical processes. Atoms combine in such processes to form molecules and molecules are the smallest units of a particular chemical substance. Water for example is composed of molecules with one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. This is easily demonstrated by electrolysis, where you pass a high voltage current through water to cause small amounts of the water molecules to break up into the elemental constituents which are the gasses of hydrogen and oxygen. This is easily detectable because this is a high combustable mixture which will burn explosively to reform the water from which it was made.

    Now atoms ARE composed of smaller parts called particles but processes breaking up or altering the composition of atomic nuclei are called nuclear processes which require a great deal more energy. The sun is powered by such a process called fusion in which the element called hydrogen is changed into the element called helium.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Do you believe in a old, or young earth , and what is the main reason ?
    As you said before the Bible is not a science textbook and since I am a scientist, it should be no surprise that it is to science which I turn to answer scientific questions. This is one of them. Scientists have considerable evidence that the earth is between 4.53 billion and 4.55 billion years old. The majority of observations and theories put the age of the entire universe between 13.5 and 14 billion years. The reasons are numerous because each of the different types of evidence, observations and theory which independently corroborate these numbers constitute a reason for believing that these are the ages of the earth and the universe.

    But since we are in the religion section and not in one of the science sections of the forum I could also interpret your question in a theological manner. For on the spectrum of science versus anti-scientific theological positions and evolution versus creationism there are theological positions which your question hints at. I mentioned the most anti-science position which treats the Bible as a science textbook called Young earth creationism saying the earth is only 6000 years old. Then there are the Old earth creationists which give credence to the scientific findings that the universe and earth is considerably older but still oppose the theory of evolution, then there are a variety of theistic evolutionists and I think these can be divided into two main categories: those that believe that Adam and Eve are historical persons and those that believe this story is completely allegorical. I am one of the former who believes the theory of evolution is an accurate objective scientific description of how the species came into existence but that Adam and Eve were historical persons.

    I support the theory of evolution not only because of the overwhelming scientific evidence but because of the theological implications as well. It points to a God who is continuously involved in the world and a part of everything we see rather than a God that only did this big act of magical creation long time ago and is absent by comparison today. It means that God is just as much my creator as the creator of Adam and Eve. Furthermore I see hints in the scriptures that Adam and Eve were not the only members of the human species on the planet.

    I believe that Adam and Eve are historical persons for numerous theological reasons. First is the obviously historical intent of the book of Genesis. The second is that rest of the Bible speaks of them as historical persons and speaks of the events which occured in this story as quite an important part of our relationship with God particularly giving this as reasons for God's providential work to restore that relationship.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell

    positive criticism is something , everybody should welcome. So do i. I've never heard about this periodic table, and more than 100 elements. Could you go more into detail ?
    I would love to. That is why I am a science teacher and someone willing to learn is a positive delight.

    Wikipedia as a good introductory explanation and picture of the periodic table with 118 elements listed:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
    while
    http://www.chemicool.com/ has only 111
    and
    http://www.elementsdatabase.com/ has only 110
    This is because they keep making new ones in nuclear reactors. In all these sites you can click on each of the elements to get more information about each one.

    Basically the elements are the different kinds of atoms, with different chemical properties because they have a different number of protons in their nucleus. Atoms are the smallest chemical units of matter, that is the smallest units in chemical processes. Atoms combine in such processes to form molecules and molecules are the smallest units of a particular chemical substance. Water for example is composed of molecules with one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. This is easily demonstrated by electrolysis, where you pass a high voltage current through water to cause small amounts of the water molecules to break up into the elemental constituents which are the gasses of hydrogen and oxygen. This is easily detectable because this is a high combustable mixture which will burn explosively to reform the water from which it was made.

    Now atoms ARE composed of smaller parts called particles but processes breaking up or altering the composition of atomic nuclei are called nuclear processes which require a great deal more energy. The sun is powered by such a process called fusion in which the element called hydrogen is changed into the element called helium.
    hi Mitchell

    thanks for your answer. I understand what you meant, and know the over one hundred different atoms, you refere to. But this says in relation of matter. The finding of Spencer abranges a broader sense, all that exists.

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

    A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

    Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

    Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Do you believe in a old, or young earth , and what is the main reason ?
    As you said before the Bible is not a science textbook and since I am a scientist, it should be no surprise that it is to science which I turn to answer scientific questions. This is one of them. Scientists have considerable evidence that the earth is between 4.53 billion and 4.55 billion years old. The majority of observations and theories put the age of the entire universe between 13.5 and 14 billion years. The reasons are numerous because each of the different types of evidence, observations and theory which independently corroborate these numbers constitute a reason for believing that these are the ages of the earth and the universe.

    But since we are in the religion section and not in one of the science sections of the forum I could also interpret your question in a theological manner. For on the spectrum of science versus anti-scientific theological positions and evolution versus creationism there are theological positions which your question hints at. I mentioned the most anti-science position which treats the Bible as a science textbook called Young earth creationism saying the earth is only 6000 years old. Then there are the Old earth creationists which give credence to the scientific findings that the universe and earth is considerably older but still oppose the theory of evolution, then there are a variety of theistic evolutionists and I think these can be divided into two main categories: those that believe that Adam and Eve are historical persons and those that believe this story is completely allegorical. I am one of the former who believes the theory of evolution is an accurate objective scientific description of how the species came into existence but that Adam and Eve were historical persons.

    I support the theory of evolution not only because of the overwhelming scientific evidence but because of the theological implications as well. It points to a God who is continuously involved in the world and a part of everything we see rather than a God that only did this big act of magical creation long time ago and is absent by comparison today. It means that God is just as much my creator as the creator of Adam and Eve. Furthermore I see hints in the scriptures that Adam and Eve were not the only members of the human species on the planet.

    I believe that Adam and Eve are historical persons for numerous theological reasons. First is the obviously historical intent of the book of Genesis. The second is that rest of the Bible speaks of them as historical persons and speaks of the events which occured in this story as quite an important part of our relationship with God particularly giving this as reasons for God's providential work to restore that relationship.
    yeah, science convinced me too, the earth is billions of years old.
    What i did not take time yet, is to understand, when the dinossaurs lived, the cambrian explosion, Noahs flood, when it happened, and if ti was a global flood, or local.

    it sounds a little strange to me, to believe, God didnt make only Adam and Eve as first humans, but other ones. If that would be the case, how should we interprete the first sin case, since the risk would grow exponentially. The more first humans God made, the more probable, on of them would sin, and the world would fall.

    Another question, someone made at the atheist site, i linked to, was: is it just, that animals have to suffer the consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, and now eat each other ?

    i am learning a lot at godandscience homepage.

    Angelo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter
    ...
    Now either you believe that or you don't.
    Let us just say that I am more interested in a metaphysics that is closer to and more compatable with science and particularly with physics which should be understandable since I am a physicist by training.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    yeah, science convinced me too, the earth is billions of years old.
    What i did not take time yet, is to understand, when the dinossaurs lived, the cambrian explosion, Noahs flood, when it happened, and if ti was a global flood, or local.

    it sounds a little strange to me, to believe, God didnt make only Adam and Eve as first humans, but other ones. If that would be the case, how should we interprete the first sin case, since the risk would grow exponentially. The more first humans God made, the more probable, on of them would sin, and the world would fall.
    But the question is, how did God make Adam and Eve? I believe as I said that the theory of evolution is the correct objective scientific description of how all the species including homo-sapiens came into existence. However, I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings because I don't believe that human beings are primarily biological organisms. I believe that the human mind is a living organism in its own right with its own inheritance transmitted via human communication and I believe that inheritance ultimately comes from God through Adam and Eve. The spread of human race after that was not a matter of biological decent but of human communication much like the spread of a religion. Basically what I am saying is that our humanity is derived from that first religion and our humanity is found in the way we think of ourselves as persons and treat each other as persons.

    Our biological inheritance in DNA shows substantial evidence that we share common biological ancestors with the rest of the species on this planet so naturally there were other members of our own species on the planet at the time of Adam and Eve. The hints of this I see in scripture are in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6. The first is Cain's fear of other people in Genesis 4:14 which I think is unlikely if his parents are the only others on the planet. The second I believe is the Biblical answer to every child's question about who did Cain and Seth marry, the sons of God being the sons of Adam and Eve and the daughters of men being female members of the species on the planet. What makes us human is primarily the way we treat one another and by marriage and bringing them into their family the wives of Cain and Seth were brought into the family of God which is what it means to be human.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Another question, someone made at the atheist site, i linked to, was: is it just, that animals have to suffer the consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, and now eat each other ?
    Of course their answer is that the way that animals live is all a natural part of their existence and not the consequence of what Adam and Eve did, and my answer is the same as theirs. There could be no evolution otherwise. Thus I see God's creation of living things to be much like the way we create living things in the role of a farmer, shepherd or teacher rather than a designer. These roles can be rather harsh, for the farmer will prune and weed, the shepherd will cull the herd, and the teacher has to fail those that don't do the work.

    All through the Bible we see references to two kinds of life and two kinds of death (for example Genesis 2:17 and Luke 9:60). There is the death of the body which is natural and there is the death of the spirit which is an eternal hell. It is the second and not first which is a consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve. The universe was created as a womb of life, but it is only natural that there should be a time to leave the womb in order to experience a much bigger world, but just as is the case for the infant in the womb, the time there is important growing time to prepare us to survive in that greater world.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Our biological inheritance in DNA shows substantial evidence that we share common biological ancestors with the rest of the species on this planet so naturally there were other members of our own species on the planet at the time of Adam and Eve. The hints of this I see in scripture are in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6. The first is Cain's fear of other people in Genesis 4:14 which I think is unlikely if his parents are the only others on the planet. The second I believe is the Biblical answer to every child's question about who did Cain and Seth marry, the sons of God being the sons of Adam and Eve and the daughters of men being female members of the species on the planet. What makes us human is primarily the way we treat one another and by marriage and bringing them into their family the wives of Cain and Seth were brought into the family of God which is what it means to be human.
    hi Mitchell

    to be honest, i don't understand exactly how this figures out. is there a religious group, sharing this kind of thought, or a homepage, with a broader explanation how all this would have to be understood, with all its implications ?

    when do you think, Noahs flood happened ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    For some reason I am grateful you are here :wink:
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    It is said that if you eat from knowledge you will surely die
    Let's clear this misunderstanding up right now. It is NOT 'eating from knowledge' that God said NOT to do. The tree was called 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'

    there is a big difference and please make a note of it for future reference.

    God did NOT say you cannot have knowledge so who ever chases that argument is chasing the wrong idea.

    But the question is, how did God make Adam and Eve? I believe as I said that the theory of evolution is the correct objective scientific description of how all the species including homo-sapiens came into existence.
    But that would be wrong as it cntradiciting the Bible and Jesus said in John 5:47:

    But since you do not believe what he (Moses) wrote how are you going to believe what i say?
    THE Bible does NOT have to be a science book,for its purpose is not to spoon feed everyone about how God did things. HOW is not the focus in life , WHO did it is. The book of Genesis is a book of ORIGINS not a scientific study. MAn has chosen science as his standard yet GOD'S standard is different than man's.

    He simply wants to know if you will believe Him or not. You go to science and man and accept their ways then you do not believe God. You try to marry the the two,you still do not believe God. Belief in God comes from faith, for if you will not believe the thngs you see (evidence for God) then how will you believe the things that are unseen (heaven, Jesus, eternal life).

    Science has a place but it is NOT as the final authority,it has no authority to begin with as its purpose is to discover what God did NOT how, as we know HOW from the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    Our biological inheritance in DNA shows substantial evidence that we share common biological ancestors with the rest of the species on this planet so naturally there were other members of our own species on the planet at the time of Adam and Eve. The hints of this I see in scripture are in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6. The first is Cain's fear of other people in Genesis 4:14 which I think is unlikely if his parents are the only others on the planet. The second I believe is the Biblical answer to every child's question about who did Cain and Seth marry, the sons of God being the sons of Adam and Eve and the daughters of men being female members of the species on the planet. What makes us human is primarily the way we treat one another and by marriage and bringing them into their family the wives of Cain and Seth were brought into the family of God which is what it means to be human.
    hi Mitchell

    to be honest, i don't understand exactly how this figures out. is there a religious group, sharing this kind of thought, or a homepage, with a broader explanation how all this would have to be understood, with all its implications ?

    when do you think, Noahs flood happened ?
    What he is saying Z is pure heresy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Science has a place but it is NOT as the final authority,it has no authority to begin with as its purpose is to discover what God did NOT how, as we know HOW from the Bible.
    So God made Adam from mud and Eve by taking a rib from Adam, literally? Are you made from mud?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    yeah, science convinced me too, the earth is billions of years old.
    What i did not take time yet, is to understand, when the dinossaurs lived, the cambrian explosion, Noahs flood, when it happened, and if ti was a global flood, or local.

    it sounds a little strange to me, to believe, God didnt make only Adam and Eve as first humans, but other ones. If that would be the case, how should we interprete the first sin case, since the risk would grow exponentially. The more first humans God made, the more probable, on of them would sin, and the world would fall.

    Another question, someone made at the atheist site, i linked to, was: is it just, that animals have to suffer the consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, and now eat each other ?

    i am learning a lot at godandscience homepage.
    are you from god and science? do you participate there? just so you know, godandscience is a web site for the progressive creationists who follow the heretical teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross

    the man who does that web site is as heretical and off as any theistic evolutionist is, which is a lot. His 'articles' (and i have read many of them) are far from the truth, not founded in sound doctrine nor fact and are the ramblings of a man who is trying to marry non-christian thought to christian and it just doesn't work.

    the people there hang on to science and place it above God's word and that is wrong and in fact idolatry. False teachers abound and they use science as there are many unsuspecting people out there who will listen to a 'science' expert over someone who simply believes in God.

    Science has to be put in its proper place or you willbe lead astray as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So God made Adam from mud and Eve by taking a rib from Adam, literally? Are you (archaeologist) made from mud?
    His arguments are, so he might be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Science has a place but it is NOT as the final authority,it has no authority to begin with as its purpose is to discover what God did NOT how, as we know HOW from the Bible.
    So God made Adam from mud and Eve by taking a rib from Adam, literally? Are you made from mud?
    as the Bible says; from the dustyou were made so to thedust ye shall return. (done from memory)

    as we know from the evidence, people return to dust as the decompose. the Bible is proven true once again. (that is more evidence you willprobably ignore)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    yeah, science convinced me too, the earth is billions of years old.
    What i did not take time yet, is to understand, when the dinossaurs lived, the cambrian explosion, Noahs flood, when it happened, and if ti was a global flood, or local.

    it sounds a little strange to me, to believe, God didnt make only Adam and Eve as first humans, but other ones. If that would be the case, how should we interprete the first sin case, since the risk would grow exponentially. The more first humans God made, the more probable, on of them would sin, and the world would fall.

    Another question, someone made at the atheist site, i linked to, was: is it just, that animals have to suffer the consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, and now eat each other ?

    i am learning a lot at godandscience homepage.
    are you from god and science? do you participate there? just so you know, godandscience is a web site for the progressive creationists who follow the heretical teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross

    the man who does that web site is as heretical and off as any theistic evolutionist is, which is a lot. His 'articles' (and i have read many of them) are far from the truth, not founded in sound doctrine nor fact and are the ramblings of a man who is trying to marry non-christian thought to christian and it just doesn't work.

    the people there hang on to science and place it above God's word and that is wrong and in fact idolatry. False teachers abound and they use science as there are many unsuspecting people out there who will listen to a 'science' expert over someone who simply believes in God.

    Science has to be put in its proper place or you willbe lead astray as well.
    Well

    i think nothing that does contradict scientificly proven facts, can be taken as truth.
    If i don't missunderstand you, you are a young earth creationist ? if this is the case, could you link to a webpage, which does scientifically explain, why old earth creacionism is a wrong model ? i am open to be convinced differently, if the arguments make sense. I am not closed minded, and change my opinion if shown facts and arguments convince me . I have still many questions about a general time table , when things happened. Specially Noah's flood is generating a lot of controversy.

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    to be honest, i don't understand exactly how this figures out. is there a religious group, sharing this kind of thought, or a homepage, with a broader explanation how all this would have to be understood, with all its implications ?
    No sorry I don't point anyone towards any book or relgion of men but only direct them to read the Bible and to listen to God Himself. I only offer my insight into these things in case God can use them somehow to speak to you but I claim no authority for what I say. All authority belongs to God alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    when do you think, Noahs flood happened ?
    My understanding is that the best guess from the Biblical account is about 4400 years ago between 2300 BC and 2500 BC. I don't know of any scientific evidence to corroborate any of it. I do know that there are even older stories of an enormous flood that suggests that this event may instead have ocurred more than 7000 years ago and there has been a suggestion that this may correspond to a massive water transfer event around 5600 BC.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    What he is saying Z is pure heresy.

    yeah, science convinced me too, the earth is billions of years old.
    What i did not take time yet, is to understand, when the dinossaurs lived, the cambrian explosion, Noahs flood, when it happened, and if ti was a global flood, or local.

    it sounds a little strange to me, to believe, God didnt make only Adam and Eve as first humans, but other ones. If that would be the case, how should we interprete the first sin case, since the risk would grow exponentially. The more first humans God made, the more probable, on of them would sin, and the world would fall.

    Another question, someone made at the atheist site, i linked to, was: is it just, that animals have to suffer the consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, and now eat each other ?

    i am learning a lot at godandscience homepage.
    are you from god and science? do you participate there? just so you know, godandscience is a web site for the progressive creationists who follow the heretical teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross

    the man who does that web site is as heretical and off as any theistic evolutionist is, which is a lot. His 'articles' (and i have read many of them) are far from the truth, not founded in sound doctrine nor fact and are the ramblings of a man who is trying to marry non-christian thought to christian and it just doesn't work.
    As you can see, archy here declares that any point of view that disagrees with his fundamentalist anti-science cult is heretical. According to him all scientists are heretics and servants of evil. LOL With him your only choice is to either lobotomize yourself and let him tell you what to believe or be damned by his pet god.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the people there hang on to science and place it above God's word and that is wrong and in fact idolatry. False teachers abound and they use science as there are many unsuspecting people out there who will listen to a 'science' expert over someone who simply believes in God.
    Yes the people here believe that science has the right to exist, has the right to make a scientific inquiry into the origin of life and the species and doesn't have let archy here decide what they have the right to believe and that seems to offend archy a great deal. I mean, he pretends that everything he says comes straight from God Himself as all relgionists do. But you have to look at the subtext which is that archy doesn't really believe in a real God at all. A real God can speak for Himself but archy's pet god needs archy to do His speaking for Him.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Science has to be put in its proper place or you will be lead astray as well.
    Yes the anti-science cults believe that science must be destroyed so that their cult can tell everyone what they must believe. But the truth is that the universe was created by God and thus unlike any book comes directly from God without sinful men having anything to do with it.

    Romans 1:19-20 "because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead"

    So by studying what God has created you can get the truth direct from God without any influence of the power mongering religionists (like the scribes and Pharasees of Jesus time) to twist the word of God to their purpose.

    Matthew 23:13-15 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

    I believe that the Bible is the word of God, BUT it is still written in the languages of human beings and I am afraid that this means that it is not immune to the influence and distortions of human culture and the philosophical premises which are built into the very languages they use. My point is again that there is a purity in science and the study of that which God Himself has created that cannot be found in anything that has been written in the laguages of human beings.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    as we know from the evidence
    Why do we need the Bible to tell us this then? Are you saying nobody ever saw a dead body that disintegrates as it ages before the Bible was written?

    Again, did God literally take a rib from Adam to make Eve with? Why a rib? Why not simply make her out of dust as well?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    http://www.gotquestions.org/God-crea...er-people.html

    Question: "Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve?"

    Answer: There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that God created any humans other than Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2 we read, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed… Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’ …So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:4-8, 18, 21-22).

    What is the application/meaning of the fact that God created Eve from the rib of Adam in Genesis 2:21-23

    https://www.evidenceforchristianity....k=view&id=4896

    Question:
    Please explain to me Genesis 2:21-23. It's about God creating woman by taking one of the ribs in man(adam). It says that God created man from the dust thru the breath of his nostrils. Why did God create woman by taking one of the ribs of the man? What is the purpose or lesson that i could get from that passages?
    Answer:
    First of all, you are right that Genesis 2:7 describes God creating man (specifically Adam) from the dust of the ground. I am not sure that the meaning is literally that God turned a pile of dust into Adam. I understand it to mean that human beings are made out of physical stuff--that we are made out of physical matter. We are physical beings, as are all creatures. What makes us different is that God "breathed" into us the breath of life. Exactly what this means is not clear. Is he talking about giving Adam a soul? Is it about Adam being spiritual? The Bible does not make this exactly clear, but this "breath" from God is what makes us different from the animals.
    Second, the passage in Genesis 2:21-23 does not literally say that God used a rib from Adam. The Hebrew is something like God took something from the "side" of Adam. The word rib is the traditional translation of the Hebrew, but it is not necessarily what the original writer meant. Again, I am not convinced that we are necessarily to take this literally. I am not absolutely convinced that God literally took a chunk of the flesh of Adam and transformed it into the physical body of Eve. This is Near Eastern literature so we should be careful not to read our Western way of thinking into this passage. Whether the creation of Eve was literally from a chunk of flesh cut out of Adam or the meaning is metaphorical is not really important to the meaning of this passage. God is telling us that man and woman are intimately connected from the very beginning. We are the same. We are equal. We have the same nature. We were intended to be one, not separate. We complement one another. We are natural partners. The writer of Genesis makes this application. He says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The taking of flesh from the "side" of Adam is used to represent the partnership and the unit of a husband and his wife.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    http://www.gotquestions.org/God-create-other-people.html

    Question: "Did God create other people in addition to Adam and Eve?"

    Answer: There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that God created any humans other than Adam and Eve.
    So you are not a creation of God?

    This kind mixture of science and magic presents all kinds of theological contradictions. What does Adam and Eve have to do with you if they are some other kind of creature like magically created golems rather than living creatures that grew up from infancy like you did? Why should you suffer from what they did when they are nothing like you at all. The fact is they sound to me more like things than persons, more like some kind of monster than a human being.

    Then there are the scientific absurdities. The source you quote does seem to realize some of the peculiarities of creating human beings from dust or a rib. There is the fact that the human body is more than 50% water so did God make Adam out of dust or out of mud* or did He use nucleo synthesis to change dust into water when there was plenty of water everywhere already, OR is there just a lot of details that the account is leaving out? Creating Eve out of rib has problems of where all the mass came from and if God was just going to create from nothing then why use any use any dust or rib in the first place? But if the Biblical account is leaving out so many of the details then why do you think that the process of evolution is not one of those details?

    Another question is, if you are going let science inform you this far then why stop there? For we have the same sort of aburdities with the whole idea of suddenly creating Adam and Eve from scratch. We have abundant evidence of a whole series of homonids and homo sapens like creatures existing and developing for millions of years and so no matter what date you suppose Adam and Eve were suddenly popped into existence there are all these other creatures there, so the question is why did God do that when he was just going to create Adam and Eve from scratch? Do we have to imagine that all the evidence is lying to us, or do we suppose that God was trying out evolution as a way of creating man and then suddenly changed His mind?


    *If God did indeed create man out of mud then I am given further cause for great hilarity for I am reminded of creationists shrieking "mud" in that movie "Expelled" in their attempt to make some aspect of the theory of evolution explained by Richard Dawkins appear ridiculous. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    as we know from the evidence
    Why do we need the Bible to tell us this then? Are you saying nobody ever saw a dead body that disintegrates as it ages before the Bible was written?

    Again, did God literally take a rib from Adam to make Eve with? Why a rib? Why not simply make her out of dust as well?
    Becuase it gives the reason why, God designed it to happen that way.

    Yes He literally took a rib from Adam's side. Why? Ask God; my answer would be to illustrate that she walks beside a man, not behind as a subservient person nor ahead of him as a leader (that is man's role).

    Obviously to make a point so man will understand who women are and so women know their place. (i will wait till the howls of anger die down to explain further).

    Yes the anti-science cults believe that science must be destroyed so that their cult can tell everyone what they must believe
    this demonstrates the paranoia and conspiracies that exist in those who disbelieve the Bible. they distort what needs to be removed from science to manipulate people's thinking.

    As you can see, archy here declares that any point of view that disagrees with his fundamentalist anti-science cult is heretical. According to him all scientists are heretics and servants of evil. LOL With him your only choice is to either lobotomize yourself and let him tell you what to believe or be damned by his pet god.
    distortions and lies are not becoming of a moderator

    I believe that the Bible is the word of God, BUT it is still written in the languages of human beings and I am afraid that this means that it is not immune to the influence and distortions of human culture and the philosophical premises which are built into the very languages they use.
    here mm is saying that God is unable to write a book which tells the truth. The above also contradicts what the Bible says about God preserving His words till the end of time so that all people will not be deprived of the truth.

    the above also contradicts the passage 'nothing is impossible for God' thus if the Bible is subject to the things mm describes then he is saying God is powerless and not worth believing in.

    mm is wrong and his words demote, demean, disable God, making Him weaker than man. mm doesn't believe in God, he believes in his fictional character he calls a god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    This kind mixture of science and magic presents all kinds of theological contradictions. What does Adam and Eve have to do with you if they are some other kind of creature like magically created golems rather than living creatures that grew up from infancy like you did? Why should you suffer from what they did when they are nothing like you at all. The fact is they sound to me more like things than persons, more like some kind of monster than a human being.
    We don't. We suffer for what we do.

    The source you quote does seem to realize some of the peculiarities of creating human beings from dust or a rib. There is the fact that the human body is more than 50% water so did God make Adam out of dust or out of mud* or did He use nucleo synthesis to change dust into water when there was plenty of water everywhere already, OR is there just a lot of details that the account is leaving out
    mm is just doing mental gymnastics to justify his unbelief. God didn't tell us how He formed man, and science cannot come up with the answer because it has no clue what happened. the weren't there at creation to see it take place.

    We have abundant evidence of a whole series of homonids and homo sapens like creatures existing and developing for millions of years and so no matter what date you suppose Adam and Eve were suddenly popped into existence there are all these other creatures there
    there is no evidence for this, it is just conjecture and b.s.

    so the question is why did God do that when he was just going to create Adam and Eve from scratch?
    God didn't develope any humans prior to adam and eve. mm's thinking above contradicts the Bible by saying that death entered the world long before adam and eve sinned. that would be heresy and a lie for it is saying that God lied and sinned, which is another contradiction of the Bible.

    mm proves my point about people who use science wrongly and shows how far astray they go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    *If God did indeed create man out of mud then I am given further cause for great hilarity for I am reminded of creationists shrieking "mud" in that movie "Expelled" in their attempt to make some aspect of the theory of evolution explained by Richard Dawkins appear ridiculous. LOL
    If adam and eve where not the first and only humans, God created, this would have severe theological implications . Why would all creation become sinful ? why did jesus come and die on the cross ?

    beside this, if we are a result of evolution, and originate from apes, how did our ability of communication evolve ?

    http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

    i categorically reject this hipotheses as unreasonable and unbeleivable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mitchell, it must be hell being the only intelligent theist on the forum. Keep smiling. :wink:

    Zebaoath, your linked article is full of misunderstanding and misinformation. Communication is commonplace and vital amongst animals. Dogs can understand dozens of spoken words. Apes have been able to learn a few hundred words using sign language, or computer symbols and can carry on real conversations with their keepers.

    The precise steps in the origin of language may be debated, but the general principles are not. The existence of increasingly complex communication skills as we move closer to man on the tree of life reflect the path the evolution of language has followed.

    Your personal incredulity and inability to understand a simple concept will not alter its truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    mitchellmckain wrote:


    *If God did indeed create man out of mud then I am given further cause for great hilarity for I am reminded of creationists shrieking "mud" in that movie "Expelled" in their attempt to make some aspect of the theory of evolution explained by Richard Dawkins appear ridiculous. LOL
    If it needs to be noted at this point - I DO NOT believe in any religious variety of 'god', for all known versions would be proffered as a being of some variety of spiritual/physical concoction. For mine, there only exists the purely physical universe, and the purely spiritual alternative; each functioning individually but not separately. The two come together at a point - which it would seem by a logical scientific deduction; must be 'GOD'!

    Nonetheless, why on earth would anyone consider the rest of the above assertion to be in any way inaccurate or laughable? After all, isn't it a fundamentally self explanatory empiric observation that the physical attributes of all of us (and everything else on this planet), as being entirely constructed of the various ingredients available of the very stuff of our earth - the 'mud'?

    Indeed the physical 'me' - is entirely 'earth' in every sense of the word - an extremely ORDERED formation of earth! It would seem to me that any other assertion would be testimony of a very definite and haughty arrogance on my part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    it must be hell being the only intelligent theist on the forum. Keep smiling
    please leave the insults at the door. he is only intelligent to you because he is disobeying God and doing what you want.

    Zebaoath, your linked article is full of misunderstanding and misinformation. Communication is commonplace and vital amongst animals. Dogs can understand dozens of spoken words. Apes have been able to learn a few hundred words using sign language, or computer symbols and can carry on real conversations with their keepers
    evolution has nothing to do with communication, what animals can do is due to the abilities God has given them.

    If you say apes can 'talk' to their keepers then you should NOT have a problem with a snake talking to eve in the garden when the world was still perfect.

    Your personal incredulity and inability to understand a simple concept will not alter its truth.
    your insults are being duly noted and you should apply this to yourself first before acting superior to others simply because they do not accept your deceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Mitchell, it must be hell being the only intelligent theist on the forum. Keep smiling. :wink:

    Zebaoath, your linked article is full of misunderstanding and misinformation. Communication is commonplace and vital amongst animals. Dogs can understand dozens of spoken words. Apes have been able to learn a few hundred words using sign language, or computer symbols and can carry on real conversations with their keepers.

    The precise steps in the origin of language may be debated, but the general principles are not. The existence of increasingly complex communication skills as we move closer to man on the tree of life reflect the path the evolution of language has followed.

    Your personal incredulity and inability to understand a simple concept will not alter its truth.

    Zebaoath, your linked article is full of misunderstanding and misinformation.


    John

    could you specify exactly where the missinformation is ??


    it has not been observed, that Apes transmit and teach words and signs, they learnd from humans, to their fellows. Communication , as it happens in the animal worls, is one thing. But communication with specific complexity, is something, only we, humans are able to do. With a few words, we are able to describe inumerous things. This is a unknown ability in the animal world. So we are a completely different species, even if there are similarities in DNA to apes. Its also remarable, that antique languages were more complex and refined, than modern ones. If evolution would be upward, our languages today would be more complex. This is not the case. We can say with security, that human kind has not evolved in the last several thousand years. What can be surely said, is that the only possibility is, that the first humans already had a complete ability of communication and language, as we have today.[/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    could you specify exactly where the missinformation is ??
    I shall be happy to do so, but not in this post as I have to leave for work shortly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    it has not been observed, that Apes transmit and teach words and signs, they learnd from humans, to their fellows.
    I suspect this has been demonstrated, but that is a side issue anyway. The point about evolution is that we do not expect the evolved form to be the same as the parent form.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If evolution would be upward, ......
    Evolution has no direction. That is a common misunderstanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If adam and eve where not the first and only humans, God created, this would have severe theological implications . Why would all creation become sinful ? why did jesus come and die on the cross ?
    But Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Do you not recall that this is exactly what I said. They simply were not the first homo sapiens.

    Do you really think that it is our genetic code that makes us human? If so then you have all kinds of problems because our DNA is 97% the same as the chimpazees and every human beings DNA is different. What about those with with an extra or missing chromosome are these not human? If DNA is to be the criterion for our humanity then what if people start examining the DNA of people to decide which are truly human or more human and which don't make the cut. This is the philosophy of the Nazis and racists. Now that is what I categorically reject. Our humanity is not to be found in our genetic code.

    By contrast we instinctively understand that what really makes us human is something quite different, such as the regard we have for the well being of others, for when we encounter people who show no such regard, what to we call them? Do we not all them monsters and beasts?

    So I believe that our humanity is found in a completely different inheritance than DNA, one that we have from God Himself. Unless you are Mormon you do not believe that God was a human being and thus it cannot be a genetic inheritance that makes us the children of God.

    Now there are some who would call themselves christian who not only believe that it is our genetic code which makes us human but that it has been contaminated by demons and thus they believe that God's work of salvation consists of ethnic cleansing. Is that what you believe? Why not? Where is the flaw in their thinking?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    beside this, if we are a result of evolution, and originate from apes, how did our ability of communication evolve ?
    To some degree I don't believe that it did. I believe that the most important things were taught to Adam and Eve by God Himself as He raised them from infancy as His own children. It is because of this that we are truly His children. We may have, of our own free will, followed the kidnapper Satan into his lair, but God wants us back enough to have paid an enormous ransom for us.

    But anyway, I can turn the question around and ask you the same thing, if God created Adam from mud then how did Adam get the ability to talk. Do you have any answer except magic? Magic is the answer that primitive humans have for everything they do not understand. I think it is a non-answer, but if you can use the magic answer to make questions just vanish into thin air then I and any imbecile could do the same for any question, but I would rather seek the real anwers to questions even if it takes a little time and hard work.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Mitchell, it must be hell being the only intelligent theist on the forum. Keep smiling. :wink:
    Don't be too quick to judge Zebaoath. He has a lot of questions and that makes a world of difference. Wait and see. Or better yet, think of some more questions that he should be thinking about. Questions are what separate the living and the dead, mentally speaking.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Homo Sapiens are the exact same thing as Human beings bub.

    Homo Sapien literally means same species.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If evolution would be upward, ......
    Evolution has no direction. That is a common misunderstanding.
    I think you are not correct about that. Evolution is quite clearly in the direction of a greater capacity to survive though possibly just in response to a specific environmental change. There are simply numerous strategies by which that can be accomplished.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Homo Sapien literally means same species.
    Yes Homo sapiens are the same biological species.


    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Homo Sapiens are the exact same thing as Human beings bub.
    Only if we are just a biological species. You may believe that but I do not.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    here mm is saying that God is unable to write a book which tells the truth. The above also contradicts what the Bible says about God preserving His words till the end of time so that all people will not be deprived of the truth.
    On the contrary, God can communicate to us through the Bible in spite of archy's distortions and attempts to use it to tell lies. Why God even warns us about the relgionists who will try to do this.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the above also contradicts the passage 'nothing is impossible for God' thus if the
    God is bound by the limits of logical consistency and so I am afraid that there are things which are impossible for God. For example, God cannot make the logically inconsistent nonsense, that archy pushes, the truth no matter how much archy may wish it to be so.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Bible is subject to the things mm describes then he is saying God is powerless and not worth believing in.
    Since archys god is under archy's control it is indeed too pathetic to be worth believing in.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    mm is wrong and his words demote, demean, disable God, making Him weaker than man. mm doesn't believe in God, he believes in his fictional character he calls a god.
    Which is the fictional character? Archy's is the long ago necromancer god of power which threatens to torture people for an eternity in order to make them worship him. Mine is the God of Love who cares for nothing but our well being so that he would set aside all power and knowlege to become a helpless human infant in order to show us how we can live and to die mocked and humiliated in order to save us from ourselves. So which is the fictional character? Well...? Some would say both. The question is what do you think?

    Archy calls cowering before his god in hopes of rewards - righteousness. I say that my God is worth all your love, worship and service even if you get nothing for it and no matter what the cost may be. We know from the temptations of Christ that the "god of this world" wants people to worship it, so what do you think? How will you know which is which? Will you serve the one that scares you with threats and buys you with promises or will you serve the one that is worthy because of who He is?

    I think the question you have to ask is which can be can be used by men to manipulate and control people? Because that is surely the one that has been invented by men for that purpose.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I think you are not correct about that. Evolution is quite clearly in the direction of a greater capacity to survive though possibly just in response to a specific environmental change.
    This is not what the average person, or even the average scientist would mean by a direction to evolution.

    Secondly, I am not certain that there is a greater capacity for survival. I suspect that Paradoxides has as much of a capcity for survival in the Cambrian shallows as I do in the Cumbrian hills.

    This is a large topic and completely incidental to this thread. If you wish to discuss it further I shall open a new thread in biology.

    Do you really think that it is our genetic code that makes us human? If so then you have all kinds of problems because our DNA is 97% the same as the chimpazees and every human beings DNA is different.
    Chimpanzees and other apes display much the same range of emotional responses as humans. They care for each other, they grieve when one of their number dies, they carry out warfare and commit murder, they form alliances and lifetime friendships, they engage in bribery and cheating. It's not just their DNA that is close to human.

    This is another subject that is off topic and again I shall be please dto open a new thread elsewher if you wish to discuss further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    On the contrary, God can communicate to us through the Bible in spite of archy's distortions and attempts to use it to tell lies. Why God even warns us about the relgionists who will try to do this.
    i am not going to get into a war with words or insults. the above is just wrong and uncalled for especially by a moderator. I have noticed over the years how everyone wants to practice their sin and still consider themselves christian. they cannot have it both ways. you either believe and follow God or you don't, with God there is no middle ground.

    God is bound by the limits of logical consistency and so I am afraid that there are things which are impossible for God. For example, God cannot make the logically inconsistent nonsense, that archy pushes, the truth no matter how much archy may wish it to be so.
    God would not be God if He is bound by anything. He rules everything or He would not be a God worth believing in.


    the rest of MM's post just isn't worth rebuting as it sounds like he is trying to convince himself of his own beliefs. God has stated how He created, if one wants to dismiss the Bible for secular scientific thinking then they are not of God.

    One cannot take what the world says and replace God's word for then they ar NOT following God and believing Him, they are following the world and disbelieving God. it is very simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    But Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Do you not recall that this is exactly what I said. They simply were not the first homo sapiens.
    Mitchell

    i really don't get a clue out of this. Adam and Eve where the first humans, but at the same time , they where not ? is there a group or something, which defends your point of view, with a homepage ?



    To some degree I don't believe that it did. I believe that the most important things were taught to Adam and Eve by God Himself as He raised them from infancy as His own children. It is because of this that we are truly His children. We may have, of our own free will, followed the kidnapper Satan into his lair, but God wants us back enough to have paid an enormous ransom for us.
    this is truly a heretic belief, and would put the bible in a situation of lying.

    But anyway, I can turn the question around and ask you the same thing, if God created Adam from mud then how did Adam get the ability to talk.
    I really don't see where the problem is. Is God not almighty ? Was Jesus not able to raise people from the death ? did he not heal inumerous people ? did he not walk on the water ? Do you think, a almighty God, which made the universe out of nothing, would be incapable to make human kind out of mud ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    But anyway, I can turn the question around and ask you the same thing, if God created Adam from mud then how did Adam get the ability to talk. Do you have any answer except magic? Magic is the answer that primitive humans have for everything they do not understand.
    I missed that. So MM's god can create yet no give the power of speech? So he and others equate God's power with that of an illusionist who is a fake? that again shows heresy and mocking of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Archie,
    you are a delight. I get the same pleasure out reading your posts as I do watching films of natural disasters.
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it must be hell being the only intelligent theist on the forum. Keep smiling
    please leave the insults at the door. .
    Dear me. Archie you have been tossing out insults and mounting personal attacks from the outset. (Mathew 7, verse 4)
    You should also explore the concept of humour. Many theists believe it is a facility that comes from God not the Devil.
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    he is only intelligent to you because he is disobeying God and doing what you want.
    No. He is objectively intelligent based upon his reasoned, systematic and logical arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    evolution has nothing to do with communication, what animals can do is due to the abilities God has given them..
    And the ability to communicate was given to them by God through the medium of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If you say apes can 'talk' to their keepers then you should NOT have a problem with a snake talking to eve in the garden when the world was still perfect.
    I have no problem with it as a metaphor. Snakes, however, are not primates. No snakes species has been observed to engage in communication in a manner akin to humans or other primates.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Your personal incredulity and inability to understand a simple concept will not alter its truth.
    your insults are being duly noted .
    This is not an insult. You seem to interpret anything that is contrary to your view as being an insult, or evil, or both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    But Adam and Eve were the first human beings. Do you not recall that this is exactly what I said. They simply were not the first homo sapiens.
    i really don't get a clue out of this. Adam and Eve where the first humans, but at the same time , they where not ? is there a group or something, which defends your point of view, with a homepage ?
    It is a simple question you must ask. What does it mean to be a human being? If you decide that it is genetics and DNA just as the racists and Nazis do then I cannot help you.

    Suppose that you meet a creature who tells you he is visiting from the stars. How will you treat this creature and on what basis will you decide how to treat him? Will you try to look at his DNA? He is not a homo sapiens. Is that really important? God the Father is not homo sapiens and the Holy Spirit is not homo sapiens. What is it that makes us human? Can you answer that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    To some degree I don't believe that it did. I believe that the most important things were taught to Adam and Eve by God Himself as He raised them from infancy as His own children. It is because of this that we are truly His children. We may have, of our own free will, followed the kidnapper Satan into his lair, but God wants us back enough to have paid an enormous ransom for us.
    this is truly a heretic belief, and would put the bible in a situation of lying.
    Explain what you mean and show me what part of Bible you think is contraditing it.
    Do you think that it is heretical to believe that human communication did not evolve? Do you believe that it is heretical to believe that God taught Adam and Eve anything? Do you believe that it is heretical to believe that Adam and Eve learned how to speak from God? Do you believe that it heretical to believe that we are God's children. Do you believe that it is heretical to believe that God paid a ransom for us? Or do believe it is heretical to believe that Adam and Eve were truly human growing up from infancy just as we did -- just as Jesus did?

    I would guess that the one you are most likely complaining about is this last one about Adam and Eve growing up as other human beings do. Correct me if I am wrong. Thus you are literalist and you are choosing to believe that Adam and Eve were not human beings but magical golemns created by an ancient necromancer. You are deciding that all the scientific evidence is a lie. Not only this but I take it from your use of the word "heretical" that you are deciding that believing in this is what decides whether you are a Christian are not. I am sorry but in my book that would make you the non-Christian and the Gnostic. The anti-science cults are not Christianity and by making their beliefs the measure of what is christian it is they who are the heretics. I don't require you to believe what I believe but I cannot accept you as the way the truth and the life because I am a follower of Jesus and he is the only way. Jesus did not say what you say.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    But anyway, I can turn the question around and ask you the same thing, if God created Adam from mud then how did Adam get the ability to talk.
    I really don't see where the problem is. Is God not almighty ? Was Jesus not able to raise people from the death ? did he not heal inumerous people ? did he not walk on the water ? Do you think, a almighty God, which made the universe out of nothing, would be incapable to make human kind out of mud ?
    God is all powerful. But this means that God can accomplish whatever He desires by His unlimited power and knowledge, it does NOT mean that He can do whatever YOU say by whatever MEANS YOU say. This is the difference between magic and reality. Magic is just the wishful thinking of children who want a magic man sugar daddy to give them whatever they demand no matter how nonsensical and logically inconsistent it may be. They want their cake and to eat it too. They want to continue in their sin and for God to take them to heaven anyway. They want Christianity to be all about being one of the lucky ones who has a ticket into heaven, so they can smile gloatingly down on all the poor losers who don't have what they have. All I can do is look at such people with pity.

    Yes Jesus did perform miracles. But He said that all He has done we can do also. So tell me what miracles you have accomplished? If we have faith, He said, we can move mountains. I believe that also. But the reason this is true lies in faith not in magic. In faith we can seek the knowledge and do the work to accomplish things, but if you want to sit on the ground staring at a mountain pretending that if you concentrate hard enough the mountain is going to do what you say then go right ahead. The almighty God which made the universe did create human beings out of the mud and the question is how? Is God an ancient necromancer who did things with magic long ago, or is God the one who knows how to accomplish things and is doing so right here and now. Does God just say magic words and things just appear working in some mysterious fashion or is God the one who actually knows how to make things work?

    The problem is an anti-science agenda which says that only magic and scripture is an acceptable answer to questions. It is the same as those Catholics who condemned Galileo and would keep humanity in the dark ages. The problem is that it is all a lie and rhetoric because the anti-science cults use God and the scriptures as a tool of power and manipulation because what they really want is not for people to be obedient to God but for people to be obedient to them. They want the control and power to tell people what they have to believe. I think it is clear that God does not do this. Only human beings do this.

    All I can do is look at such people with pity. Matthew 7:22 "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast demons out in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' and then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me you evil doers.'" It is not about convincing yourself that some magic man can make all your troubles vanish with magic and give you whatever you desire. It is about letting God change you from a being of hell into a being of heaven. Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is within you" (or alternatively translated as "in the midst of you"). Salvation is not about magic, it is about changing and becoming, both as an individual and as a community. If we would have eternal life then we must make the essence of life a part of us, and this is no magical thing, it is a matter of being alive and living life to the fullest - about being able to learn, to be excited about what God has given us and feel the wonder of life and the universe, to take on challenges with faith and determination, to serve one another and the earth with both creative passion and compassionate love. This is something that the scientist can do studying what God has created and there is purity I see in that, far from the manipulative words of human languages, based on true faith and not the sort of blind faith that is really no more than willfullness and self-delusion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    But anyway, I can turn the question around and ask you the same thing, if God created Adam from mud then how did Adam get the ability to talk. Do you have any answer except magic? Magic is the answer that primitive humans have for everything they do not understand.
    I missed that. So MM's god can create yet no give the power of speech? So he and others equate God's power with that of an illusionist who is a fake? that again shows heresy and mocking of God.
    But when we read the scriptures, over and over again in Isaiha, Job and the gospels for example, this is not the kind of mocking that God really takes issue with, instead it is the legalists who pretend that their words are God's words and that their power mongering and manipulation of others for their own ends is the work of God. It is in fact the religionists whom God sees as His greatest enemies not the unbelievers. The unbelievers can change if they but see a little evidence that is any more to this than the manipulative lies of the religionists but the legalists shut the gates of heaven against others and replace both God and His word with lies.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    It is a simple question you must ask. What does it mean to be a human being? If you decide that it is genetics and DNA just as the racists and Nazis do then I cannot help you.

    Suppose that you meet a creature who tells you he is visiting from the stars. How will you treat this creature and on what basis will you decide how to treat him? Will you try to look at his DNA? He is not a homo sapiens. Is that really important? God the Father is not homo sapiens and the Holy Spirit is not homo sapiens. What is it that makes us human? Can you answer that?
    Humans were created in God’s image.

    Humans bury their dead out of respect. When a human dies, we all feel sad emotions if we felt a strong bond with that person. We often have elaborate burial ceremonies to show respect for our dead. However, animals do no such thing. Only a few animals have been observed to throw a few leaves on their dead. But animals do not routinely bury their dead like us humans.
    Animals are mostly driven on instincts. We humans also have instincts, however, we can control them much better. We are mostly driven on conscious. Animals are driven much more by instincts. They have it pre-programmed in their minds from birth. Isn’t that amazing. Animals from birth know what foods to eat and how to eat them. They know how to reproduce, where to migrate, and more. Even a baby turtle comes out of it’s shell and immediately knows to swim towards the ocean. Incredible.
    Humans are aware of “self,” and contemplate the afterlife. Other animals do not think of the afterlife. They live in the “now.” They live in the heat of the moment. Their main goals all day long are to eat, sleep, mate, and survive. Humans, however, spend a lot of time thinking of the future. We think about ourselves and how we relate to life. We think of what happens when we die.
    Humans feel a sense of right and wrong and good and evil. We all have a basic conscious. Animals kill and never think twice. They kill for food, and they kill based on instincts. However, animals do not kill out of evil meditation. They do not stop to think about if they have “sinned.” When a human kills, it is out of evil meditation. We know better, but we murder someone anyways. That is a huge difference. Animals kill purely to eat, or to defend themselves.
    Humans have a complex language and communication method- Humans can talk, write, read facial expressions, gestures, and more. Some can even speak multiple languages. Animals do communicate, but they cannot communicate with the level of a human.
    Humans use their brains in much more complex ways- The cognitive abilities of a human compared to an animal is incredible. Humans can critically think, invent, find solutions to problems, and much more. Animals are much more narrow minded. They are more focused on their specific abilities. An anteater looks for ants all day. A gets in the water and slaps salmon out. They never stop to think of a more efficient way of doing things. The bear never creates a net. They find something that works, and will continue doing it. Humans will always seek out more efficient ways, and even invent complex tools.
    Technology- We humans have the ability to quickly learn new technology, and adapt and use that technology. We can create machines and computers that help us to do work more efficiently. Even the most complex animals do not share this feature. The only tool you will likely ever see an animal use is a stick or a rock. And even then they look confused and clumsy with it.




    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Explain what you mean and show me what part of Bible you think is contraditing it.
    Or do believe it is heretical to believe that Adam and Eve were truly human growing up from infancy just as we did -- just as Jesus did?
    this clearly contradicts Genesis.

    The Lord God formed20 the man from the soil of the ground21 and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,22 and the man became a living being.232:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.55 I will make a companion56 for him who corresponds to him.”57 2:19 The Lord God formed58 out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would59 name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam60 no companion who corresponded to him was found.61 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep,62 and while he was asleep,63 he took part of the man’s side64 and closed up the place with flesh.65 2:22 Then the Lord God made66 a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then the man said,“This one at last67 is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;this one will be called68 ‘woman,’for she was taken out of69 man.”70

    Genesis lets it very clear, that God made Adam and Eve already as adults, not as children. And Genesis nowhere sais, there where other humans, then Adam and Eve. These were the first couple of the human race.






    I would guess that the one you are most likely complaining about is this last one about Adam and Eve growing up as other human beings do. Correct me if I am wrong. Thus you are literalist and you are choosing to believe that Adam and Eve were not human beings but magical golemns created by an ancient necromancer.
    yes, i see no reason, why i should not take this story literally. Jesus did as well, why should i know better than Jesus ? And : was Jesus a necromancer too ?

    You are deciding that all the scientific evidence is a lie.
    there is no conclusive evidence of evolution of the human race.


    Not only this but I take it from your use of the word "heretical" that you are deciding that believing in this is what decides whether you are a Christian are not. I am sorry but in my book that would make you the non-Christian and the Gnostic. The anti-science cults are not Christianity and by making their beliefs the measure of what is christian it is they who are the heretics. I don't require you to believe what I believe but I cannot accept you as the way the truth and the life because I am a follower of Jesus and he is the only way. Jesus did not say what you say.
    any teaching, that contradicts the bible, is heretic. thats how i see it, and your understanding clearly contradicts Genesis, therefore its heretical.

    God is all powerful. But this means that God can accomplish whatever He desires by His unlimited power and knowledge, it does NOT mean that He can do whatever YOU say by whatever MEANS YOU say.
    Well, he has done, i think, what he told us in his word, the bible. And there, nowhere it says, God made babys, and raised them, and beside Adam and Eve, he made other humans. It this would be the case, again, Jesus sacrifice would make NO sense.

    sorry, but i will respond the rest later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    But when we read the scriptures, over and over again in Isaiha, Job and the gospels for example, this is not the kind of mocking that God really takes issue with, instead it is the legalists who pretend that their words are God's words and that their power mongering and manipulation of others for their own ends is the work of God. It is in fact the religionists whom God sees as His greatest enemies not the unbelievers. The unbelievers can change if they but see a little evidence that is any more to this than the manipulative lies of the religionists but the legalists shut the gates of heaven against others and replace both God and His word with lies
    here we have mm still trying to make a defense against an argument no one is making. he keeps trying to justify his heretical beliefs refusing to accept the fact he is going contray to Jesus, the disciples , paul and 2000 years of christian scholarship.

    paul cursed such people as these because they bring a different gospel and they seek to distort scripture to fit their own desires. progressive creationists do the same thing.

    one cannot go contrary to Jesus, the disciples or God. God created, gave speech,.life, talents, abilities to all people. to say He could not do any one of those things is pure heresy and calls the Bible a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    any teaching, that contradicts the bible, is heretic. thats how i see it, and your understanding clearly contradicts Genesis, therefore its heretical.
    Ah but I don't think it does contradict the Bible, it only contradicts how you choose to understand the Bible. Genesis is not a detailed account of creation, it is in fact quite obvious that it must leave out nearly all the details. For all your empty rhetoric in the other forum you really do read Genesis as a science textbook assuming that anything not explained has no explanation because it was just done magic. You are the heretic because like all heretics you have made yourself and your tiny mind the way the truth and the life, but since the reality is that you can only be a way of lies and death, all you do is shut the gates of heaven against others. By trying to be gatekeeper, you only prove that you don't really believe in God at all but are just using Him for your agrandizement. That is what being a heretic is really all about.

    Can you not understand? It is not by what you believe that you are saved. It is certainly not by agreeing with you that people are save. It is the work of God that saves. NO, not according to how you decide that God saves, but how God decides, because God is REAL and alive and doing all the work HIMSELF. It is up to HIM and you and I are NOTHING in this at all. I write and I explain my views because I have thought about these things a long time and so there may be some interest in my thoughts, but I do put on airs to imagine that they have any real importance whatsoever. I think you are completely wrong, but I know that God can save you anyway just as know that however wrong I might be as well, God can save me too. This is because our salvation does not depend on our knowledge but upon HIS knowledge. Can't you understand this? Is it so hard to put your trust in God that you have to be control of everything? ...sigh...


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    God is all powerful. But this means that God can accomplish whatever He desires by His unlimited power and knowledge, it does NOT mean that He can do whatever YOU say by whatever MEANS YOU say.
    Well, he has done, i think, what he told us in his word, the bible. And there, nowhere it says, God made babys, and raised them, and beside Adam and Eve, he made other humans. It this would be the case, again, Jesus sacrifice would make NO sense.
    God tells everything he has done in the Bible? Are you kidding me? You really think that God is that small? Oh dear! So God did not create galaxies and nebulas and atoms and molecules? What you said in the other forum about the Bible not being a science textbook was a lie? If God tells EVERYTHING He has done in the Bible then how can it not be a science textbook? But worst of all if God tells everything He has done in the Bible then doesn't that mean that God doesn't do anything anymore? Sorry but in your effort to control God you have made Him so small and pathetic, it is ridiculous.

    Well I certainly don't believe in YOUR pretend god. A trillion books like the Bible could not possibly tell all the things which God has done. This god you have imagined may serve your purposes to make you feel important and feel that you know all there is to know by reading the Bible but I have no need of such a replacement for the living God who is infinite and completely beyond any ability of yours or mine to confine and control. No this tool you call your god is of no interest to me.

    The Bible is the word of God but it was written for a specific purpose. John 5:39, "you search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." Its purpose it to bear witness to God so that we may be led into a relationship with Him. Its purpose was not to tell all truth - that is absurd - just as absurd as your idea that it tells all the things which God has done. Nor was Genesis written with the purpose of being a "Creation for dummies" book, you really think that people have the capacity to understand how God created the universe now let alone when Genesis was written? You astound me and I am left speechless by such... ideas...

    The Bible tells very little about how God created, but the story is written in the earth. God made all living things in precisely the same way, in the only way that living things can be made. Your magical version cannot create anything alive for golems created by magic are not living things at all but abominations more like robots than anything else. Of course God can do such things but he has no desire to do so. It is not tools and golems that he wanted to create, but living children and it is the nature of living things that they grow from a tiny seed. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Why? Why create something that requires such a long long time to create if all God has to do is snap His fingers to create man? Boy! I don't think you really appreciate what God has done at all. We are no simple creation at all for all that 13.7 billion years was part of the process by which we were created.

    God can do anything because He has all the time and power and knowledge to do what ever He sets His mind to and He does not need to think in the tiny tiny tiny terms (of impatience and simple mindedness) that children (which is what all mankind is frankly) think in. I don't need your interpretation of the Bible like it was part nursery tale, part science text book and part comic book, for i have the reality of the whole universe that God has created to help me understand what it means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    sorry, but i will respond the rest later.
    Why bother, since you are only going to repeat what your anti-science cult tells you anyway? I have heard all that nonsense before.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Do you think, a almighty God, which made the universe out of nothing, would be incapable to make human kind out of mud ?
    Yet completely incapable of leaving credible evidence by standards which he should have been able to see we'd eventually apply once we developed science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ah but I don't think it does contradict the Bible, it only contradicts how you choose to understand the Bible.
    Mitchell

    what sense in your eyes does the story of original sin make, if adam and even where not the only first humans ? there would be during all ages two categories of men : the ones, descendent of Adam and Eve, and affected with the original sin, and a second line, not descendent of Adam and Eve. These should be able to live a perfect life by their own. For these, Jesus didnt die on the cross.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Do you think, a almighty God, which made the universe out of nothing, would be incapable to make human kind out of mud ?
    Yet completely incapable of leaving credible evidence by standards which he should have been able to see we'd eventually apply once we developed science.
    DNA is evidence enough. 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
    2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
    3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

    why do you ignore the evidence ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    DNA is evidence enough. 1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
    2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
    3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

    why do you ignore the evidence ?
    Careful. There is no reason to suggest that "codes" can only be created by a conscious mind other than, forgive me, ignorance. You are free to suggest that a god made the universe in such a way that life can arise, but further than that such a being is not required IMO. Nature and the universe are full of self organising systems. Ever seen a crystal grow under a Microscope? DNA is essentially nothing more than a self organising and reproducing mechanism and by extension all of life is.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ah but I don't think it does contradict the Bible, it only contradicts how you choose to understand the Bible.
    Mitchell

    what sense in your eyes does the story of original sin make, if adam and even where not the only first humans ?
    But I repeat for the third time, they were the first human beings. Our humanity is not found in our 97% same as chimpanzee genetic inheritance. Our humanity is found in the human mind whose inheritance comes from God through Adam and Eve raised as His children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    there would be during all ages two categories of men : the ones, descendent of Adam and Eve, and affected with the original sin, and a second line, not descendent of Adam and Eve.
    Yes and no.

    My answer is NO, because the inheritance of the human mind from God is transmitted through human communication. The advantages of the human mind were naturally enormous and this is why the descendents of Adam and Eve became "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown" or in other words the leaders of human civilization all around the world. This inheritance of God spread around the world like a religion (as I said before) so that all the homo sapiens species learned what God taught Adam and Eve, giving birth in them the human mind which is what made them all human beings.

    My answer is YES, because there HAS in fact always been two categories of man. This is because this view that God is a necromancer that only created with magic long ago is completely wrong. In regards to mankind in particular, His work of creation continues. He continues to raise up children in a personal relationship, and so througout the old testament the chosen people are called "the sons of God" (Deut 14:1, Is 43:6, Ps 82, Ex 21:6) just as the sons of Adam and Eve were called the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. And so it should be no surprise that when in the central event of human history, Jesus created a whole new way for our transormation into the children of God to proceed by becoming "new creations" in Christ, Jesus would be referred to as the second Adam 1Corinthians 15:21-45. In the SAME way that Adam brough an inheritance from God to our species so also did Jesus of Nazareth bring an additional inheritance from God to mankind through which we can be born again and transformed.

    But although Jesus was the second Adam, do we have a genetic inheritance from Jesus? Obviously not. And thus we see that being the descendents of Adam has nothing to do with a genetic inheritance. Adam and Eve did indeed bring sin and death into that first inheritance from God, but it is NOT through some contaminations of the human genetic inheritance as the racists and Nazis would like to say, thinking that God's work of salvation consists of ethnic cleansing. Please cleanse yourself of this evil interpretation of the Bible. Death comes to us not through our physical inheritance because what comes from Adam and Eve is NOT a physical death but a spiritual death.

    At http://www.theopedia.com/Jesus_as_the_second_Adam and you will see that this view of Adam, not as the first of his biological species but he first with a relationship or covenant with God is nothing new but is actually a very old and traditional way of understanding the story at the beginning of Genesis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    These should be able to live a perfect life by their own. For these, Jesus didnt die on the cross.
    Perfect lives??? Do worms and birds live perfect lives? Assuming they do, does that mean you would prefer to be a bird or better yet a worm whose life is even easier? LOL Eternal life does not come from living a perfect life, that is a misunderstanding, eternal life comes from a relationship with God.

    Much of this same dichotomy is discussed by Paul in the first four chapters of the epistle of Romans comparing God's chosen people of Israel with those who never received the law from God. "Then what advantage has the Jew?" Paul asks and what is the purpose of the law? And so Paul explains that the purpose of these is the transformation of all mankind so that ALL may be brought to eternal life.

    Eternal life is NOT a reward for obedience no more than hell is a punishment for disobedience. That is a lie of the religionists and legalists who want to make God their tool for manipulation and power to make everyone obey them. For goodness sake think about what the gospel is teaching. Does the good man earn a right to go to heaven? No. It is not about that. It is not about living a perfect life doing what the relgionists tell you that you have to do because you cannot earn your way into heaven -- EVER. So if it is not works of goodness that save you, then do you really think it is some kind of magic spell or password instead? That is the thinking of the Gnostics which have been with us poisoning Christianity from the beginning. Do this really make any sense to you that instead of being a good person, what gets you into heaven is the fact that you do things in the name of Jesus or say the sinners prayer or perform the rituals that the religionists tell you or believe what the religionist tells you to believe. You should read the gospels and the epistles of Paul for they will tell you that these are all lies.

    How then are we saved? It is the work of God that saves us. That is what the word grace means. So what can we do? There is only one thing. Faith. All we can do is have faith. Having faith in the love and goodness of God that He will do what is for the best. This faith comes to us through repentance. This is what the cross teaches us, both that God will do anything to save us but that this anything is no easy magical snap of his fingers but is something with the heaviest price imaginable in suffering and blood. The course of human history alone should make this clear. Our disease, our sin that seperates us from God and eternal life, is a pernicious and virulent affliction that destroys everthing of value in us. Our sin consists of evil habits that crush our free will to effectively make us in God eyes much like the man eating zombies out of the movie, "night of the living dead". For look at the world and you will see that this is how we treat one another, devouring the innocent for our own profit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    this clearly contradicts Genesis
    Yes if you interpret Genesis in the literalist style like some sort of comic book then God is an ancient necromancer, Adam is a magically created golem of dust, Eve is a golem of flesh, there was a talking snake telling them lies, there was a magic fruit that gives you knowledge by eating it, there was a magic fruit that made you immortal, and if you twist things a little you can say that the the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are actually angels have sex with human woment to give birth to mythical giants. I do indeed contradict this understanding of Genesis. If I wanted to read comic books I know where to find much better ones.

    I said that I believe that Genesis is meant to be understood as historical in nature but that does not mean that it was meant to be taken literally in everything it says. Genesis 2-3 may be dressed up to look like a fairy tale telling us why snakes have no legs, but the grown Christian, the intellegent Christian knows that Adam and Eve were tempted not by a talking snake but by the archangel Lucifer. The intellegent person also knows that you don't get knowledge by eating a fruit and as much as we may wish it we don't get to live for ever by eating a magical fruit either. Otherwise how oh how do you explain the fact that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge that they were forbidden but never ate of the tree of life which they were not forbidden? It does not make any sense. Nor does it make sense that angels had sex with human beings to give birth to giants.

    If that is how Genesis must be understood then it becomes utterly irrelevant to me and I have a lot of SF & F books that were much much better written which I will read instead.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888

    I've never heard about this periodic table, and more than 100 elements. Could you go more into detail ? Do you believe in a old, or young earth , and what is the main reason ?

    i am learning a lot at godandscience homepage.
    Aha! We've found the problem.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Careful. There is no reason to suggest that "codes" can only be created by a conscious mind other than, forgive me, ignorance. You are free to suggest that a god made the universe in such a way that life can arise, but further than that such a being is not required IMO. Nature and the universe are full of self organising systems. Ever seen a crystal grow under a Microscope? DNA is essentially nothing more than a self organising and reproducing mechanism and by extension all of life is.
    Well , the first living cell must have been programmed with the DNA code needed for life. How did it happen ? who or what did it ? chance ? each atom is held togeter with force. where did the inicial force come from, which originated the BigBang ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Well , the first living cell must have been programmed with the DNA code needed for life. How did it happen ? who or what did it ? chance ? each atom is held togeter with force. where did the inicial force come from, which originated the BigBang ?
    Perhaps this might help you understand, or perhaps just confuse you...

    Anyhow, here are the Origins series by cdk007:

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...96457CAFD6D7C9

    A lot of interesting stuff and compelling evidence. Perhaps you might learn something new? I know I did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Well , the first living cell must have been programmed with the DNA code needed for life. How did it happen ? who or what did it ? chance ? each atom is held togeter with force. where did the inicial force come from, which originated the BigBang ?
    These are questions of abiogensis and there is both a great deal of progress on such questions as well as a great many unanswered questions. But the point is that scientists are going to continue their inquiry on this question to develop a scientific theory on the origin of life whether you like this or not.

    Is there any point in suggesting possible answers to some questions when you are going to insist that any unanswered questions invalidate the scientific approach? For this is the really the point of scientific inquiry. It is not afraid of unanswered questions and generally every question it answers generally leads to more questions. That is part of the nature of scientific inquiry. Religious answers tend to exactly the opposite. They silence all questions and have only one point and that is that God is great. Well I already know that God is great and don't have to make everything about just that one thing and I am not afraid of questions and so I am going to support wholeheartedly the scientific inquiry into the origin of life, however afraid it makes you and however much it challenges your weak faith.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Well , the first living cell must have been programmed with the DNA code needed for life.
    Life progresses by a series of incremental innovations. So you have to pick one specific feature of a cell and ask about how that specific feature began. So are you defining the cell by the first use of DNA? We know that RNA performs much of the same functions so does a form of life that uses only RNA and no DNA satisfy your definition of being before the first cell?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Well , the first living cell must have been programmed with the DNA code needed for life. How did it happen ?
    DNA and RNA are simply an information storage mechanism. They chemically store what the living organisms have chemically learned in the trial and error learning process that evolution describes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    How did it happen ? who or what did it ?
    They did it themselves in respond environmental changes and events. The question of whether there is a God involved is the question of whether these environmental changes and events have a teacher behind them. This is exactly the same question that lies between theist and atheist in human life. Is the God which the theist sees guiding the events of his life really there or are these events as the atheist believes just random events which the theist himself imagines to have some significance that isn't really there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    chance ?
    That is the answer those who not only would say that the events and changes in the environment has no guiding intellegence behind them, but those who also refuse to realize that life is intentional by nature. I think there is no qualitative difference in the creativity and purposefullness betwen how the primitive pre-cellular life comes up with its answers to environmental challenges and how human beings do the same. There is of course considerable quantitative differences like a completely different time scale.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    each atom is held togeter with force. where did the inicial force come from, which originated the BigBang ?
    In this case, the forces we are talking about are the chemical forces and they are a consequence of the mathematical structure of the physical universe. Where did these come from and why? Well that is a question that does indeed lie between atheists and between different theists. I believe that they were designed for the specific purpose of bringing this self organizing process we call life into existence.

    Why? Well you may think like the other members of your cult that it is because of some need that God has for glory but I do not think that makes any sense. I think that only one reason makes sense and that is that God in His infinite perfection is moved to give of His unbounded abundance to another and so He devised the perfect way of doing so by creating something independent of Himself which was finite but with infinite potential. And that something is life, for life has the capacity to learn and create and thus become more than it is. It is kind of like the invention of the idea of addition which directly and inevitably leads to the concept of mathematical infinity.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    hi Mitchell

    is there somebody else, that shares your views ? any group ? homepage ? or are you alone with this ?

    Angelo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell

    is there somebody else, that shares your views ? any group ? homepage ? or are you alone with this ?

    Angelo
    Luke chapter 3, verse 4
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell

    is there somebody else, that shares your views ? any group ? homepage ? or are you alone with this ?

    Angelo
    don't bother asking. he nevers posts anything that backs him up. he is supposedly a member of the vineyard group and his views are far from christianity and the Bible. one cannot say they love God then turn around and follow something that God did not say or do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell

    is there somebody else, that shares your views ? any group ? homepage ? or are you alone with this ?

    Angelo
    don't bother asking. he nevers posts anything that backs him up. he is supposedly a member of the vineyard group and his views are far from christianity and the Bible. one cannot say they love God then turn around and follow something that God did not say or do.
    i agree 100%
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    hi Mitchell
    is there somebody else, that shares your views ? any group ? homepage ? or are you alone with this ?
    Yes religionists are a pack-like species hiding themselves in a group, thinking that this justifies them. It is really very sad, because of course, they have made a very big error. There is only one thing that justifies us and you should know what that is.

    No, I repeat once again that I will not point to anyone but to Jesus and I will not point to any publication but the only one with authority which is called the Bible. I will never stand behind any sinful human beings and yet I will never stand alone. God is real. Jesus lives.

    Mathew 23:8-12 "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all bretheren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." Shall you take this literally like everything else and refuse to call your sire, father? Will you wiggle like a legalist and say that you call him "daddy"? Or will you open your eyes to see and open your ears to hear and truly understand what this is saying? You cannot hide behind anyone because you stand before God alone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    don't bother asking. he nevers posts anything that backs him up. he is supposedly a member of the vineyard group and his views are far from christianity and the Bible. one cannot say they love God then turn around and follow something that God did not say or do.
    i agree 100%
    By your own words you are condemned. Everything you have said that God has not said now convicts you.

    It is like racism. By denying the humanity of people based on the color of their skin the racists reduce their own humanity to the color of their own skin and everything else is diminished and made worthless. You have made this petty agreement with your interpretation of the Bible and your rejection of science, the definition of your "christianity" and thus your "christianity" is reduced to these things alone and everything else is diminished and made worthless. You have made your beliefs and your disagreements with me bigger than Jesus, so tell me what will Jesus to say to people who do that when they come to face to face with Him. I don't presume to say but know what He has said of this in the Bible.

    I will of course never be a part of this small thing that you made "christianity" into, I never could. But I think that Christianity MUCH MUCH bigger than you two and I think that Jesus is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. However much you try to push me away you cannot succeed except to push yourselves away, because this idea that God is yours is a delusion and the reality is that you are an ant compared to mountain. Frankly your judgements are meaningless to me. However much it maybe so for you, my being Christian has absolutely nothing to do with any affirmation of worth by other people who call themselves "christian". People at my church try tell my how much they appreciate my faithfulness and service but this is strange to me, like a sickening sort of flattery, because it has nothing to do with anything.

    The Vineyard does not have a membership. I don't belong to them and they do not belong to me. They don't tell me what to believe and I do not tell them what to believe. On many issues I am sure they would agree with you rather than me but the one thing that a great many do agree about is that Jesus is bigger than any of these things and it is in that where I find the both of you terribly lacking. I say that I am an evangelical Christian mostly in the way of confession, simply because it is undeniable that much of the evangelical way of thinking has rubbed off on me, and many non-evangelicals would see this right away. I certainly don't say this to hide in your group or impart any of your imagined righteousness to myself because frankly the truth is that I do not share your delusions of such righteousness or in fact even see all that much to be all that proud of either.

    But in any case, I am certainly no fundamentalist and I think that such are very much a danger to the world, little different from the Nazis of Germany in WWII and like them perhaps, your pride will know no bounds until your sins are so terrible and plain for all to see that by them God brings you down very low. I pray for your sake that when this happens and you get another chance to choose between Jesus and your pride, that at that time it is Jesus you will choose and not your pride.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i will come back to MM's post later in the afternoon when i have time but i want to address 1 point first:

    By your own words you are condemned. Everything you have said that God has not said now convicts you
    yet i have not said anything that God has not taught me while you have publically spoken about accepting and believing evolution, something God and the Bible does NOT teach.

    so those words of yours are meaningless unless you are addressing yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i will come back to MM's post later in the afternoon when i have time but i want to address 1 point first:

    By your own words you are condemned. Everything you have said that God has not said now convicts you
    yet i have not said anything that God has not taught me while you have publically spoken about accepting and believing evolution, something God and the Bible does NOT teach.

    so those words of yours are meaningless unless you are addressing yourself.
    Yes it is by such a flimsy thread that your salvation hangs. You just have to be right. ...I don't. ...In my case, it is only God that has to be right, for my salvation only depends on God.

    So..... what is the difference between confidence and foolishness?

    You say that God and the Bible do not teach evolution. Well I agree that the Bible does not teach evolution, but so what? The Bible does not teach chemistry or computer programming or nuclear physics or topology or surgical proceedure or driving or scuba diving or film making or electronics or oil painting or ....and we can go on and on.... but what is the relevance?

    Perhaps you meant to say something more like, that evolution contradicts the Bible,... That would make more sense, BUT I say that it does not it does not contradict the Bible, and that you simply have it wrong EXACTLY like the Catholic church had it wrong when they said that the teachings of Copernicus and Galileo contradicted the Bible. I say your comic book interpretation of Genesis is not what it means at all -- no giants, no angels breeding with human women, no talking snakes, no magical fruit, no golems of dust and flesh and no magical power of command. Only the knowledge and power of God to create all things and human beings putting their trust in the wrong things.

    As for God teaching evolution I quite disagree. Perhaps God did not teach you evolution and perhaps you don't teach evolution, but God does teach evolution. We learn evolution by studying what God has created, it is all there written in what God has created, so you are definitely wrong about that, God most certainly does indeed teach evolution. Some are just more willing to learn what God is teaching and some are not willing to learn, I think frankly that perhaps they prefer to teach God.

    All in all, to sum it up,... we disagree. But again, we could say so what? So we don't understand such things the same way. What is the big deal? To me nothing. But both you and Zebaoth have made your salvation rest upon you being right about this. I am sorry but I would not call that confidence, I would call it foolishness. For I think it is quite clear what we must put our faith in, and your being right just isn't it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You say that God and the Bible do not teach evolution. Well I agree that the Bible does not teach evolution, but so what? The Bible does not teach chemistry or computer programming or nuclear physics or topology or surgical proceedure or driving or scuba diving or film making or electronics or oil painting or ....and se can go on and on.... but what is the relevance?
    Yet GOD, JESUS, MOSES, THE PROPHETS THE DISCIPLES and PAUL plus the BIBLE all teach creation.. you cannot justify the acceptance of evolution based upon the flimsy excuse you made above.

    Perhaps you meant to say something more like, that evolution contradicts the Bible, but I say that it does not it does not contradict the Bible, and that you simply have it wrong EXACTLY like the Catholic church had it wrong when they said that the teachings of Copernicus and Galileo contradicted the Bible
    No and No. you cannot get around Gen 1:30 evbolution is out the door and a lie.

    As for God teaching evolution I quite disagree. Perhaps God did not teach you evolution and perhaps you don't teach evolution, but God does teach evolution. We learn evolution by studying what God has created, it is all there written in what God has created, so God you are definitely wrong about that, God most certainly does indeed teach evolution. Some are just more willing to learn what God is teaching and some are not willing to learn, perhaps they prefer to teach God.
    you are so wrong and just deluding yourself.

    All in all, to sum it up,... we disagree
    no, we don't just disagree, you are accepting and teaching false things and if you teach evolution to students then you are leading them to disbelieve God and you know what Jesus said about that (i.e. millstone).

    But again, we could say so what? So we don't understand such things the same way. What is the big deal? To me nothing. But both you and Zebaoth have made your salvation rest upon you being right about this. I am sorry but I would not call that confidence, I would call it foolishness. For I think it is quite clear what we must put our faith in, and your being right just isn't it.
    now you sound like the homosexual community who want to continue to practice their sin yet want to be known as christians. doesn't work that way. it is a big deal, it is a very important deal.

    if you choose to follow Christ and God, you follow their ways not your own. you are not in charge and do not get to follow, practice, adhere to sin, you follow heir way and creation is it not evolution.

    if you were truly born again, your soul hangs by a thread.

    Yes religionists are a pack-like species hiding themselves in a group, thinking that this justifies them. It is really very sad, because of course, they have made a very big error. There is only one thing that justifies us and you should know what that is.
    these words are quite common when one wants to practice their own ways, their own beliefs and ignore what God has said. christianity is not a 'do as you want' faith as Jesus clearly said 'pick up your cross and follow me' and if you love me keep my commandments' it is not religiosity nor hiding in a group, it is following Jesus and His words.

    No, I repeat once again that I will not point to anyone but to Jesus and I will not point to any publication but the only one with authority which is called the Bible. I will never stand behind any sinful human beings and yet I will never stand alone. God is real. Jesus lives.
    he hides himself in words he does not understand nor know their true meanings building false issues to detour people from the truth. his mis-understanding of scripture is glaring and shows he will use it to justify his heresy.

    It is like racism. By denying the humanity of people based on the color of their skin the racists reduce their own humanity to the color of their own skin and everything else is diminished and made worthless.
    the Bible doesn't teach racism, it teaches that all men came from Adam (which stops evolution right there) thus there are NOT 4 different races of people, there is just 1. sinful people make color a race instead of seeing the truth.

    You have made this petty agreement with your interpretation of the Bible and your rejection of science, the definition of your "christianity" and thus your "christianity" is reduced to these things alone and everything else is diminished and made worthless. You have made your beliefs and your disagreements with me bigger than Jesus, so tell me what will Jesus to say to people who do that when they come to face to face with Him. I don't presume to say but know what He has said of this in the Bible.
    this makes no sense and is just the ramblings of a deluded person.

    I will of course never be a part of this small thing that you made "christianity" into, I never could. But I think that Christianity MUCH MUCH bigger than you two and I think that Jesus is MUCH MUCH bigger than that. However much you try to push me away you cannot succeed except to push yourselves away, because this idea that God is yours is a delusion and the reality is that you are an ant compared to mountain.
    this makes no sense either and makes me think you are way out there, long past 'whack jobville'

    The Vineyard does not have a membership. I don't belong to them and they do not belong to me. They don't tell me what to believe and I do not tell them what to believe. On many issues they would probably agree with you rather than me but the one thing that a great many do agree about is that Jesus is bigger than any of these things and it is in that where I find the both of you terribly lacking. I say that I am an evangelical Christian mostly in the way of confession, simply because it is undeniable that much of their thinking has rubbed off on me, and many non-evangelicals would see this right away. I certainly don't say this to hide in your group or impart any of your imagined righteousness to myself because frankly the truth is that I do not share your delusions of such righteousness or in fact much to be all that proud of either.
    the rantings of a deluded mind and is a bad justification of your position andheretical beliefs.

    But in any case, I am certainly no fundamentalist and I think you and your kind are a danger to the world, little different from the Nazis of Germany in WWII and like them perhaps your pride will know no bounds until your sins are terrible and plain for all to see and by them God brings you down very low.
    you would be wrong, the nazis did not give people any choice, Jesus does but that does not mean your choice is correct even though you claim to follow Him. the nazis persecuted and killed others, Jesus heals and forgives when they repent. the nazis forced people to follow their ways, Jesus doesn't. all He asks is that you follow is words-- ALL OF THEM. there is a big difference between the nazis and christianity.

    I pray for your sake that when this happens and you get another chance to choose between Jesus and your pride, that at that time it is Jesus you will choose and not your pride.
    the only one who has pride is you. i have nothing but sadness for you as you continue to delude yourself and lie to others as well as yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You say that God and the Bible do not teach evolution. Well I agree that the Bible does not teach evolution, but so what? The Bible does not teach chemistry or computer programming or nuclear physics or topology or surgical proceedure or driving or scuba diving or film making or electronics or oil painting or ....and se can go on and on.... but what is the relevance?
    Yet GOD, JESUS, MOSES, THE PROPHETS THE DISCIPLES and PAUL plus the BIBLE all teach creation..
    That is correct, and this is why unlike you, I believe that God created all things and not just some things and only long ago.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot justify the acceptance of evolution based upon the flimsy excuse you made above.
    The above is only your flimsy excuse to reject science and has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution as a scientific theory at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Perhaps you meant to say something more like, that evolution contradicts the Bible, but I say that it does not it does not contradict the Bible, and that you simply have it wrong EXACTLY like the Catholic church had it wrong when they said that the teachings of Copernicus and Galileo contradicted the Bible
    No and No. you cannot get around Gen 1:30 evbolution is out the door and a lie.
    Why should I want to "get around it". Instead I shall quote it in context. Oh yeah but that's RIGHT, I remember from our discussions before, archy thinks that reading these passages in context in the Bible rather than in his church pamphlets which no doubt explain to him what they mean -- THAT is what he calls "getting around them". BUT I think I will stick to the Bible:

    Genesis 1:27-30 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so."


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    no, we don't just disagree, you are accepting and teaching false things and if you teach evolution to students then you are leading them to disbelieve God and you know what Jesus said about that (i.e. millstone).
    But your lie here is quite apparent because the world is full of people who support scientific inquiry and yet believe in God. No it is you and your anti-science cult, by teaching people that christianity is opposed to science, that are leading people to disbelieve in Christianity. Science has a tendency to prove itself correct and by accepting your lies they think this means that it also proves Christianity wrong. Just as many now think that by proving that the earth goes around the sun, science has proven Christianity wrong because of the morons who opposed science back in the time of Copernicus and Galileo.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    now you sound like the homosexual community who want to continue to practice their sin yet want to be known as christians. doesn't work that way. it is a big deal, it is a very important deal.
    So science is a sin is it? Wow! At least you honestly admit to being an anti-science cult member.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you choose to follow Christ and God, you follow their ways not your own. you are not in charge and do not get to follow, practice, adhere to sin, you follow heir way and creation is it not evolution.
    But Judaizers like you teach a different gospel and what you call sin is of no consequence to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you were truly born again, your soul hangs by a thread.
    Spoken like a true religionist and no true Christian at all. My soul rests in the hands of God and as long as you try to hold your soul up by the correctness of your beliefs the thread you hang your soul on is less than nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Yes religionists are a pack-like species hiding themselves in a group, thinking that this justifies them. It is really very sad, because of course, they have made a very big error. There is only one thing that justifies us and you should know what that is.
    these words are quite common when one wants to practice their own ways, their own beliefs and ignore what God has said. christianity is not a 'do as you want' faith as Jesus clearly said 'pick up your cross and follow me' and if you love me keep my commandments' it is not religiosity nor hiding in a group, it is following Jesus and His words.
    Hmmm.... very curious..... You demand that I show the group in which I stand and the publications which state my views as if it were in such things that I should seek justification. And when I ask do you show any knowledge of where true justification is found? I would have thought that a Christian could not pass up the opportunity to explain this, so I must wonder if you even know, but anyway, I certainly quote Paul's explanation of this in the Bible for you.

    Romans 3:19-26 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    It is like racism. By denying the humanity of people based on the color of their skin the racists reduce their own humanity to the color of their own skin and everything else is diminished and made worthless. You have made this petty agreement with your interpretation of the Bible and your rejection of science, the definition of your "christianity" and thus your "christianity" is reduced to these things alone and everything else is diminished and made worthless. You have made your beliefs and your disagreements with me bigger than Jesus
    the Bible doesn't teach racism, it teaches that all men came from Adam (which stops evolution right there) thus there are NOT 4 different races of people, there is just 1. sinful people make color a race instead of seeing the truth.
    Whew... that one went way way over your head didn't it. Sorry about that


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you would be wrong, the nazis did not give people any choice
    Well yes as long as people continue to have a choice I don't see any problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you are so wrong and just deluding yourself.

    he hides himself in words he does not understand nor know their true meanings building false issues to detour people from the truth. his mis-understanding of scripture is glaring and shows he will use it to justify his heresy.

    this makes no sense and is just the ramblings of a deluded person.

    this makes no sense either and makes me think you are way out there, long past 'whack jobville'

    the rantings of a deluded mind and is a bad justification of your position andheretical beliefs.
    Hmmm... Yes. The quality of your arguments speaks for itself.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    sorry but i made a mistake. it is GEN. 2:1 not 1:30. i quoted the wrong chapter and verse.. my error. this one reads:

    1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
    i will address the rest of the post later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    That is correct, and this is why unlike you, I believe that God created all things and not just some things and only long ago
    you are changing scripture to fit what you want to believe, which is wrong, God warns about doing that.

    The above is only your flimsy excuse to reject science and has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution as a scientific theory at all.
    you would be wrong. i have yet to reject science, i have rejected all the lies that come from secular science and those ideas which disagree with the Bible, but that is a big difference.

    Why should I want to "get around it". Instead I shall quote it in context. Oh yeah but that's RIGHT, I remember from our discussions before, archy thinks that reading these passages in context in the Bible rather than in his church pamphlets which no doubt explain to him what they mean
    going for the insult just undermines you. i made the correction in the previous post. that is the scripture you are getting around. evolution is a lie and far from the truth.

    But your lie here is quite apparent because the world is full of people who support scientific inquiry and yet believe in God
    no, they claim to believe in God yet they hold to the evolutionary theory more and refuse to let go of it in favor of God and His words. they think God is not strong enough to protect them if they make a stand for him.

    No it is you and your anti-science cult, by teaching people that christianity is opposed to science, that are leading people to disbelieve in Christianity
    making false charges just reveals your true character.

    Science has a tendency to prove itself correct and by accepting your lies they think this means that it also proves Christianity wrong.
    Jesus spoke of those wo claim themselves true--He said those who do. 'their testimony is not true'. (referring not quoting scripture) science cannot prove itself correct, it can prove God correct but not itself.

    Just as many now think that by proving that the earth goes around the sun, science has proven Christianity wrong because of the morons who opposed science back in the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
    you ramble and make little sense.

    So science is a sin is it? Wow! At least you honestly admit to being an anti-science cult member
    twisting what someone says into a personal attack shows you have no answer and must resort to the dirtly playbook.

    But Judaizers like you teach a different gospel and what you call sin is of no consequence to me.
    your attempt to falsely accuse is laughable.

    Spoken like a true religionist and no true Christian at all. My soul rests in the hands of God and as long as you try to hold your soul up by the correctness of your beliefs the thread you hang your soul on is less than nothing.
    you have no clue what you are talking about.

    You demand that I show the group in which I stand and the publications which state my views as if it were in such things that I should seek justification
    i have made no demands, you were asked by the other poster for such things yet you did not comply, do not ask anyone for anything until you meet his request.

    that one went way way over your head didn't it. Sorry about that
    no but you certainly tried hard to avoid the issue. i do not believe in racism nor does racism actually exist.

    Well yes as long as people continue to have a choice I don't see any problem.
    that is only because you think you have the right to choose what you want to believe within christianity. you do not, you either choose God's ways and words or you don't. you have no right to change what God has taught nor add into it things from the secular world and those things which distort who God is.

    Yes. The quality of your arguments speaks for itself.
    no, your ramblings and delirious postings show you are incoherent at best. try to make sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Let me condense archies answer into a single sentance, since he repeated himself and at no point gave an original answer, nor evidence/sources;

    You're wrong; that's a lie, but I can't prove it.

    Would have saved me a lot of reading time, archie.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Let me condense archies answer into a single sentance, since he repeated himself and at no point gave an original answer, nor evidence/sources;

    You're wrong; that's a lie, but I can't prove it.

    Would have saved me a lot of reading time, archie.
    if you have nothing to contribute then don't say a word. you are wrong with the above as you seek too much and forget that one can build upon the originalevidence already ppresented and in the debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    mitch

    so you have a opinion, which no one else shares with you ? that means, the whole world is wrong, but you are the only one, knowing the truth ? So you are above all others ?

    hmmmm......... i doubt, God had the intention, to delude all the world, only you , not....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

    No, I repeat once again that I will not point to anyone but to Jesus and I will not point to any publication but the only one with authority which is called the Bible.
    That's what I've been saying all along, Mitch. Yet, you have peg-holed me as being a fundamentalist when you agree with me.

    One thing is for sure, Mitch, you provide an excellent roller-coaster ride.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    mitch

    so you have a opinion, which no one else shares with you ? that means, the whole world is wrong, but you are the only one, knowing the truth ? So you are above all others ?

    hmmmm......... i doubt, God had the intention, to delude all the world, only you , not....
    It would appear more and more Christians are pointing out your cherry-picked version of Christianity, Mitch.

    Are you going to come clean, or what?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you have nothing to contribute then don't say a word.
    Good advice. When will you take it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    so you have a opinion, which no one else shares with you ?
    What opinion is that?

    Let's take my belief that Jesus is God?

    Where should I look for justification of this belief? Should I abandon this belief if no one agrees with me?

    I suppose there are such people who will only believe somehing because someone else told them or because they read it in some book. Is that how you justify your beliefs? You cannot think for yourself?

    I don't flatter myself that no one has the same ideas that I do, or that others never thought of the same answers to questions that I do. Perhaps it is a consequence of a scientific training but arguments from authority don't hold much relevance for me. I think for myself and give the answers that make sense to me according to the evidence of my own experiences. Apparently that bothers people like you and archy and Q, but I am afraid this evokes more pity in me than uncertainty or the embarassment you seem to imply that I should feel.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    that means, the whole world is wrong
    And what is it that the whole world is wrong about?

    If the whole world except for me said that God does not exist and that Jesus never existed would I change my belief? No. Would I say that they are wrong? Yes. Would I say that they are irrational or delusional because they do not agree with me? No. They might indeed be considerably less irrational in concluding that I am the one who is delusional. But you don't think that the whole world can be wrong? Once the whole world thought that the sun moved around the earth, were they wrong? Was Copernicus and Galileo irrational? No matter how much people might have been justified in believing so, I don't think so. But you go ahead and play it safe and crouch down in some herd. Its your life.

    The reality is that you are in this position you talk about and not I. You are like someone refusing to accept the scientific discovery that the earth moves around the sun and saying that the whole world is wrong so that you can stick to some idiot interpretation of the Bible that it is the sun that moves around the earth. This is the attitude of your anti-science cult.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    but you are the only one, knowing the truth ?
    No. I am not. Which people and the numbers of people vary greatly depending on the subject. The numbers who know that Jesus is God is quite large and I have a good idea who those people are. The numbers who know that life evolved on this plant is also quite large and I also have a good idea who those people are, and although there is a lot of overlap, there is considerable difference between this group and the group who know that Jesus is God. The people who know something about homology groups, about Noether's theorem in Quantum Field Theory, about the aberration of light, about programming in OpenGL, as much about the planets and stars that I do, etc... are much much fewer in number in some cases I don't know exactly who those people are. Take the aberration of light. I am certain there are lots of people who know as much or more about it than I do but I could name any of them, because it is a bit specialized and not required study for all physicists.


    BUT are there things which no other human being other than myself knows?


    YES!


    I am quite confident that no human being knows what is written on the paper sitting in front of me because I wrote it just now and no other human being has seen it. But God knows, of course.

    But have you no creativity? Have you not thought even one thing up all by yourself? Well that is rather bleak and I am sorry if that is so, but not everyone has this problem of yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    So you are above all others ?
    above???

    How does having knowlege that other people did not have make me above them? Why should you not realize that if you have knowledge they do not have then it is all too likely that they have knowledge that you do not have? I guess some people might indulge in the delusions you are talking about, do you -- is this from some personal first hand experience?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Mitch

    you believe, in the beginning God did not create Adam and Eve from the mud, and that they were not the first humans.

    but to be honest, i have not understood, how exactly, you believe, things happened.
    It seems all too confused to me.

    If you might explain it point after point, it will be ellucidated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    God created the world by setting the natural laws in place and allowing creation to unfold by following these laws. Then, at a particular instance God breathed humanity into Adam and Eve.

    Do I have the gist of it Mitchell?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    That's what I've been saying all along, Mitch. Yet, you have peg-holed me as being a fundamentalist when you agree with me.
    but Q that is the problem. people like MM only appealto the Bible when it supports them not when it disagrees with their views. there is no way MM can say he stands with the Bible then believe in evolution, the two just aren't compatible.

    he wants the good things of the Bible not the bad.

    Perhaps it is a consequence of a scientific training but arguments from authority don't hold much relevance for me.
    really, then why do you make science an authority that over rules the Bible?

    I think for myself and give the answers that make sense to me according to the evidence of my own experiences
    yet that is not standing with the Bible as you claim. the Bible states 'lean not to your own understanding' and 'My ways are not your ways...' among other similar verses.

    Apparently that bothers people like you and archy and Q, but I am afraid this evokes more pity in me than uncertainty or the embarassment you seem to imply that I should feel.
    no it doesn't 'bother us' we just see the inconsistancy the hypocrisy the changing of God's word to fit your desires and we need to object to such heresy.

    Once the whole world thought that the sun moved around the earth, were they wrong? Was Copernicus and Galileo irrational
    yet that is a lie. the whole world DID NOT believe that please try to keep your generalizations to yourself.

    it is funny thatyou equate yourself with galileo and copernicus, when you areno where near their stature.

    The reality is that you are in this position you talk about and not I. You are like someone refusing to accept the scientific discovery that the earth moves around the sun and saying that the whole world is wrong so that you can stick to some idiot interpretation of the Bible that it is the sun that moves around the earth. This is the attitude of your anti-science cult.
    actually, it is your scientific cult as you misuse science to believe things not found in scripture. by the way the Bible does say somethign about chemistry, and every other field--God created it all. he gave men the means to discover more things about Him not touse those means to rewrite creation and the Bible.

    stop lying and making false accusations, i and Z do not belong to an anti-science cult, we put science in its rightful place beneath the authority of God and the Bible.

    Which people and the numbers of people vary greatly depending on the subject
    that whole paragraph is more inane ramblings which make no sense and does not answer what you have quoted. you have a habit of doing that.

    IF YOU STAND WITH THE BIBLE, you would then know that the unbeliever has anunregenerated mind and has no abilityto grasp what scripture is saying, thus if youside with them, accept their theories then you are siding with the non-truth. so much for your claimthat you stand with the Bible. you stand with what you want to when it benefits you.

    I am quite confident that no human being knows what is written on the paper sitting in front of me because I wrote it just now and no other human being has seen it. But God knows, of course
    \

    not germane to the issue and way out there in left field.

    How does having knowlege that other people did not have make me above them
    what knowledge do you have that no one else has? by your own public statements you are just a high school physics teacher, i am sure you are well behind inthe knowledge department.

    have confirmed this by talking to allthe people of the world? clearly you are del.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    you believe, in the beginning God did not create Adam and Eve from the mud
    In the beginning of what? The universe is 13.7 billion years old. No God did not create Adam and Eve 13.7 billion years ago. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Since the earth is about 4.5 billion years, that statement covers a period of 9.2 billion years at least.

    What I don't believe is that Adam and Eve were a product of some wierd kind of necromancy, golems of dust and flesh. They WERE human beings and that means that they were just like us and created in the same way that we were. The question is whether YOU believe that YOU were created by God?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    and that they were not the first humans.
    Incorrect. Adam and Eve WERE the first humans because human beings are not just a biological species. It is however clear that Adam and Eve were NOT the first homo sapiens. Otherwise who was Cain afraid of in Genesis 4:14 and who did Cain and Seth marry? Genesis 6:1-4 answers that question. Cain and Seth, "the sons of God" took to wife "the daughters of men" i.e. not of Adam and Eve. And their children and descendants were the leaders of human civilization, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If you might explain it point after point, it will be ellucidated.
    After spending 13.7 billion years to create the physical universe, the earth, and all the species of biological life on the planet earth, God created a completely new form of life, different and more alive than any biological form of life could be. But biological life was the right environment for this new form of life. The dust from which he created man was physical matter which took billions of years to achieve the right form and the breath of life was the word of God which He gave to them in order to give birth to the human mind.

    On the other hand, you could simply say that God did with Adam and Eve as he has done many times with human beings throughout history, he spoke to them. He talked to them. He taught them what it is to be human, what it means to be a child of God, how to be a person with a mind rather than just a biological species ruled by biological instincts.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    God created the world by setting the natural laws in place and allowing creation to unfold by following these laws.
    God designed the universe with mathematical laws in order to give birth to the phenomenon of life but God's creative work is not limited to that design work because the whole point was a relationship with Him. So He also created the physical universe such that spiritual beings could interact with it in a limited manner. This was so that He could continue His creative work but also so that living things could develop a spiritual existence of their own. But a creator of life is not a designer and that work must be done in the role of farmer, shepherd or teacher. So although the objective description of how the species came into existence is accurately described in the theory of evolution this does not mean God did not create the species. He did. Just not like a watchmaker creates a watch. Living things cannot be created in the same manner that machines are created.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Then, at a particular instance God breathed humanity into Adam and Eve.
    Yeah you could say that. The word inspiration means "God breathed" or "spirit breathed". The point is the God communicated to Adam and Eve and that communication was an inheritance of the mind by which we can truly say that we are the children of God.

    Our DNA may be 97% chimpanzee and have much the same origin but our mind is is from a completely different inheritance that the chimpazees do not share at all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Your take is similar to how I used to see it Mitch.

    Yeah you could say that. The word inspiration means "God breathed" or "spirit breathed". The point is the God communicated to Adam and Eve and that communication was an inheritance of the mind by which we can truly say that we are the children of God.
    This is also what is meant by us being created in His image; that we have a true mind capable of more than simple survival orientated thinking.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The universe is 13.7 billion years old. No God did not create Adam and Eve 13.7 billion years ago. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Since the earth is about 4.5 billion years, that statement covers a period of 9.2 billion years at least.
    yet that is not standing with the Bible. we do not know how old the earthis or when God created it. we do not know if there was a gap between creation of the earth and universe and the 6 days, most chrisians would say there wasn't.

    What I don't believe is that Adam and Eve were a product of some wierd kind of necromancy, golems of dust and flesh. They WERE human beings and that means that they were just like us and created in the same way that we were. The question is whether YOU believe that YOU were created by God?
    this is not standing with the Bible either and is contradictory to what God has said. obviously the Bible says they were NOT created like we were and we are a product of the way God designed things to work.

    Incorrect. Adam and Eve WERE the first humans because human beings are not just a biological species. It is however clear that Adam and Eve were NOT the first homo sapiens
    nor is this standing with the Bible. the Bible tells us that they were the first humans, period. there could not have been anyone else for death did not enter the world until adam's sin (the Bible) thus all the people whom you claim existed prior to adam and eve would still be alive at thattime, that is a lot of people over 9.7 billion years or so.

    you are clearly contradicting the Bible andusing it to support your false claims.

    Otherwise who was Cain afraid of in Genesis 4:14 and who did Cain and Seth marry?
    former; he killed a family memebr whom doyou think he would be afraid of? his brothers and sisters.

    latter: their sisters, incest was not outlawed by God till long after the flood.

    Genesis 6:1-4 answers that question. Cain and Seth, "the sons of God" took to wife "the daughters of men" i.e. not of Adam and Eve. And their children and descendants were the leaders of human civilization, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."
    problem with this is, you are distorting a scripture that is talking about a time 6 generations after adam and eve and trying to apply it backwards . won't work. you clearly manipulate scripture to fit your own desires. read a good commentary or two to get a better idea.

    After spending 13.7 billion years to create the physical universe, the earth, and all the species of biological life on the planet earth, God created a completely new form of life, different and more alive than any biological form of life could be. But biological life was the right environment for this new form of life. The dust from which he created man was physical matter which took billions of years to achieve the right form and the breath of life was the word of God which He gave to them in order to give birth to the human mind.
    again, not standing with scripture and you provide no scriptural or scientific proof that this is what actually took place. this is creation according to MM NOT god.

    On the other hand, you could simply say that God did with Adam and Eve as he has done many times with human beings throughout history, he spoke to them. He talked to them. He taught them what it is to be human, what it means to be a child of God, how to be a person with a mind rather than just a biological species ruled by biological instincts.
    scriptural proof please/ yes God talked to adam and eve yet he did not talk with many of the initial descendants. enoch was one but who were the others? Noah was another but you are forgetting that Noah was a righteous man and that enoch chose to walk with him. you are ignoring details to build your delusion.

    God designed the universe with mathematical laws in order to give birth to the phenomenon of life but God's creative work is not limited to that design work because the whole point was a relationship with Him
    again not standing with the Bible, the details of earth were created to sustain life, not give birth to it. God did that and he did not delgate that resp.

    Living things cannot be created in the same manner that machines are created.
    This sentence represents the whole paragraph. you really do not know what you are talking about and are deceived. you are NOT standing with the Bible and have proven me correct when i said you use it only when it benefits you. you are no where near the truth and have allowed yourself to be led astray; time for you to repent and get right with God.

    on another note, when i first came on here MM stated the reason why he attacked me, but the real reason was he recognized someone who is a christian and follows Jesus and he was afraid of being exposed. well his own words expose him for the fraud that he is.

    he claims to stand with the Bible but as illustrated above, he does no such thing but uses the bible when he can manipulate it for his purpose. it takes a honest man to apply the Bible properly and it takes a brave man to change when the Bible disagrees with his views.

    one doesn't change the Bible, they change to meet God's words and they sacrifice the world and their beliefs in doing so. they do not sacrifice God or His words to hold onto unscriptural theories.

    I did not address his take on 'God breathed' as that was too much of a stretch to even spend the time refuting. suffice it to say MM is just wrong on that idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    If I were to post the word ‘train’, every half interested reader would immediately upon viewing the term, have an image enter his consciousness of some pre-conceived form of locomotive – most likely being red and travelling on tracks with a stream of smoke emanating from one end. The same would apply were I to type ‘Abraham Lincoln’ or perhaps even ‘camel’. However I suspect if I made note of (say) ‘Khalil Gibran’ (born after Abraham Lincoln), most would struggle to develop (if anything) an image more specific than a generalised male human.

    Our mind it seems, works best (or perhaps at it’s laziest?) when it succeeds in easily transforming what is being presented by term into an image – of a recognisable physical form of ‘matter’.

    On the other hand, if I were to read ‘energy’, what possible physical image would be appropriate? Sure I might imagine our red train under movement, but still have no image of the power being employed – and that is precisely the way it should be; for the energy itself has no physical properties whatsoever – indeed being invisible to the naked human eye, and therefore inappropriate to be 'seen' via any mental imaging.

    So now I come to the term 'God', which it seems to me, has always presented to our consciousness as a ‘thing of great substance’ – constructed in some way of some kind of physical matter.

    Maybe some would regard Michelangelo as responsible, with his Sistene Chapel ceiling depiction of the extended finger of ‘God’, yet that was only painted 500 years ago. Or perhaps our physical representation has come to us via a religious overflow from the insistence of the ancient Greeks – then Romans upon their mythical humanistic ‘gods’. Someone may even cite the Ancient Egyptian 'Amen' as he dutifully accompanied the sun on it's daily journeys.

    So maybe it is time we commenced an investigation into just how appropriate it still is in the age of scientific advancement - of things knowable, as to what we have for centuries commonly termed 'God'; whether 'He' actually has any (unrecognisable) physical qualities at all. Or if 'He' might all this time have been a referencing of some(thing) completely non-physical, and even perhaps - KNOWABLE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Let me condense archies answer into a single sentance, since he repeated himself and at no point gave an original answer, nor evidence/sources;

    You're wrong; that's a lie, but I can't prove it.

    Would have saved me a lot of reading time, archie.
    if you have nothing to contribute then don't say a word. you are wrong with the above as you seek too much and forget that one can build upon the originalevidence already ppresented and in the debate.
    I had a very important contribution, I was trying to save everyone's time. Ah well.

    Evidence should be provided first, and built upon later. (Provide some?)
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What I don't believe is that Adam and Eve were a product of some wierd kind of necromancy, golems of dust and flesh. They WERE human beings and that means that they were just like us and created in the same way that we were.

    And that would be how ?



    Incorrect. Adam and Eve WERE the first humans because human beings are not just a biological species. It is however clear that Adam and Eve were NOT the first homo sapiens.
    So who was in your opinion the first homo sapiens ? And what is the difference between Adam and Eve, and the first homo sapiens ?


    Otherwise who was Cain afraid of in Genesis 4:14 and who did Cain and Seth marry? Genesis 6:1-4 answers that question. Cain and Seth, "the sons of God" took to wife "the daughters of men" i.e. not of Adam and Eve. And their children and descendants were the leaders of human civilization, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."
    so why does it not make sense, that they married their sisters ?
    the way, you think it was, the story of original sin would simply not make any sense, anymore....


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    If you might explain it point after point, it will be ellucidated.
    After spending 13.7 billion years to create the physical universe, the earth, and all the species of biological life on the planet earth, God created a completely new form of life, different and more alive than any biological form of life could be. But biological life was the right environment for this new form of life. The dust from which he created man was physical matter which took billions of years to achieve the right form and the breath of life was the word of God which He gave to them in order to give birth to the human mind.
    thats the most strange interpretation, i EVER heard. Do you really believe that ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Zebaoth888, I suggest you employ capitalisation so it is easier to distinguish between your and archaeologist's posts without having to constantly glace at the name under which it is posted.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What I don't believe is that Adam and Eve were a product of some wierd kind of necromancy, golems of dust and flesh. They WERE human beings and that means that they were just like us and created in the same way that we were.
    And that would be how ?
    You don't know how you were created? How odd. That is difficult for me to even imagine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Incorrect. Adam and Eve WERE the first humans because human beings are not just a biological species. It is however clear that Adam and Eve were NOT the first homo sapiens.
    So who was in your opinion the first homo sapiens ?
    Who was the first duck? Who was the first cow? Besides the word "who" not being applicable, these are nonsensical questions really, ducks and cows are descended from common ancestors. Since they evolved by incremental changes you have to be more specific to even talk about a first duck or a first cow by tell us what particular incremental feature will define the duck or the cow.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    And what is the difference between Adam and Eve, and the first homo sapiens ?
    The human mind is the difference. How many times must I answer this? The human mind is the difference. I give you the same answer everytime you ask. The human mind is the difference. You have never heard of the human mind?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Otherwise who was Cain afraid of in Genesis 4:14 and who did Cain and Seth marry? Genesis 6:1-4 answers that question. Cain and Seth, "the sons of God" took to wife "the daughters of men" i.e. not of Adam and Eve. And their children and descendants were the leaders of human civilization, "the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."
    So why does it not make sense, that they married their sisters ?
    What sisters? Unless you are trying to fabricate Biblical support for incest, why invent sisters that are are not in the story and ignore the other people on the planet that are mentioned in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6:1-2?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    the way, you think it was, the story of original sin would simply not make any sense, anymore....
    In what way?

    I quite disagree of course. This is the only way that the story of original sin does make sense.

    The only thing you have to give up is this really sickening idea that the racists love, that sin is inherited genetically so that some races are more sinful than others and that racial cleansing is the work of God. Is that the idea that you are having a hard time letting go of?

    Sin has NOTHING to do with genetic inheritance. It is a matter of habits of thought and behavior which are spread all over the world far faster than any genetic inheritance could be. Go anywhere in the world and see how the habits of behaviors invented in America have spread all over the world.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    After spending 13.7 billion years to create the physical universe, the earth, and all the species of biological life on the planet earth, God created a completely new form of life, different and more alive than any biological form of life could be. But biological life was the right environment for this new form of life. The dust from which he created man was physical matter which took billions of years to achieve the right form and the breath of life was the word of God which He gave to them in order to give birth to the human mind.
    thats the most strange interpretation, i EVER heard. Do you really believe that ???
    What is strange? What are you reacting to NOW?

    It is not strange. It actually makes sense, which is something that the ancient necromancer comic book interpretation never did. And YES, I actually believe that, because it agrees with all the evidence, both the scientific evidence and the my own observation of the realities of human life and most importantly it agrees with the Bible, without turning it into a comic book.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Zebaoth888, I suggest you employ capitalisation so it is easier to distinguish between your and archaeologist's posts without having to constantly glace at the name under which it is posted.
    Oh come now Kalister don't be so unkind. Yes they are both from some anti-science cult but their personalities are quite different. But then again maybe the brainwashing just isn't complete yet in his case and so some vestige of his human personality yet remains. But that means we should be trying to "save" him. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Zebaoth888 wrote:

    you believe, in the beginning God did not create Adam and Eve from the mud

    Mitchell Replied;
    In the beginning of what? The universe is 13.7 billion years old. No God did not create Adam and Eve 13.7 billion years ago. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Since the earth is about 4.5 billion years, that statement covers a period of 9.2 billion years at least.
    Unless of course, we have been reading the words 'In the beginning' and 'created the heavens and the earth' without a sufficiently intelligent appreciation of their intended application, or even the possible alternatives to our current general indoctrination.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You don't know how you were created? How odd. That is difficult for me to even imagine.
    well, i believe, it happened like genesis says. Now, i would like to know from YOU, how it happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Who was the first duck? Who was the first cow? Besides the word "who" not being applicable, these are nonsensical questions really, ducks and cows are descended from common ancestors.
    is this, what genesis tells us?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Since they evolved by incremental changes you have to be more specific to even talk about a first duck or a first cow by tell us what particular incremental feature will define the duck or the cow.
    so you believe in macro evolution, even that it has not been proved, and no evidence exists ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    The human mind is the difference. How many times must I answer this? The human mind is the difference. I give you the same answer everytime you ask. The human mind is the difference. You have never heard of the human mind?
    sorry, but i don't understand, what you mean with that....

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What sisters? Unless you are trying to fabricate Biblical support for incest, why invent sisters that are are not in the story and ignore the other people on the planet that are mentioned in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6:1-2?
    Yes, i think , incest in this case is the only explanation, that makes sense.

    http://www.biblestudy.org/question/w...bel-marry.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    the way, you think it was, the story of original sin would simply not make any sense, anymore....

    In what way?
    if all humanity does not be descendent from Adam and Eve, we would not necessarly heritate Adam and Eves fallen human nature. That would make Jesus coming un necessary.

    The only thing you have to give up is this really sickening idea that the racists love, that sin is inherited genetically so that some races are more sinful than others and that racial cleansing is the work of God. Is that the idea that you are having a hard time letting go of?
    the bible doesnt tell that anywhere, and that is not what i have said. I believe, ALL humanity is under the original sin. We all have a inherited tendency of sinning.

    Sin has NOTHING to do with genetic inheritance. It is a matter of habits of thought and behavior which are spread all over the world far faster than any genetic inheritance could be. Go anywhere in the world and see how the habits of behaviors invented in America have spread all over the world.
    that is not what the bible tells either.
    John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:
    “ Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[25]


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What is strange? What are you reacting to NOW?
    that you believe, it took billions of years, humans to evolve. that is not, what the bible tells us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    What sisters? Unless you are trying to fabricate Biblical support for incest, why invent sisters that are are not in the story and ignore the other people on the planet that are mentioned in Genesis 4:14 and Genesis 6:1-2?
    Yes, i think , incest in this case is the only explanation, that makes sense.
    I don't think it makes sense, not scientifically, not Biblically and not ethically. My explanation works much better and I don't have to invent sisters that are not in the story to make my explanation work. In fact, I am just going with the explanation that is right there in the Bible in Genesis 6:1-4, and all because I don't have to twist, cut and rewrite the story to make it less compatable with science.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    well, i believe, it happened like genesis says. Now, i would like to know from YOU, how it happened.
    I am sorry but its not my place to give the birds and bees explanation to you for I have no proof of how old you are. LOL

    But let me repeat once again, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A CREATION OF GOD?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    so you believe in macro evolution, even that it has not been proved, and no evidence exists ?
    The flat earth society says the the same thing about the shape of the earth and the Trekkies say the same thing about relativity and the speed of light. It is beyond any scientific doubt, the earth is oblate sphere shaped, the universe has a locally Minkowsky geometry, and the species evolved from common ancestors over a period of millions of years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    if all humanity does not be descendent from Adam and Eve, we would not necessarly heritate Adam and Eves fallen human nature. That would make Jesus coming un necessary.
    All of humanity is decended from Adam and Eve but the inheritance involved is not genetic but of the mind. That is the more important inheritance and that is the inheritance where sin is found and it is because of that inheritance that Jesus had to die on a cross and be raised again on the third day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zebaoth888
    is this, what genesis tells us?

    the bible doesnt tell that anywhere, and that is not what i have said. I believe, ALL humanity is under the original sin. We all have a inherited tendency of sinning.

    that is not what the bible tells either.

    that you believe, it took billions of years, humans to evolve. that is not, what the bible tells us.
    Drop the pretence. You don't believe what Genesis tells us. You discard the answer it gives to the question of who Cain and Seth married and make up sisters that are not in the story. Well I don't lie out one of the side of my mouth saying that I only believe what is in the Bible, while using the other side of my mouth to make up things that are not in the story. Instead I squarely confront the obvious fact that the story leaves out all kinds of details.

    Does Genesis say that God created Adam with things like a heart, brain, kidney pancreas, lungs, intestine inside or is it all just magically animated dust or mud? Genesis makes no mention of Adam's internal organs. What it does say, is that God created all things and that mankind was a particularly important creation as well and that is all that it intends because that is all that is germain to what it is trying to teach us. Well, while you fill in the details with all this abra cadabra comic book nonsense I look for a more sensible explanation in science for those details. So yeah, I think Adam was created with a heart, brain, kidney pancreas, lungs, intestine inside even though Genesis does not say this. And YEAH, I think Adam was created physically through the process of evolution and created mentally through the process of communication from God.


    -------------------------------------------------

    Let's talk briefly about what defines Christianity. The Eccumenical councils of the fourth century define Christianity. This means that it is the Nicean creed and the Biblical canon that define Chrisitanity. Now I think we can add the clarification "Trinitarian Christianity" to distinguish this from the more popular and naive understanding of Chrstianity as simply being defined by some kind of belief in Jesus, which would then be thought to include Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, moonies, United Pentacostals, Unitarians and others. But these groups have cut themselves off from historical Christianity to redefine it according to some other creed and some other scriptural canon.

    This is not the case for the many Catholic churches and most of the Protestant churches, all of who embrace the the Biblical canon and the Nicean creed and that makes them Trinitarian Christians even though they may have added all kinds of distinctives to define their particular denomination. If you or some group so much as tries to exclude the Catholic churches and thereby chop up the body of Christ then I must put you and them in the the category with these other pseudo-christians because such a rejection implicitly constitutes a redefinition of Christianity into some cult which I want no part of.

    Now if you like some Christian theologian or writer that is your perogative but they do not define Christianity. John Calvin does not define Christianity and I in particular find nothing of value in his ideas about Christian doctrine. But since we are sharing, I see a more insightful understanding of original sin in the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Let's talk briefly about what defines Christianity. The Eccumenical councils of the fourth century define Christianity. This means that it is the Nicean creed and the Biblical canon that define Chrisitanity
    that would be wrong as paul has creeds in his books and people prior to the 4th century already knew which books were scripture and which weren't.

    MM--why aren't you addressingmy points? why are you avoiding the fact that your claims don't match up with your words and beliefs?

    continuing down the same path while exposed only shows that you do not cate if you have the truth or not, you just want to do science and claok it under 'religion' to put salve on your conscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    but Q that is the problem. people like MM only appealto the Bible when it supports them not when it disagrees with their views. there is no way MM can say he stands with the Bible then believe in evolution, the two just aren't compatible.

    he wants the good things of the Bible not the bad.
    The majority of theists today from all sorts of cults cherry pick their beliefs. Many like Mitch aren't interested in their religion as a set of doctrines to uphold, they treat it as if it were a bowling team, to join in on the social aspect once a week and then go for a beer with the boys afterwards.

    moderator: the guidlines prohibit making comments this personal. You are not allowed to pretend that you can speak for other people and make things up about their personal lives. You must restrict your comments to post content.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    MM--why aren't you addressingmy points? why are you avoiding the fact that your claims don't match up with your words and beliefs?
    I only respond to posts which I find interesting. I am not interested in these childish games of "you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no it is you who are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong!" "no, you're wrong" "no YOU are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong" "no, you're WRONG" "no you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong"...
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I am not interested in these childish games of "you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no it is you who are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong!" "no, you're wrong" "no YOU are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong" "no, you're WRONG" "no you are wrong" "no, you're wrong" "no you are wrong"...
    What's wrong with that? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •