RE: The Great Story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

abraxas -> RE: The Great Story (7/20/2008 1:22:50 PM)

I don't think that's at all what ianz was getting at.

And "two of the most despicable human beings"?? [:o]



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/20/2008 1:27:49 PM)

quote:

I don't think that's at all what ianz was getting at.


I know, but you just can not compare their words with God's. There's a huge difference.

quote:

And "two of the most despicable human beings"??


Haha. That's as far as I will go. Any more, and I might loose my testimony. [;)]



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/20/2008 1:48:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

The more important point is that creation was spoken into existence. It came about because God spoke. So when we learn from creation we are learning what God spoke.


There's a lot of humor to be understood here. You accept part of what Genesis tells you, but not the other. You accept the fact that God s[poke, but don't accept what He spoke. Why must you believe half a verse? The Bible tells us "And God said," which you say you believe, but you do not accept "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;" Either believe the conclusion of the whole matter, or don't believe it at all.



Not true. I don't divvy up Genesis (or any part of the scripture) into "parts I accept" and "parts I don't accept". I believe all that Genesis tells me. Specifically, I believe the segment you quoted.

I may not believe it is a scientific description, but I don't think it is to be rejected because it is not science. Ironically, I have found many creationists who would reject Genesis if they were convinced it were not science. Is that not setting up science as a judge of scriptural truth?



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/20/2008 2:01:47 PM)

quote:

Not true. I don't divvy up Genesis (or any part of the scripture) into "parts I accept" and "parts I don't accept".


But you did.

quote:

"I believe all that Genesis tells me. Specifically, I believe the segment you quoted.


You can't because the segment I quoted directly contradicts your beliefs. Dust is not evolution. Adam was made from dust, Eve was made from a rib, not a mutation. Sorry, but you can't believe both.

quote:

I have found many creationists who would reject Genesis if they were convinced it were not science. Is that not setting up science as a judge of scriptural truth?


"Many" is an over statement, but other than that you are correct. However, this problem is MUCH more relevant for theistic evolutionists than it is for creationists. Theistic evolutionists use science as a determination for Biblical interpretation, not creationists. A theistic evolutionists' interpretation of Scripture changes at the whim of science. This is a fact you must admit. Your scientific interpretations are LESS likely to change than your Scriptural interpretation. Sounds like you place a bit higher value on science than God's Words.



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/20/2008 4:38:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

"I believe all that Genesis tells me. Specifically, I believe the segment you quoted.


You can't because the segment I quoted directly contradicts your beliefs. Dust is not evolution. Adam was made from dust, Eve was made from a rib, not a mutation. Sorry, but you can't believe both.


No, it does not contradict my beliefs. What contradicts my beliefs is your literalistic interpretation of the text. I am quite happy with the text as it stands, but I reject the way you interpret it.

quote:

Theistic evolutionists use science as a determination for Biblical interpretation, not creationists.


A statement like this shows how far you are from understanding TEs. Since we do NOT treat the bible as a science book or hold that it must agree with modern scientific discoveries, we are free NOT to use science as a determination for Biblical interpretation.

quote:

A theistic evolutionists' interpretation of Scripture changes at the whim of science.


Not at all. We seek out the original meaning of the text in its original context. That context does not change being set in the past. So we don't need to "update" interpretations of scripture with an eye on modern science.

Again, I find this much more frequently among creationists who readily change interpretations of scripture in order to sneak modern science into the bible. It is creationists, not TEs who claim to find biblical references to modern science such as the expansion of the universe in the bible.



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 1:51:40 PM)

quote:

Surely no true Christian would reconcile their faith with just anything.


Well, hopefully not, since doing so would render a Christian a fool.

quote:

Who are you to determine what and how other Christians reconcile their faith?


You do realize the idiocy of such a question in a public forum devoted to discussing this very question, do you not?



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 1:57:55 PM)

quote:

Yea, this forum is filled with people who actually "reconcile" their faith with a literal interpretation of genesis... meaning god is deceitful, yet somehow still all good and truthful. Still not sure how that works.


I don't think this makes a lick of sense - how could reading Genesis as it was written force one to conclude that God is 'decietful'? Wouldn't an alternate, obscure meaning of Genesis be a better indicator of this?

quote:

You still conflate your cartoon-esque vision of god with the actual words in genesis. God "spoke"... so your saying it isnt possible for him to have spoken the big bang, set the universe in motion, evolution and all? So you arent just infallible in your interpretation of his word, but you now have authority over what is and is not possible through God?


It is certainly possible for God to have spoken into existence evolution and a big bang, but how would one derive that from Genesis, and why would one be required to?



Embedded -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:24:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:


quote:

It seems like a very unusual project, but it is yet another demonstration that some Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with science.


I am not sure what this demonstrates as there are people calling themselves Christians who 'reconcile' their faith with anything.

quote:

embedded:
Surely no true Christian would reconcile their faith with just anything.


Well, hopefully not, since doing so would render a Christian a fool.


quote:

JHUD:
quote:

embedded:
Who are you to determine what and how other Christians reconcile their faith?


You do realize the idiocy of such a question in a public forum devoted to discussing this very question, do you not?


It is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". But if you can't understand that look up point 6. in the TOS.



cow451 -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:30:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abraxas

I don't think that's at all what ianz was getting at.

And "two of the most despicable human beings"?? [:o]

Really. What do Cheney and Rumsfeld have to do with any of this??????????????



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:31:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
It is certainly possible for God to have spoken into existence evolution and a big bang, but how would one derive that from Genesis, and why would one be required to?


Why would it need to be derived from Genesis?



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:34:08 PM)

quote:

It is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". But if you can't understand that look up point 6. in the TOS.


Oh, I understand the NTSF perfectly, enough to know that you misapplied it. I said in essence that for virtually every idea out there, there are those who call themselves Christians who attempt to 'reconcile' their faith to that idea. This means that simply because a someone claims to reconcile two ideas, it doesn't therefore follow that for any given Christian there should "no difficulty reconciling their faith with science."

For example, the fact that certain 'Christians' have attempted to reconcile their faith with racist ideas doesn't mean that there should be no problem with a Christian doing so - in fact I would hope all Christians would have a big problem doing so.

So I didn't say 'No true Christian will do X' - I said the fact that a Christian (or someone calling themselves a Christian) does X does not mean there is no problem with doing X.

What this all has to do with TOS 6 I will leave to your ever lively imagination.



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:36:51 PM)

quote:

Why would it need to be derived from Genesis?


It wouldn't - that is my point!



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:43:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Why would it need to be derived from Genesis?


It wouldn't - that is my point!


Ok, just to be clear then: you agree that it is certainly possible for God to have spoken into existence evolution and a big bang without any requirement that this be derivable from the text of Genesis.

At least that is how I understand your most recent post. If so, we agree on this.

If I have not understood correctly, please clarify.



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 2:51:05 PM)

quote:

Ok, just to be clear then: you agree that it is certainly possible for God to have spoken into existence evolution and a big bang without any requirement that this be derivable from the text of Genesis.

At least that is how I understand your most recent post. If so, we agree on this.

If I have not understood correctly, please clarify.


More particularly, I think that the fact that humans have developed both the theory of evolution and the big bang, and that a certain number of humans find them to a true description of reality, does not require a Christian to impose these notions on Genesis, whether it is possible for God to have done them or not.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 3:17:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: abraxas

I don't think that's at all what ianz was getting at.

And "two of the most despicable human beings"?? [:o]

Really. What do Cheney and Rumsfeld have to do with any of this??????????????


Nothing, because they are two of the most qualified governmental officials this world has ever seen.



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 4:24:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Ok, just to be clear then: you agree that it is certainly possible for God to have spoken into existence evolution and a big bang without any requirement that this be derivable from the text of Genesis.

At least that is how I understand your most recent post. If so, we agree on this.

If I have not understood correctly, please clarify.


More particularly, I think that the fact that humans have developed both the theory of evolution and the big bang, and that a certain number of humans find them to a true description of reality, does not require a Christian to impose these notions on Genesis, whether it is possible for God to have done them or not.



I would agree with that too. Genesis is not a science text and we should not try to make it one no matter what our stance on modern science.



Jhud -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 4:35:24 PM)

quote:

I would agree with that too. Genesis is not a science text and we should not try to make it one no matter what our stance on modern science.


I have always said this - indeed, as Christians we would not want, nor expect Genesis to be a science text.



Veritas -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 9:43:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would agree with that too. Genesis is not a science text and we should not try to make it one no matter what our stance on modern science.


I have always said this - indeed, as Christians we would not want, nor expect Genesis to be a science text.

And yet... That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists do...



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/21/2008 11:45:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would agree with that too. Genesis is not a science text and we should not try to make it one no matter what our stance on modern science.


I have always said this - indeed, as Christians we would not want, nor expect Genesis to be a science text.

And yet... That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists do...


No, they choose not to put limits on what God can record for mankind to read. If God wants to tell us how we came about, I don't tell Him He can't. I never knew this was a bad quality for a Christian to have...



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 12:02:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would agree with that too. Genesis is not a science text and we should not try to make it one no matter what our stance on modern science.


I have always said this - indeed, as Christians we would not want, nor expect Genesis to be a science text.

And yet... That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists do...


No, they choose not to put limits on what God can record for mankind to read. If God wants to tell us how we came about, I don't tell Him He can't. I never knew this was a bad quality for a Christian to have...



Let's not confuse "can't" with "didn't". God can tell us anything he wants to. But apparently there are many things he doesn't want to tell us in scripture for simple observation shows us that he didn't.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 12:24:47 AM)

quote:

But apparently there are many things he doesn't want to tell us in scripture for simple observation shows us that he didn't.


AH, and there it is. You FINALLY admit that you have let SCIENCE determine what GOD di or did not say. You have chosen not to accept the words of Genesis because your science contradicts it. You have chosen to accept your science above God's Words. Sadly, this is what happens when a Christian equates the Bible with Shakespeare.



HHV5 -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 12:33:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

But apparently there are many things he doesn't want to tell us in scripture for simple observation shows us that he didn't.


AH, and there it is. You FINALLY admit that you have let SCIENCE determine what GOD di or did not say. You have chosen not to accept the words of Genesis because your science contradicts it. You have chosen to accept your science above God's Words. Sadly, this is what happens when a Christian equates the Bible with Shakespeare.


Science tells us genetic information is contained in nucleic acid.

Could God have told us in Genesis that hereditary information is contained in invisible strands of chemical building blocks? Sure. But He didn't. That doesn't mean science is wrong.



gluadys -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 2:00:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

But apparently there are many things he doesn't want to tell us in scripture for simple observation shows us that he didn't.


AH, and there it is. You FINALLY admit that you have let SCIENCE determine what GOD di or did not say. You have chosen not to accept the words of Genesis because your science contradicts it. You have chosen to accept your science above God's Words. Sadly, this is what happens when a Christian equates the Bible with Shakespeare.



Actually, I was speaking of observation of scripture. It is clear that God chose not to tell the Hebrews or the apostles about the existence of the Western hemisphere. God never alluded to penguins or llamas or kangaroos in scripture. He did not unveil the alphabet of India or the ideograms of China. He did not reveal the Pythagoran theorem or discourse on the mathematical basis of musical harmony. He did not tell us precisely when he created angels. He didn't tell us what colour Jesus' eyes were or whether he was left- or right-handed. We don't even know for sure whether or not Jesus ever had a wife.

I don't need a scientist to tell me this information is not in the bible. I just need to read the bible.



evry1needsgod -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 9:49:24 PM)

quote:

I don't need a scientist to tell me this information is not in the bible.


But you just admitted that your observational knowledge determines to you what is or is not in the Bible. This observational knowledge is science. Science is what scientists observe, so yes, you do let scientists tell you what is or is not in the Bible. Let God speak for Himself. If God wanted to create the universe in 6 literal days, could He have worded it any better than He did in Genesis? Either believe God's Word, or believe your limited scientific interpretations. You can't have both. And stop telling God what He can and can not record in Scriptures. It irks me when a theistic evolutionist claims the Bible can't/doesn't record any scientific facts. They do this because they prefer their SCIENCE over God's Word, and they KNOW that their SCIENCE directly contradicts God's Word. Which is why they resort to labeling the Bible as stories/myths. That way, they can have best of both worlds. Despicable.



drj11 -> RE: The Great Story (7/22/2008 10:29:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
They do this because they prefer their SCIENCE over God's Word, and they KNOW that their SCIENCE directly contradicts God's Word. Which is why they resort to labeling the Bible as stories/myths. That way, they can have best of both worlds. Despicable.


Just FYI, Genesis was considered allegorical/symbolic/mythical before science as we know it existed... and even before there was a Bible. You should learn some of the history of your religion. It might open your eyes.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI