The Bible as literature

[poptart]

Since the OT has definite errors and contradictions in it......

And yet what you produce as so-called 'evidence' OF this is ..... ZILCH.


Jews against Jesus ... ?
Wow, shocking revelation, Mike.
The actions of Christ in NO way alter the fact that he regarded the Old Testament Scripture as fact.
Do you know why Jesus came ... ?
Sheeeeeez.....

Jesus regarded the Old Testament as fact.

No, he didn't. His teachings went directly against the whole "eye for an eye" way of doing things throughout the OT.

He ABSOLUTELY regarded the Old Testament Scripture as fact, RF.
It's not open for discussion.

Like Mike, with his 'Jews against Jesus nonsense,' you are mistakenly confusing Scripture as fact with practices as necessary.

Christ came as the NEW covenant.
MANY Old Testament practices were no longer necessary once He came.
This in no way means that Christ said that the Scripture is wrong.
All it means is that this Christ is FULFILLING GOD'S COVENANT.

Come on, man.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Since the OT has definite errors and contradictions in it......

And yet what you produce as so-called 'evidence' OF this is ..... ZILCH.

Actually, if you had bothered to click any of the three links in one of my earlier posts today, you would have been served a potpourri of delightful errors in physics and biology, as well as internal contradictions.

Jews against Jesus ... ?
Wow, shocking revelation, Mike.
The actions of Christ in NO way alter the fact that he regarded the Old Testament Scripture as fact.

Oh, so he pretty much decided to not obey Judaic law -the stuff God commanded via Moses and stuff- when he saw fit and somehow this doesn't cause a problem for you? How does regarding OT Scripture as "fact" jibe with his disregarding the rules within it? Simple - it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways.

If he takes it as "fact," then he obeys all the rules, as a good Jew should.

Do you know why Jesus came ... ?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but nice try at the red herring.

He ABSOLUTELY regarded the Old Testament Scripture as fact, RF.
It's not open for discussion.

Sure it is. Jesus upended the old-style way things were done, broke the Sabbath rules. Dude was a rebel and a rule-breaker.

Like Mike, with his 'Jews against Jesus nonsense,' you are mistakenly confusing Scripture as fact with practices as necessary.

Now you're just making excuses and trying to move the goalposts.

Sorry, but I'm not falling for it. And once again, you cannot have it both ways. If Jesus saw the OT as "fact." then he would have kept those sabbath rules. But he didn't. And there it is in black and white (well, except for where Jesus disses those folks bitching about him breaking the rules - his words are in red, I think).

Christ came as the NEW covenant.
MANY Old Testament practices were no longer necessary once He came.
This in no way means that Christ said that the Scripture is wrong.
All it means is that this Christ is FULFILLING GOD'S COVENANT.

Spin, spin, spiiiiiinnnn.....

It's a convenient dodge, a patch, a poorly set-up brace to cover the fact that any act of Christ that fails to follow the adherence to the OT is now chalked up to the whole New Covenant thing.

Your argument goes as follows: Stuff Jesus adheres to proves your point, and stuff he doesn't, well, we'll just wave that away as part of the "new covenant."

Uh, OK. That seems fair.

Fundies are a fun bunch. They're literalists when it suits their needs, "interpretists" when their literalism gets smacked in the head by clear facts, and they move the goal posts all over the field. Criminy, Dio's bunch of ID freaks even wants a special dispensation for Bible stuff from scientists since that "materialism" and "western science" stuff trips them all up.

You guys are a hoot, you really are.

And you wonder why no one takes you guys seriously when you discuss this stuff....

[poptart]

I can't believe the line of reasoning you're taking.
Well, then again, I can.

Christ regarded the Old Testament Scripture as historically accurate.
He did NOT regard Judaic practices as necessary .... since HE is the new covenant.

This is very basic stuff, Mike.


Do you regard Him as the new covenant ...?

He IS the Christ, right ... ?


If He is, are we still bound by 'Mosaic law' ... ?

[Dinsdale]

Cut them slack, MtLR -- they're still pissed off about that act of Satanism known as the Emancipation Proclaimation. Goes entirely against the "slaves will resect their masters" bit in the OT.


But...but...you just have to consider the time it was written...those people were poor, so they DESERVED to be enslaved!


I usually don't read here much, but MtLR is dealing out an asskicking for the ages. All opf the subject-changing every time he makes a point should have told you...

[poptart]

Thanks for your fun display of ignorance, Dins.

[RadioFan]

Christ regarded the Old Testament Scripture as historically accurate.
He did NOT regard Judaic practices as necessary .... since HE is the new covenant.

How could he have regarded the OT as "historically accurate" when his teachings were contradictory to it?

You can't have it both ways, pop. MtLR is correct -- dude was a rebel. He died for our sins because of it. Had he reaffirmed the "accuracy" of the OT, he likely wouldn't have been turned over to PP.


Look, I understand the whole rationale for folks wanting to interpret everything in the Bible as the literal truth. I don't agree with it at ALL, but I can sort of understand it. The whole "if one thing could be incorrect, then the whole thing could be wrong" sentiment scares some people.

Personally, I think a lot of people who are scared by the notion that parts of the Bible could be wrong because the writers at the time didn't know any other way of explaining questions about the physical Earth and universe, are reading the Bible in a way it wasn't meant to be read and are either ...

A.) Too intellectually lazy to be able to comprehend that it's OK to emphasize the spiritual, not literal, message of some passages, with the understanding that other parts of the Bible may be taken at face value, precisely because they are incredibly moving/complex. (Jesus' parables, for example). Or ...

B.) Deep down, know it's ridiculous to maintain that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, etc., yet will maintain that view publically because of a political agenda and/or certain pastors who have a knack for attracting intellectually lazy people with checkbooks.

And no Dio, science is in NO WAY the same. Science isn't out to "convert" anybody to anything. Science simply says, "This is what likely happened, because of this evidence." When new evidence is presented, the entire paradigm in an entire field changes, as has happened throughout the centuries and the decades. Issac Asimov is correct in the sense that science scares some folks -- the vast majority of whom are in the camp that steadfastly holds on to the misguided belief of a literal interpretation of certain stories in the OT. Science represents change, and has done so since before Galileo's time.

Right now, I'm on my old Mac which is super-slow and is prone to crashing, otherwise I'd find the specific passage, but I believe Jesus said something along the lines of "knowledge is the key to life."




Btw, RACK MtLR, Dio and pop. Threads like this are one of the biggest reasons I enjoy reading the fine folks here.

[poptart]

Christ regarded the Old Testament Scripture as historically accurate.
He did NOT regard Judaic practices as necessary .... since HE is the new covenant.

How could he have regarded the OT as "historically accurate" when his teachings were contradictory to it?

He was crucified because his teachings were contradictory (and a viewed threat) to the religious leaders of the day, not because he said the Old Testament wasn't historically accurate.

Christ regarded the Old Testament as historically accurate, and the important people in it (Moses, Abraham, etc.) as real historical people, RF.
I've shown you a dozen examples of such, and there are MANY more.
Show me ONE time where he spoke of the Old Testament as not being historically accurate, or the important people in it as not real people.
I'll grab myself a Snickers.

He regarded the Old Testament as REAL AS WRITTEN, and yet Mike and others (in their apparent infinite wisdom) have chosen to NOT to regard those events and some of the people as real.

Mike knows better than his alleged savior.

I find that sadly amusing.


Question for you and Mike:

When you sin, do you slaughter an animal as atonement ... ?

If not, why not ... ?


Challenge:

Post (in your own words) your most compelling 'proof' that the creation account of Genesis is not true.

[Diogenes]

Christ regarded the Old Testament Scripture as historically accurate.
He did NOT regard Judaic practices as necessary .... since HE is the new covenant.

How could he have regarded the OT as "historically accurate" when his teachings were contradictory to it?

You can't have it both ways, pop. MtLR is correct -- dude was a rebel. He died for our sins because of it. Had he reaffirmed the "accuracy" of the OT, he likely wouldn't have been turned over to PP.

Wrong. Christ came to fullfill the law, not to destroy it.

Look, I understand the whole rationale for folks wanting to interpret everything in the Bible as the literal truth. I don't agree with it at ALL, but I can sort of understand it. The whole "if one thing could be incorrect, then the whole thing could be wrong" sentiment scares some people.

Personally, I think a lot of people who are scared by the notion that parts of the Bible could be wrong because the writers at the time didn't know any other way of explaining questions about the physical Earth and universe, are reading the Bible in a way it wasn't meant to be read and are either ...

A.) Too intellectually lazy to be able to comprehend that it's OK to emphasize the spiritual, not literal, message of some passages, with the understanding that other parts of the Bible may be taken at face value, precisely because they are incredibly moving/complex. (Jesus' parables, for example). Or ...

B.) Deep down, know it's ridiculous to maintain that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, etc., yet will maintain that view publically because of a political agenda and/or certain pastors who have a knack for attracting intellectually lazy people with checkbooks.

Actually you have it backwards. It is those who think scripture is erroneous who emphesize the hyper-literal interpretations when the context doesn't call for it (the 'talking snake' spin, for example) in order to set up a false dichotomy (prove that snakes have vocal cords or acknowledge the Bible is just a bunch of fables). They often take the arguments of the Anti-Christians at face value without seeking what the bible actually says. They refer to people as 'literalist' when in fact, inerrency has been understood to mean the original text, in the original languages, not any particular translation.

And on top of that, a lot of those who claim the scriptures are scientificly or historicly flawed either have a limited undestanding of science and history, an ideological or professional ax to grind, or are just afraid if they don't deny the scriptures they will be labeled one of 'those people'. Or all of the above.

And no Dio, science is in NO WAY the same. Science isn't out to "convert" anybody to anything. Science simply says, "This is what likely happened, because of this evidence." When new evidence is presented, the entire paradigm in an entire field changes, as has happened throughout the centuries and the decades. Issac Asimov is correct in the sense that science scares some folks -- the vast majority of whom are in the camp that steadfastly holds on to the misguided belief of a literal interpretation of certain stories in the OT. Science represents change, and has done so since before Galileo's time.

I have never had a problem with science. Just with materialist ideologues who refer to themselves as being 'pro-science' and attack anyone who using scientific inquiry challanges their assumptions as 'anti-science', or 'fundies' or some other crap.

[RadioFan]

He was crucified because his teachings were contradictory (and a viewed threat) to the religious leaders of the day, not because he said the Old Testament wasn't historically accurate.

Huh?

His teachings went completely against the "validity" of the old testament, pop. Come on, you can do better than that.

Christ regarded the Old Testament as historically accurate, and the important people in it (Moses, Abraham, etc.) as real historical people, RF.
I've shown you a dozen examples of such, and there are MANY more.
Show me ONE time where he spoke of the Old Testament as not being historically accurate, or the important people in it as not real people.
I'll grab myself a Snickers.

He showed it by his actions, in what he said and what he did. He also showed it by his own legacy, in you and I and Dio and MtlR and countless others, all of whom are believers.


Not to delve off topic here, but an honest question regarding one of the last passages in Revelation:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

By "book" does the writer mean his particular book (and if so, was it a "book" when he wrote it? They didn't have books back then, right?), the Bible, or some other book?

Growing up in CCD (Catholic Children's Doctrine) classes I was always taught that it meant the Bible.

Yet, the Bible itself was determined by men, roughtly 400 years after Christ. That, of course, is another aspect of the Bible's "real meaning." Some claim that the various councils got it wrong, from the start of the Bible, and that certain books were left out for purely political, and not spiritual reasons.

Just curious, from a literal perspective what "book" means in Revalations. Not trying to be cute here, just an honest question.

[poptart]

He was crucified because his teachings were contradictory (and a viewed threat) to the religious leaders of the day, not because he said the Old Testament wasn't historically accurate.

Huh?

His teachings went completely against the "validity" of the old testament, pop. Come on, you can do better than that.

His teachings (some of them) went against the practices of the religous leaders of the day, but he did not (NOT A SINGLE TIME) speak in any way that could be seen as saying that people and events of Old Testament history were not true.

Show me any Scripture where he says an event or person in the Old Testament was not real.

There aren't any.


I'm done with it.



Asking questions before you've answered the ones posed to you is rude.

Answer my 2 questions and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

[RadioFan]

Actually you have it backwards. It is those who think scripture is erroneous who emphesize the hyper-literal interpretations when the context doesn't call for it (the 'talking snake' spin, for example) in order to set up a false dichotomy (prove that snakes have vocal cords or acknowledge the Bible is just a bunch of fables). They often take the arguments of the Anti-Christians at face value without seeking what the bible actually says. They refer to people as 'literalist' when in fact, inerrency has been understood to mean the original text, in the original languages, not any particular translation.

And on top of that, a lot of those who claim the scriptures are scientificly or historicly flawed either have a limited undestanding of science and history, an ideological or professional ax to grind, or are just afraid if they don't deny the scriptures they will be labeled one of 'those people'. Or all of the above.

In my experience, nope. Anyone with a basic grasp of logic, or vision at the Grand Canyon for that matter, can understand the arguments about the Earth being very old. Have you ever visited the Grand Canyon, Dio? I recommend the North Rim. Much better than the South.

Like I've said before, you and I should spend some time living in each other's states. The fundamentalists have real political power here. It's gotten this state exactly NOWHERE in the last 100 years -- the last few years notwithstanding -- unlike other places where I have lived. People here are willingly herded like sheep. I understand that you're not being herded in Calif., but are fighting against the tide of leftest bullshit. Believe me, I know. SoCal is like another country compared to here.

That being said ...

From my perspective, here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, sheepism is to be fought on every front. Not just because people are walking around like brain-dead robots, hanging on every word their preacher tells them, but because of the complete hypocrisy that I see, virtually every day.

Prime example, we have a local radio host here, who claims to be a "born again Christian," and regularly does sermons on the air. He rails against almost everything in this city -- downtown, the mayor, planners, entertainment -- you name it, as being a "sin," and "disgraceful." He's spent entire shows railing against the evils of gambling and calling Native Americans "Injuns" when they call his show. Turns out the fucktard has been banned from two Indian casinos here. The paper did a story about it, and he was forced to make on on-air apology. But he continues on, every single day, with his judgemental, hypocritical bullshit, all in the name of "entertainment."

I'm not sure if he believes the Earth is 10,000 years old, but I have no doubt that he has thousands of listeners who do.

And no Dio, science is in NO WAY the same. Science isn't out to "convert" anybody to anything. Science simply says, "This is what likely happened, because of this evidence." When new evidence is presented, the entire paradigm in an entire field changes, as has happened throughout the centuries and the decades. Issac Asimov is correct in the sense that science scares some folks -- the vast majority of whom are in the camp that steadfastly holds on to the misguided belief of a literal interpretation of certain stories in the OT. Science represents change, and has done so since before Galileo's time.

I have never had a problem with science. Just with materialist ideologues who refer to themselves as being 'pro-science' and attack anyone who using scientific inquiry challanges their assumptions as 'anti-science', or 'fundies' or some other crap.

Fair enough.

The difference though, is that much more often than not, it's the folks who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible who insist on "equal time," when in fact, what they really want is conversion. Science has no such aim, despite your arguments to the contrary.

The Bible is a beautiful book, as literature. It is not to be read as scientific nor even historical truth, in many cases.

Through allegory of the Bible is knowledge. Reading the OT Bible for scientific or historical "truth" is like listening to an instrumental and taking in the credits as the real meaning of the music.

[RadioFan]

Show me ONE time where he spoke of the Old Testament as not being historically accurate, or the important people in it as not real people.

Answered. By his actions.
And you answered your own question, earlier. He is the NEW covenant.

What was the other question?

[Diogenes]

Reading the OT Bible for scientific or historical "truth" is like listening to an instrumental and taking in the credits as the real meaning of the music

There is a difference between basing one's knowledge of science and history on the Bible, and mearly pointing out the speciousness of the arguments of those who falsly claim that it is in error. A) I don't know of anyone who is suggesting using it as a textbook-that is a boogeyman put out by the Darwinists. B) Since it doesn't primarily concern itself with history (except in specific cases) or science, there is no reason to.

And BTW, I grew up in Arizona, I've seen the GC once or twice. Still has nothing to do with the age of the earth or universe. Not that a six day creation is even incompatible with a 6 billion year old universe anyway.

You might want to elaborate on your answer to Poptart's question, BTW. His others...

Question for you and Mike:

When you sin, do you slaughter an animal as atonement ... ?

If not, why not ... ?


Challenge:

Post (in your own words) your most compelling 'proof' that the creation account of Genesis is not true.

[poptart]

you answered your own question, earlier. He is the NEW covenant.

Yes, of course.
He is the new covenant.
So Mosaic Law, and the practices of the time of Christ's life, were no longer required once the Christ has come.
The Jews of that time could not recognize that He was, in fact, the Christ, and they murdered Him.

Mike went to great lengths to try to prove that Christ's being a 'rebel' against Old Testament practices equates to Jesus not viewing people and events of the Old Testament as true.

He tried to shoot down the credibility of Christ and the dots he tried to connect don't connect ..... at ALL.

Mike attempted to make some other strange points too, tossing darts at His Savior, but oh well.


The other question was a challenge.

Challenge:

Post (in your own words) your most compelling 'proof' that the creation account of Genesis is not true.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Question for you and Mike:

When you sin, do you slaughter an animal as atonement ... ?

If not, why not ... ?

Nope - I'm a bacon-eating, shellfish-eating Gentile. Hell, for all I know, if it wasn't for Constantine, my people would still be worshipping the other deity whose followers claimed he sprung from virgin birth and resurrected after three days (Sol Invictus).

Besides, I'm not the one pushing for the veracity of every jot and tittle of the OT, so I have no reason to rationalize why I don't follow it. I think Garden of Eden, Noah, etc. are fairy tales, remember?

Challenge:

Post (in your own words) your most compelling 'proof' that the creation account of Genesis is not true.

Hmmmm...let's see. How 'bout the fact that the two creation accounts in Genesis, which spring from different authors at different times, don't line up. How 'bout the fact that if taken literally the whole proposition that the Earth was created and filled with higher animals and plants less than 10,000 years ago in six 24-hour periods has nothing remotely resembling scientific backing.

If the story is read allegorically, poetically - and we realize that our concept of "day" is probably not the same as God's and thatif His Son had to use parables to teach important concepts to us limited critters that maybe, just maybe, God the Father has done the same thing then there's no reason to agonize over the FACT that we know creation to be billions of years old and that life evolved through a lengthy process.

I see the Big Bang as God's "Let There Be Light." I see evolution as HOW God filled the Earth with the life that is here. Science is not the enemy of religion. All science does is attempt to determine how the Big Guy has done the stuff He has. The fact that there are devout Christians who are practicing scientists and have reconciled their religious and scientific views shows that the false choice fundies present is just that - a false choice between being a Christian and being a 21st-century, scientifically literate individual.

"Religious" folk claiming the Bible as ultimate authority in ALL things have fought heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, vaccination, evolution...all because of a mistaken belief that the Bible's "inerrancy" means that it is absolutely 100% correct in all matters, including biology, physics, astronomy....With each year that researchers add to our body of knowledge, the ability of thumpers to misapply Scripture gets weaker and weaker. And a good thing that is.

[PSUFAN]

wow...looks like I had a post deleted in this thread?

Anyway, I'll never understand the need for literalists to establish the historical accuracy of their storybook. The bible is a document that has a lot of allegorical and instructional value for anyone, not just believers. It would seem to me that to get too hung up on whether the events were historically accurate or not is an exercise in futility, moreover, perhaps such efforts obscure the real message of the document.

[poptart]

What's IS 'the message of the document,' PSU ... ?


I asked you two questions and you didn't answer either of them, Mike.
Try again.

1. How is your sin atoned for ... ?


You gave no proof there at all.

I say everything was created in 6 days.
Why was it not ... ?

2. Where is your ONE most compelling proof that my claim is not correct ... ?

[PSUFAN]

poptart,

It depends on which document we're discussing. The Old and New Testaments are distinctly different sets of texts.

Old: God is a bad motherfucker. Give him his due or He'll fuck you up, or let his Chosen people fuck you up.

New: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

That's a BIG shift in policy there, chief.

The Old is basically a cultural handbook for a particular tribe of individuals.

The New sets its sights higher...and has been manipulated, reinterpreted, translated, and processed more than any other document (excepting perhaps rts's :rts: ).

[Mike the Lab Rat]

1. How is your sin atoned for ... ?

Jesus died for my sins.

When I commit new ones, I do the whole confession thing. Episcopalians do the "reflect and repent group confession" bit, so i don't even have to recite my dirty laundry to a priest. father Mark says the "magic words," and there I go - a squeaky-clean soul.

I say everything was created in 6 days.
Why was it not ... ?

Hmmm....lessee, the fact that using the speed of light and radioactive decay calculations, physicists have estimated the age of the universe and the Earth pretty much to be in the BILLIONS of years, while using geology and radioactive decay, scientists have shown that the process of Earth's formation took a hell of a lot longer than six 24-hour days. Toss in the genetic timeclock issue, fossil evidence, and it took more than six 24-hour days for animals and plants to arise. Oh, and all the plants and animals didn't pop into existence all at once "perfect and unchanging" (in the favorite claims of Darwin's 19th-century opponents).

There is nothing in geology, astronomy, physics, or biology that would lead a rational person to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old (or less) and that all life appeared within the timeframe described by Genesis. None. And save the "you know otherwise" crap, because NO, I don't because NO there isn't.

And neither you nor Dio ever tried explaining WHY or HOW thousands upon thousands of scientists, science educators, and science students would ever suppress the "truth" (snicker) of a young Earth and six 24-hour day creation? What possible motive would all these people in geology, anthropology, archeology, physics, astronomy, genetics, developmental biology, embryology, etc. have for collaborating to overturn th Bible? And how could we all POSSIBLY keep this a secret? Or is your argument that all these thousands and thousands of researchers are incompetent or deluded, despite the fact that their research supports each other's hypotheses, hypotheses which disagree with YOUR beliefs?

Deal with it - the reason that intelligent people don't buy Genesis' account of creation is because it just ain't so, not because scientists are "hell-bent" on disproving the Bible.

[rozy]

I find it interesting, and I'm not being critical, that one could believe that a man died and then rose from the grave 3 days later but can't believe that the same God was capable of creating the world we see in a mature state. He can rise from the dead but he can't create the chicken without the egg? Because (snickering right back at ya) science says so? Science says a man that is dead is, um, dead.

How did Jesus wind up in the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted of the devil? He was led by the SPIRIT. God WILL test your faith. He WILL test your belief.

1. God created the heavens and earth exactly like He said He did.

or

2. Billions of years ago, God caused this BIG BANG and let everything else happen by chance.

How many different species of life are there on earth, both animal and plant? This happened by chance? By accident? THAT amount of variety? And 'Tart and I are considered ludicrous and insane?

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy is N.T., btw)

Anyone have a different definition for the word all than I have? If not, then you know why we accept the whole, rather than the part. Will there be issues that our finite minds give us trouble with? Sure. O.T. law vs. N.T. grace can be a difficult concept. What is NOT difficult is the word all.

Mike, if God could raise His Son from the dead, why would it be so unreasonable that he would also be powerful enough to create a universe in an undateable, mature state? And why for all intents and purposes did evolution stop with the advent of man? What were the evolultionary "triggers" that would create SO many branches of species yet many depending on each other in the "food chain"? What purpose from an evolutionary "chance" perspective does a frog serve? Why are there still frogs?

I know the typical answer so let me short-circuit in advance as I already have above. Why would God choose to use evolution yet then tell us in HIS ALL inspired Word that he created the chicken before the egg?

[battery chucka' one]

Rack you Rozy.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, if God could raise His Son from the dead, why would it be so unreasonable that he would also be powerful enough to create a universe in an undateable, mature state?

Because the evidence, out there for all to see and analyze for themselves, is that the universe as we know it took unimaginable (from human POV) tracts of time to be in the state we know. There is nothing in geology, physics, biology, etc. that supports the "*POP* - there's the world as we know it" theory.

In fact, the ONLY "source" for that theory is a book of "Jewish folklore."

BTW, despite what pop claims, the resurrection of Jesus is NOT considered a historical or scientific fact. It is considered a matter of faith, same as the claims that Muslims make for Mohammed's alleged miraculous stuff.

And why for all intents and purposes did evolution stop with the advent of man?

It didn't. Species continue to evolve. Humans are still evolving. In fact, a paper came out in Science just this year about how certain human gene families dealing with brain proteins are shifting across populations - in short, evolution is moving on even within humans.

What were the evolultionary "triggers" that would create SO many branches of species yet many depending on each other in the "food chain"?

Most animals don't work on a "food chain" but a "food web." Multiple sources of nutrition. When a food supply changes, species have three choices: move, adapt or die. Humans used to be primarily vegetarian, but we increased our meat/protein consumption (more tasty, bigger variety of n.utr.ients).

What purpose from an evolutionary "chance" perspective does a frog serve? Why are there still frogs?

First off, evolution doesn't work that way - with "purpose." Things happen to have certain traits that by chance are favorable or unfavorable in a certain environment. Favorable traits tend to help organisms be more likely to survive and reproduce than less favorably-traited organisms. Period. No planning, no purpose. We don't have legs so that we can walk - we can walk because we have legs. A big difference.

There are still frogs because they must be favorably adapted to their local habitats.

I find the lack of rudimentary scientific knowledge of most fundies appalling. Not surprising, just appalling.

Why would God choose to use evolution yet then tell us in HIS ALL inspired Word that he created the chicken before the egg?

God uses evolution because those are the laws He set in place. As for how it was relayed to us, you are assuming that the self-appointed "reporters" actually spoke for Him (doubtful) and even if they did, why would you suppose that he would deign to explain natural selection, mutation, Homeo boxes, alleles, etc. to incredibly primitive folks when the Bible is a purely RELIGIOUS document? If His Son saw fit to teach His own closest friends and Disciples using parables, then why wouldn't God the Father?

I have had Baptist nutjobs try to tell me that God created the universe 5-7 thousand years ago and in the six 24-hour days just as in Genesis and that the reason that every bit of scientific inquiry into the topic results in a differnt answer is that we're being deliberately deceived or tested (by the Devil if the former, by the Devil or God if the latter). That is utter nonsense.

You Biblical literalists and creationists are nutjobs. Mostly harmless nutjobs now, but nutjobs nonetheless. You and your ilk have, throughout history, sought to use your warped interpretation of a book of Jewish mythology to persecute scientists (Copernicus, Galilieo), fight against medicine and vaccines (since disease is God's righteous judgement), interfere with research (stem cells, genetics), and justify homophobia, racism, and misogyny. With each time that you inject yourselves into political and scientific debates, you make the rest of us literate, educated Christians who stepped into the 21st-century cringe. You folks are the ones who turned the phrase "I'll pray for you" into a freaking insult.

You all claim that Scripture is plain for all to see and interpret, despite the obvious evidence found in umpteen Christian denominations, each of whom claims highly-Scripturally-educated experts and at least some claim to legitimacy.

Has it occurred to you that your collective embarrassing lack of scientific knowledge, your sexual bigotry, and denominational intolerance is what makes it really hard for the rest of us to admit sometimes that we're nominally in the same "Christian boat" as you guys?

[poptart]

Old: God is a bad motherfucker. Give him his due or He'll fuck you up, or let his Chosen people fuck you up.

New: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

The very last words Jesus spoke before being taken up and out of sight were (Acts 1:8 ) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Yes, go into all the world and tell of Me.
Tell what of Him ... ?

That He is the Christ.

That's what people need to know.
That's what they MUST receive .... or they are dead men walking.
THAT is what the whole Bible is about.

Do unto others .... be a good samaritan ..... don't steal ...... men shouldn't fuck men ....... go to church ... etc etc .......

All side issues.


That's my .02 on that.



Mike, you freely admit that Christ atoned for your sins, so you of course understand that all His 'rebel' behavior of 'disregarding' Judaic law meant was that HE is the new covenant, and NOT that he thought the historical accuracy of events or people of the Old Testament were in question.

Jesus clearly spoke on MANY occassions about people and events in the Old Testament.
He regarded the Old Testament as factual.

You, however, think that some of the Old Testament events and people that Jesus Christ spoke of ...... were not real.

Not to be impolite, but ..... where do you get your balls that big ... ?

Not only that, but you've got MAJOR fundamental theological problems when you attempt to say that death went on for millions of years ..... before Adam sinned.

Major problem there.
You've got many other major theological problems too, but they are frankly too numerous to get into.

Jesus spoke of the creation as described in Genesis.

He spoke of it as fact.


I said I wouldn't do the link thing, but this was really pretty good.

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

Scott’s presuppositions are again laid bare, when she matter-of-factly begins a sentence with, “Because science rules out supernatural explanations…” Yet, it is not “science” itself that “rules out” the supernatural at all, but an unblushingly dogmatic predisposition that refuses to acknowledge the supernatural in the first place. Readers would do well to note that many of the founders of what has become modern science were Bible-believing individuals, and that the heavily popularized myth that science has the authority to “rule out” the supernatural is a relatively recent (and for the most part unwarranted) device, contrived and enforced largely by those whose faith is the naturalism that dominates “mainstream” science today.


Who was around when the the universe was created .... ?

What 'scientist' was present ... ?

Millions, Jillions, Zillions, Billions of years .....

Is it not true that you can measure a lot of things about a rock but there is no device that can directly measure the age of it .... ?

I'm not the least bit impressed by the 'most compelling proof' you layed on the table to prove that the 6 day creation account is not true.

But then again you knew that was coming. haha

People have suppositions that come directly into play, and how one views data, combines it with other (or MULTIPLE other data) and then comes to conclusions depends in large part on their world view.

You've got yours and I've got mine.

The very fact that we are discussing it is evidence enough that there is no FACT to the matter, no matter how many times you try to assert such.

If your belief truly WAS fact the media would never let anyone forget it.

[Diogenes]

wow...looks like I had a post deleted in this thread?

Anyway, I'll never understand the need for literalists to establish the historical accuracy of their storybook. The bible is a document that has a lot of allegorical and instructional value for anyone, not just believers. It would seem to me that to get too hung up on whether the events were historically accurate or not is an exercise in futility, moreover, perhaps such efforts obscure the real message of the document.

Not by me-the fact that Dimsdale's insipid rantings are visible should tell you I haven't deleted anything here.

And I on the other hand understand perfectly the absolute need for atheists, materialists, and Darwinists to constantly trash the Bible. I find it pathetic and stupid, but I get it.

[Diogenes]

This covers the supposed differance in Genesis 1 and 2

The fact that there are devout Christians who are practicing scientists and have reconciled their religious and scientific views shows that the false choice fundies present is just that - a false choice between being a Christian and being a 21st-century, scientifically literate individual.

Actually the false choice is with True Believers like you who insist there is a between being sceptical about Darwinism and being a 21st-century, scientifically literate individual.

As far as the supposed contridiction between the obseved age of the universe and a six day creation, there isn't. Or haven't you heard of space-time dilation?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually the false choice is with True Believers like you who insist there is a between being sceptical about Darwinism and being a 21st-century, scientifically literate individual.

You toss the word "Darwinism" around as if it's a real phrase that gets used in science. If you mean "natural selection," then say so.

If by "Darwinism" you mean his proposed mechanisms from the 19th century, then you know full well that your argument is full of hot air. I have explained, repeatedly, that NO SCIENTIST works under the exact 19th-century proposals of Darwin anymore, because -and this is the wonderful part about science- he didn't understand how variations could possibly appear, due to his lack of knowledge of genetics. His original ideas have been modified in light of accumulated evidence from genetics (from Mendel onward), developmental biology, population genetics, etc. The field of "evo devo" is very hot right now (I just finished Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful") and wonderfully explains how vertebrates and invertebrates can modify the same basic body plans with just minor tweaks of specific controlling sequences. All of these new data have been incorporated into oor current understanding of evolution, currently referred to as the "modern synthesis."

But then again, those facts don'y work well in your efforts to paint evolutionists as narrow-minded "fundies," so you consistantly ignore them.

As far as the supposed contridiction between the obseved age of the universe and a six day creation, there isn't. Or haven't you heard of space-time dilation?

Considering how delightfully, completely inept you have proven to be in biology, I'm guessing that even if "space-time dilation" were a possible hypothesis to support your argument, that you would have screwed it up or misinterpreted it utterly. You are just incredibly BAD at science.

And then there's that question I keep placing before you close-minded fundies...what possible reason would thousands upon thousands of scientists, science educators, science students, and textbook folks have for hiding the "Biblical truth?" And how the heck have we gotten away with it for so long?

[Diogenes]

Actually the false choice is with True Believers like you who insist there is a between being sceptical about Darwinism and being a 21st-century, scientifically literate individual.

You toss the word "Darwinism" around as if it's a real phrase that gets used in science. If you mean "natural selection," then say so.

As opposed to phrases like 'fundie' and 'literalist' which are probably used by so-caled 'scientists' all the time.

As far as the supposed contridiction between the obseved age of the universe and a six day creation, there isn't. Or haven't you heard of space-time dilation?

Considering how delightfully, completely inept you have proven to be in biology, I'm guessing that even if "space-time dilation" were a possible hypothesis to support your argument, that you would have screwed it up or misinterpreted it utterly. You are just incredibly BAD at science.

I guess that's a no.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, you freely admit that Christ atoned for your sins, so you of course understand that all His 'rebel' behavior of 'disregarding' Judaic law meant was that HE is the new covenant, and NOT that he thought the historical accuracy of events or people of the Old Testament were in question.

Jesus clearly spoke on MANY occassions about people and events in the Old Testament.
He regarded the Old Testament as factual.

You, however, think that some of the Old Testament events and people that Jesus Christ spoke of ...... were not real.

Not to be impolite, but ..... where do you get your balls that big ... ?

I'm Italian. :wink:

Not only that, but you've got MAJOR fundamental theological problems when you attempt to say that death went on for millions of years ..... before Adam sinned.

Nope. You're in the minority on that one, since most mainline Christian denominations don't buy your load of horseshit on "no death before Adam sinned."

There was no actual dude named Adam who ate a piece of fruit off of a forbidden tree. It's a frigging metaphor.

Things have been dying (via old age, disease, predation, accidents) before human got here. To claim otherwise is just incredibly...stupid.

Scott’s presuppositions are again laid bare, when she matter-of-factly begins a sentence with, “Because science rules out supernatural explanations…” Yet, it is not “science” itself that “rules out” the supernatural at all, but an unblushingly dogmatic predisposition that refuses to acknowledge the supernatural in the first place. Readers would do well to note that many of the founders of what has become modern science were Bible-believing individuals, and that the heavily popularized myth that science has the authority to “rule out” the supernatural is a relatively recent (and for the most part unwarranted) device, contrived and enforced largely by those whose faith is the naturalism that dominates “mainstream” science today.

Horse manure. There are no "founders of science" in the same sense as the "Founders" of the United States. That many great names in science were Christian there is no doubt (heck, the "Father of Genetics," Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic monk). Your author above ascribes a false 'founding' and 'founders' argument to claim that modern science has undone their accepting supernatural causes. Your author is a liar or is ignorant. By the 18th century, men working in science (at that point amateurs) deliberately sought natural explanations for the effects they saw. As time wore on, they found natural causes and effects and dismissed the supernatural causes (spirits, sins, etc.). They also realized that ascribing effects to supernatural causes was non-scientific because there would be no way to meaningfully experiment that way. Science refuses to deal with the supernatural not because science demeans the supernatural - science doesn't deal with the supernatural largely to admit a LIMIT to what science can study. It is not the proper place of science to study souls, the nature of good and evil, God, etc. It is beyond science's scope.

Who was around when the the universe was created .... ?

What 'scientist' was present ... ?

Millions, Jillions, Zillions, Billions of years .....

Is it not true that you can measure a lot of things about a rock but there is no device that can directly measure the age of it .... ?

Invalid argument, but common from you "fundies." You know darn well that you do not need direct witnesses to prove a case. You don't need them to solve a murder, and you don't need them to determine how events happened millions of years ago. You use analysis of the evidence you have. the clues.

No one has seen an atom or an electron, but we know they exist via indirect evidence and mathematical computation. No one has seen the sun as the actual center of the solar system, but we know it is via mathematical computation.

You, true to form, tossed out one of the fundamentalist scientific gaffes. Laughable.

I'm not the least bit impressed by the 'most compelling proof' you layed on the table to prove that the 6 day creation account is not true.

People have suppositions that come directly into play, and how one views data, combines it with other (or MULTIPLE other data) and then comes to conclusions depends in large part on their world view.

You've got yours and I've got mine.

Yeah, but mine are based on objective data collected and corroborated by lots of other people, published for all to see and criticize and duplicate on their own. All you have is a book that some deride as mere fairy tales.

The very fact that we are discussing it is evidence enough that there is no FACT to the matter, no matter how many times you try to assert such.

No, it just means that a)I have a lot of time on my hands, b) that you are, as always, clinging desperately to dogmatic religious belief despite empirical data, and c) you also have a lot of time on your hands :wink:

[Diogenes]

Here's a link from another 'non-scientist' at UVA on young vs. old creation.

Refreshing to see someone in the field of Biology who actually understands basic Phyics.

As far as why so few people in the scientific community dare to question the Tenets of Darwinism, they don't want to go through the Popper treatment.

Ask Michael Behe.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Here's a link from another 'non-scientist' at UVA on young vs. old creation.

Refreshing to see someone in the field of Biology who actually understands basic Phyics.

Yeah, and I guess the musings on physics, by a biochemist, from 27 years ago, IN A CHRISTIAN freaking journal, being praised by a creationist nutjob like yourself, are supposed to impress me?

When scientists step out of their fields to wax deep, it usually looks ridiculous. Like that paper.

Ask Michael Behe.

As far as why so few people in the scientific community dare to question the Tenets of Darwinism, they don't want to go through the Popper treatment.

Ask Michael Behe.

Behe is a fair biochemist who stupidly decided to venture into fields he had little background in and decided to make unfounded, unsupported arguments. He got pilloried for it, not because he "dared to question the Tenets of Darwinism," but because he made many egregious errors and incorrect claims regarding "irreducible complexity." He claimed that no intermediary steps for blood clotting had been found when they not only HAD, but they'd been published prior to his claim. He made the same mistake with flagellar rotors.

Behe's only defenders were from the scientifically illiterate, such as yourself, and crypto-creationists.

He was shown for the hack he'd become in the Dover trial.

[Diogenes]

Here's a link from another 'non-scientist' at UVA on young vs. old creation.

Refreshing to see someone in the field of Biology who actually understands basic Phyics.

Yeah, and I guess the musings on physics, by a biochemist, from 27 years ago, IN A CHRISTIAN freaking journal, being praised by a creationist nutjob like yourself, are supposed to impress me?

When scientists step out of their fields to wax deep, it usually looks ridiculous.

Kind of like you in this thread?

Any smears against Karl Popper? Oh, wait, he recanted his aposatacy.

Then again, so did Galileo.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

When scientists step out of their fields to wax deep, it usually looks ridiculous.

Kind of like you in this thread?

Actually, kind of like you, in well...ANY thread.

Since evolutionary proof includes biology and I teach biology at both the regular and AP levels, I'm hardly out of my field.

Not to mention the fact that with regards to theology thus far, I (and others chiming in) think I'm more than holding my own. Must be all those CCD classes at St. Dennis's and St. Patrick's. And the courses in the High Middle Ages and the Bible I took with Dr. Cook - along with the student dinner/debates held at his house. And the adult education groups at my parish every week.

You, on the other hand, never seem to tire of displaying your profound ignorance of science and spelling in thread after thread. Hell, you even boldface it so your 'special gifts' are harder to ignore. It's kind of like a kid yelling out a really stupid answer in class.

Any smears against Karl Popper? Oh, wait, he recanted his aposatacy.

Then again, so did Galileo.

And in the latter case, the recantation was brought on by punishments brought on by....religious fundies in the Vatican.

And let's look at how posterity judged the one who was right - Galileo, and how it judged the Vatican. It took half a millenium, but the Vatican apologized.

Thanks for helping prove my point, numbnut.

[Diogenes]

When scientists step out of their fields to wax deep, it usually looks ridiculous.

Kind of like you in this thread?

Actually, kind of like you, in well...ANY thread.

Since evolutionary proof includes biology and I teach biology at both the regular and AP levels, I'm hardly out of my field.

Not to mention the fact that with regards to theology thus far, I (and others chiming in) think I'm more than holding my own. Must be all those CCD classes at St. Dennis's and St. Patrick's. And the courses in the High Middle Ages and the Bible I took with Dr. Cook - along with the student dinner/debates held at his house. And the adult education groups at my parish every week.

I'm not too surprised that all of the atheists on the board would be proping your incohearant hysterical rants. The fact remains you have nothing but ad hominems, lies and misrepresentations. Constantly misrepresenting the Scriptures, science and other people's positions-par for the course from you.

And your knowledge about physics, logic and scripture is somewhere between pathetic and nonexistant.

Any smears against Karl Popper? Oh, wait, he recanted his aposatacy.

Then again, so did Galileo.

And in the latter case, the recantation was brought on by punishments brought on by....religious fundies in the Vatican.

And let's look at how posterity judged the one who was right - Galileo, and how it judged the Vatican. It took half a millenium, but the Vatican apologized.

Thanks for helping prove my point, numbnut.

Really? The obvious point is that you and your Darwinist fundie ilk are the modern inquisition. But feel free to come back with some more epic spellcheck 'smack'. Inevitable response of a flailing takeless tard.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

I'm not too surprised that all of the atheists on the board would be proping your incohearant hysterical rants. The fact remains you have nothing but ad hominems, lies and misrepresentations. Constantly misrepresenting the Scriptures, science and other people's positions-par for the course from you.

Go ahead, lie some more. You know darned well that I presented scientific arguments, quotes and links from legit sites, and rebutted your nutty claims. Again.

And your knowledge about physics, logic and scripture is somewhere between pathetic and nonexistant.

Considering that you've had your ass handed to you yet again, your opinion on that matter is as dubious as it was on most of the issues in the thread

Really? The obvious point is that you and your Darwinist fundie ilk are the modern inquisition.

Really? Wow. So, tell us the list of folks who were imprisoned, castrated, tortured, or killed by evolutionists. When was the last time dissenting scientists were strung up on a rack, had their tongues cut out, were burned with hot irons? I mean that's what YOUR kind did to scientists, but tell me the last time scientists did it to each other.

On top of your silly arguments, you then bust out with a truly pathetic comparison between scientists' open debate and a religious persecution by Vatican fundies that was rationalized as Scripturally-sanctioned.

Ironic that you keep bringing up stuff that actually paints YOUR side worse and worse. I mean, going to the "Galileo" card when he is the poster child for how religious folks misuse the Bible as science and wrongfully attack scientists. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot. Again.

And I mentioned the spelling bit just because your frequent, appalling inability to spell (as opposed to accident keystrokes) just is funnier than hell considering your posturing as some sort of knowledgable expert on various subjects and your frequent call for school choice. It's really, really hard to take anything you write that seriously when you present yourself via your posts as a functional illiterate.

[PSUFAN]

Dio...take a deeep breath, man. You're suffering a beatdown of legendary proportions at this point...although you're struggling valiantly, so I'll rack you.

I have to say...you complain of ad hominem attacks, but you started them in this one, not MtLR.

Now...

I on the other hand understand perfectly the absolute need for atheists, materialists, and Darwinists to constantly trash the Bible. I find it pathetic and stupid, but I get it.

I didn't trash the Bible, I offered respect for it as an allegorical and instructional work. I'm saying that it doessn't really matter how historically accurate it is, when the real value is what it contained within; the message is the meat.

[rozy]

Mike, if God could raise His Son from the dead, why would it be so unreasonable that he would also be powerful enough to create a universe in an undateable, mature state?

Because the evidence, out there for all to see and analyze for themselves, is that the universe as we know it took unimaginable (from human POV) tracts of time to be in the state we know. There is nothing in geology, physics, biology, etc. that supports the "*POP* - there's the world as we know it" theory.

In fact, the ONLY "source" for that theory is a book of "Jewish folklore."

BTW, despite what pop claims, the resurrection of Jesus is NOT considered a historical or scientific fact. It is considered a matter of faith, same as the claims that Muslims make for Mohammed's alleged miraculous stuff.

And why for all intents and purposes did evolution stop with the advent of man?

It didn't. Species continue to evolve. Humans are still evolving. In fact, a paper came out in Science just this year about how certain human gene families dealing with brain proteins are shifting across populations - in short, evolution is moving on even within humans.

What were the evolultionary "triggers" that would create SO many branches of species yet many depending on each other in the "food chain"?

Most animals don't work on a "food chain" but a "food web." Multiple sources of nutrition. When a food supply changes, species have three choices: move, adapt or die. Humans used to be primarily vegetarian, but we increased our meat/protein consumption (more tasty, bigger variety of n.utr.ients).

What purpose from an evolutionary "chance" perspective does a frog serve? Why are there still frogs?

First off, evolution doesn't work that way - with "purpose." Things happen to have certain traits that by chance are favorable or unfavorable in a certain environment. Favorable traits tend to help organisms be more likely to survive and reproduce than less favorably-traited organisms. Period. No planning, no purpose. We don't have legs so that we can walk - we can walk because we have legs. A big difference.

There are still frogs because they must be favorably adapted to their local habitats.

I find the lack of rudimentary scientific knowledge of most fundies appalling. Not surprising, just appalling.

Why would God choose to use evolution yet then tell us in HIS ALL inspired Word that he created the chicken before the egg?

God uses evolution because those are the laws He set in place. As for how it was relayed to us, you are assuming that the self-appointed "reporters" actually spoke for Him (doubtful) and even if they did, why would you suppose that he would deign to explain natural selection, mutation, Homeo boxes, alleles, etc. to incredibly primitive folks when the Bible is a purely RELIGIOUS document? If His Son saw fit to teach His own closest friends and Disciples using parables, then why wouldn't God the Father?

I have had Baptist nutjobs try to tell me that God created the universe 5-7 thousand years ago and in the six 24-hour days just as in Genesis and that the reason that every bit of scientific inquiry into the topic results in a differnt answer is that we're being deliberately deceived or tested (by the Devil if the former, by the Devil or God if the latter). That is utter nonsense.

You Biblical literalists and creationists are nutjobs. Mostly harmless nutjobs now, but nutjobs nonetheless. You and your ilk have, throughout history, sought to use your warped interpretation of a book of Jewish mythology to persecute scientists (Copernicus, Galilieo), fight against medicine and vaccines (since disease is God's righteous judgement), interfere with research (stem cells, genetics), and justify homophobia, racism, and misogyny. With each time that you inject yourselves into political and scientific debates, you make the rest of us literate, educated Christians who stepped into the 21st-century cringe. You folks are the ones who turned the phrase "I'll pray for you" into a freaking insult.

You all claim that Scripture is plain for all to see and interpret, despite the obvious evidence found in umpteen Christian denominations, each of whom claims highly-Scripturally-educated experts and at least some claim to legitimacy.

Has it occurred to you that your collective embarrassing lack of scientific knowledge, your sexual bigotry, and denominational intolerance is what makes it really hard for the rest of us to admit sometimes that we're nominally in the same "Christian boat" as you guys?

I'll IB this tomorrow but for now.... Why did Jesus die on the cross and rise again, Mike? (I am, btw, rather impressed with your pickup on my denominational leaning)

[Diogenes]

Dio...take a deeep breath, man. You're suffering a beatdown of legendary proportions at this point...although you're struggling valiantly, so I'll rack you.

I have to say...you complain of ad hominem attacks, but you started them in this one, not MtLR.

Now...

I on the other hand understand perfectly the absolute need for atheists, materialists, and Darwinists to constantly trash the Bible. I find it pathetic and stupid, but I get it.

I didn't trash the Bible, I offered respect for it as an allegorical and instructional work. I'm saying that it doessn't really matter how historically accurate it is, when the real value is what it contained within; the message is the meat.

A) If you think I'm suffering any type of beatdown, I'm guessing that MtLiaR is preaching to the choir in your case. As far as ad hominem, actually I didn't, and I'm not particularly complaining that he is gripping so hard he has to resort to them (as usual)anyway. If the last quote doesn't apply to you, then it isn't directed at you. Just at those who claim that anyone who even considers the possibility that the Bible is true is some sort of mental defective/menace to society.

[poptart]

Not only that, but you've got MAJOR fundamental theological problems when you attempt to say that death went on for millions of years ..... before Adam sinned.

Nope. You're in the minority on that one, since most mainline Christian denominations don't buy your load of horseshit on "no death before Adam sinned."

That proves nothing at all.
Most 'mainline Christian denominations' don't even know the Gospel.
Yours clearly included.

There was no actual dude named Adam who ate a piece of fruit off of a forbidden tree. It's a frigging metaphor.

I don't agree, nor did Jesus.

Things have been dying (via old age, disease, predation, accidents) before human got here. To claim otherwise is just incredibly...stupid.

Stupid is ignoring the clear Words of the Bible and making up your own theology.

How do you try to reconcile your fundamental theological gaffe of imagining millions of years of death before the sin of the first man .... ?

Oh, it's simple. You ignore parts of the Bible you don't like, twist other parts around to meet match with your own preconceptions, or call the author (or Christ Himself) a liar.

If death did not come through Adam's disobedience, then the whole reason for Christ the Creator to come and die for Adam’s sin, to redeem man and pay the penalty through justice being served, is erased.

Death came by sin, Mike.

YOU are a sinner because you came from Adam's seed, not because you came from the seed of a rock on the bottom of the ocean.

This is a fundamental truth of God's word.

what possible reason would thousands upon thousands of scientists, science educators, science students, and textbook folks have for hiding the "Biblical truth?"

For a 'smart' guy you really are extremely dull, Mike.

You also routinely mischaracterize the postions of people to try to have them come into line with what you WANT for their position to be.

Biblical creation 'truth' is not scientifically proven.

The evolutionist begins with many philosophical assumptions from outside of science.
Hence, he comes to many 'conclusions,' such as the age of rocks, without being able to DIRECTLY measure their age.
And that is just ONE example of MANY.

The creationist may also begin with a Bible bias.

Oversimplified, what we have is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism, and this results in different interpretations of the same scientific data.

Don't act like there is not young earth evidence, and don't act like there are not MANY scientists who speak on it's behalf.

It's just that their conclusions are met with the kind of scoff & wave of the hand that you so often display when people question the ASSumptions that you like to state as fact.

[RadioFan]

That proves nothing at all.
Most 'mainline Christian denominations' don't even know the Gospel.
Yours clearly included.

Oh really? Going to the "you're not a real Christian" route now?

How many Christian sects and denominations are there?

Good thing folks like you are around to remind everyone else who does and doesn't "know" the Gospel. Good thing you're not being judgemental or ignorantly arrogant or anything. :roll:

As to your question, obviously I sin and I don't slaughter animals as atonement. I'm a Dutch/Irish Gentile and don't consciously observe traditions of Middle East 3,000 years ago, with the possible exception of drinking beer, ala the Egyptians.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever reconciling certain stories in the OT as being metephor, and importance in spiritual -- not literal -- meaning, just as I have no problem reading between the lines of Jesus' parables. When he fed 5,000 people on the mount, it's the miracle that's important, not what species of fish nor what kind of bread it was. That's what happens when one gets so hung up on the literal words, rather than what's between the lines.

His Son had to use parables to teach important concepts to us limited critters that maybe, just maybe, God the Father has done the same thing then there's no reason to agonize over the FACT that we know creation to be billions of years old and that life evolved through a lengthy process.

E X A C T L Y




The tree that Adam and Eve ate from is a metaphor, just as the tree in this image with Jesus in it is a metaphor, illustrating that we humans need to get back to the spiritual "garden" from which we were cast, by way of Christ. This image represents that spiritual goal, but it doesn't represent an actual, physical tree somewhere.

[poptart]

I didn't say anyone was or wasn't a real Christian, RF.
Anyone receiving Christ is a 'Christian,' and they are saved.
I said they don't know the Gospel.
Big difference.

Do you know the Gospel ... ?

I didn't trash the Bible, I offered respect for it as an allegorical and instructional work. I'm saying that it doessn't really matter how historically accurate it is, when the real value is what it contained within; the message is the meat.

And you think the message is to be a moral person. Do unto others .....

Did you see the Passion of the Christ ... ?
The phenomenal suffering one endures in a crucifixion.
God sent his ONLY son to suffer that way.
And then God's message is ..... "be moral people now, and do unto others ....." ???
If that is the message then God's one Son certainly didn't need to endure what he did.
God could have just told us, be moral and do unto others.

You are not a moral person, PSU.
I don't doubt at all that you WANT to be, but you can't be, and you aren't.
Most people want to behave in good ways, but they can't.
Your life is destined to be a failure.
You are a failure waiting to happen.
Oh, it may seem as if things are going along fine, but the failure might be coming at any given time.
You will hit a wall, your life will crumble down, and you will suffer tremendously.
You will die, you will face the judgement.
But it won't end there.
Your spiritual problems will be passed on down to your children, and they will suffer the same way.
Alcoholism, gambling, other addictions, mental problems, family problems, anxiety ....... these problems all run in families.
They are passed down as spiritual problems.
You have some of the same personality and character problems of your mother and father.
People WANT to be moral, do good, but ultimately they can not.

Why ... ?

Because everyone is a decendant of Adam.
All men came from his sinful seed.
We are born sinful.

God planted trees to live in the ground. Apart from this order they die.
God put fish in the water. Apart from this order they die.
God created man to be with him. Apart from this order man dies.

We are BORN apart from God.
Darkness, Chaos and void.
God gave the one from the WOMAN's seed, the Christ, for us to simply take and then come back to a living relationship with Him.

No strings attached.
Just take it.