Repent for being a Mac user!!

[bighairydog]

Originally posted by vic
and whoever asked that silly question 3 times , no the two beliefs canot coexist, at an equal level of belief, one has to be more true than the other.

Although I personally reject the bible's version of evolution, I disagree with that statement. I think a preson can believe in the Bible's events and not have to deny evolution to do so. They'd be a little bit strange by the standards of others who tend to beleive only one, but it's possible without being illogical

Bernie )

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by bighairydog
Aah - another Religion thread, tailor made for Matt. I love these )

Sorry, I'm just defending my faith.

Some reasons:

1. Darwin was a Christian, and a creationist. He managed to believe the two could co-exist.

1. 
   I've never heard of Darwin being a Christian, unless you are speaking of his deathbed experience (which, if true, he recanted his evolutionist theory)
   

   [*]The bible doesn't specify how god created the species. Would deliberately designing the mechanism for evolution be any less of a creation that conjuring organisms out of thin air? God could even have taken however many days Genesis says he did to lay down the groundwork for evolution to occur.
   [*]Evolution doesn't say how life came about, just that species change progressively. Life could have been created, and then evolve.

The Bible does say how God created. Quite simply, God spoke the world (and the species) into existence. It is interesting to note that in verse 22 God said "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." What role does evolution play if God proclaimed his creation "good", and THEN wished the animals to multiply and fill the earth?

    This is not the first time the Bible has supposedly been at odds with Scientific fact. Back in the 17th Century (I think), before it was proven otherwise, the bible was interpreted as saying that the world was the centre of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it. That turned out to be a load of crap, so the Bible scholars admitted that their interpretation must have been flawed.
    Why can't people do the same with Evolution? The literal interpretation came about before the evidence about evolution came to light, why can't hardcore Creationists just say "Well, looks like we interpreted it wrong, what does this new evidence tell us about how we ought to have interpreted it?" Isn’t it kind of arrogant of some Creationists to think that their interpretation of God’s words are so flawless that they can never be proved wrong? After all, they’re just mortals – and therefore fallible. By putting forward the idea that belief in their religion and in scientific fact are mutually exclusive, they do their religion a great disservice.

To quote 1 Corinthians 15:19, "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." The same can be said of Creationist scientists. If we truly are wrong in our stubborn belief of literal 6 day creation, we are truly the stupid ones, and to be pitied.

BUT! (you were waiting for this) BUT, creation scientists firmly believe they have science on their side. (you probably scoffed right now) I'm willing to debate this if you are willing, but that's another thread.

The thing I want to really push is how, taken straight-forward, the Bible is truly incompatible with evolution.

To further strengthen my argument, let me move back to Genesis and take a look at the word "day", as used in the text. I think for clarity and ease, I will just quote the commentary in my Defender's Study Bible:

The use of "Day" (Hebrew yom) in Genesis 1:5 is its first occurence in Scripture, and here it is specifically defined by God as "the light" in the cyclical succession of light and darkness which has, ever since, constituted a solar day. Since the same word is used in defining all later "yoms" as used for this "first" yom, it is incontrovertible that God intends us to know that the days of creation week were of the same duration as any natural solar day. The word yom in the Old Testament almost always is used in this natural way and is never used to mean any other definite time period than a literal day. This becomes especially clear when it is combined with an ordinal ("first day") or with definite bounds ("evening and morning"), neither of which usages in the Old Testament allow non-literal meanings. It is occasionally, though rarely, used symbolically or in the sense of indefinite time ("the day of the Lord," I Thessalonians 5:2), but such usage (as in English or other languages) is always evident from the context itself. Thus the so-called day-age theory, by which the days of creation are assumed to correspond to the ages of geology, is precluded by this definitive use of the word in its first occurence, God Himself defining it.

My goal is not to exasperate any readers, but to provide a Biblical viewpoint. No doubt there is still much doubt in many minds as to the reliability of the scripture over time, which certainly should not be without scrutiny. But there are a great many Bible scholars out there that know how to read Hebrew and still believe the Bible means what it says in my NIV. So, by faith, I believe in the translations.

It is also not my intent, Ed, to ignore your question, but to focus on one thing at a time. If you would please elaborate on your theory of how the number of people created in the Garden of Eden is a valid point, please do. I will try my best with what little resources I have to give a satisfactory response.

 

[wdw_]

Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

That is such BS! My friends and I are all atheists. Are ages are 13-16. We accept people for what they are. Couldn't this be turned around:

Christians are often very delusional and their superiors usually lash out and molest children or they may even try to trick you into believing God's Word.

I don't mean to offend anybody here. I'm just trying to stretch the truth as much as they did.

And what is this?

Pepper the Moth: Hey Professor! Haven’t dinos been extinct for millions of years?

Professor Giraffenstein: Wrong, little buddy – Dinosaurs still walk on the land and swim in the seas! And the Earth is only 10,000 years old! Incredible but TRUE!

Wouldn't the thing about dinosaurs still walking the Earth reinforce the theory of dinosaurs evolving into birds? If this isn't what they're talking about then what's their explination?

There is so much weird stuf on this page! look at this:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Goldman

Kyle started out hating Christians. He listened to anti-Christian music, played violent video games, and created a website attacking various Christian organizations while praising the work of Chris Harper. Kyle was a troubled boy. However, this all changed when he found Jesus. Since then he has gotten himself cleaned up, has started listening to Christian rock, and is now a respectable looking young lad. His parents - being Jewish - were hesitant to accept his new found faith, but they do consider it better that Kyle is now following Jesus instead of Marilyn Manson. Kyle has been helping us maintain our website since finding Jesus and is now attending Fellowship Christian High School.

Favorite Passage From Scripture — John 8:32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weird.

 

[uoba]

Seriously, is this site a fake??

I mean, here's a passage about the Moon:


The core of the moon is essentially a large crystal of metallic iron. When it is struck by meteorites (or moon landers) it will reverberate for a period of time - depending on the strength of the impact - much as a tuning fork does. The reason we do not hear the moon reverberating in the sky is that sound waves do not propagate through the vacuum of space that is between the moon and earth. However, in 1969, Apollo astronauts placed seismic devices on the moon's surface to measure the reverberations directly. These devices recorded the impacts of meteorites as expected, but they also picked up a strange, persistent, low-frequency waveform. When the waveform was run through audio processing computers which sped it up and applied various filters to it, it was discovered to be an echoing voice. The voice was speaking in ancient Aramaic!

NASA has refused to release these recordings to the public (for the obvious reason that it contradicts their evolutionistic position) and the details of what the voice was actually saying have not been uncovered directly. We know it was something in Aramaic since at the time NASA had brought in linguists to try and decipher it, and after a week all but the one who knew the ancient tongue were allowed to return home. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what this voice truly represents: The core of the moon still reverberates with the Lord's words from the day when He created the Heavens.

Has anybody on this forum heard of David Ike? This iPaley guy draws distinct comparisons!

 

[jkazules]

This has been a hilarious thread! That guy is embarrassing to any thinking Christian! If you want to see a legitimate Christian Creation Research site check out: http://www.icr.org

I have to tak sides with Matt. I want to point out something that everybody knows but seems to forget when talking about "taking the Bible literally."

When you read anything, it is important to take into account the purpose for which it was written. A well written piece usually will indicate how it is supposed to be read. Thus, when picking up a newspaper and seeing that it is reporting on events in Israel, you naturally understand that it is meant to be taken "literally." That's not to say that if the article says that "it was raining cats and dogs" we would believe that cats and dogs were falling from the clouds.

The Bible needs to be included in this common sense. If the author wrote the ten commandments with the intention that they would be real laws to be followed, then it would be stupid for us to read it now saying "It doesn't really mean don't murder." The fact is it says "Don't murder" and means "Don't murder."

There are other passages in the bible that use metaphor with the clear intention that it is trying to teach a moral. Bible scholars that accept the Bible to be what the Bible claims it is: God's very own revelation to mankind, these same Bible scholars will tell you that Genesis was meant to tell us that Creation was made in 6 literal days. Therefore: The book of Genesis does conflict with the theory of Evolution.

Oh, BTW, Evolution for the most part does try and explain the origin of creation. The little story of the big bang, and then the matter slowing down and forming galaxies, and stars and solar systems and lightning hitting the earth over and over to finally create amino acids which somehow survive and then evolve into proteins and then simple cells, so on and so on....

Another fallacy someone above mentioned was that the Bible has facts that have been proven wrong. Someone was more accurate in pointing out that men's interpretation of the Bible was wrong. To this date, there have been no biblical statements of fact proven to be wrong. Even the mathmatical pi is correctly used in the OT. That's really pretty amazing when you realize how the Bible was written over a span of 1,600 years on 3 different continents by over 40 authors and yet nowhere does it conflict with itself or with observable scientific fact.


One last note: Mac's Rule!!!!

 

[edX]

matt - you are doing it again. espousing words that you get from others. you don't need the defender's whatever it is to answer questions about the bible. it is a primary source. we aren't s=discussing what other people believe or why they say it is true. we are discussing what you have stated as your belief.

to answer my question all you need to do is read Genisis. You have read Genisis haven't you? you know excatly what it says and can refer toit at any time to make your point. Or are you citing a source that you haven't read, having only read what others have said about it? poor scholarly work if that is what you are doing. if you want to use the bible as reference, then use only the original source material.

so how many people did God create in the Garden? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 9? 13? 25? 100? 1,000? more than the grains of sand on a beach?

the answer is in Genisis and you should know it before you go around quoting the first book of the Torah as your defense against evolution.

btw Matt - your faith, if it is real, isn't something you have to defend to anyone.

 

[jkazules]

Ed, I'll nibble:

I'd have to say 2 people. He created Adam and then from Adam he made Eve. You may say that he created 1 but depending on how you want to take it, it is 1 or 2. No more.

Other people didn't show up until after mankind was thrown out of the garden and Adam & Eve started having children.

Does that answer your question?

 

[jkazules]

Ed, one other thing. If one's faith includes a demand to defend one's faith, then one MUST defend it! Right? It would then be a matter of obedience and not one of pride.

 

[4398579-857]

OK, I know I am *MOST* certainly going to piss some off with what will follow. BUT as of (9/11 and now this whole preist and kids crap I just can't hold my thoughts to myself any longer.


My blood is bioling at this point and I am in a rage beyond what I have felt in a very very long time.

History, I was brought up, no, make that forced up Roman Cathaholic (bullshit, cough excusse me). As soon as I made my confirmation I was out! Um wait let me think a second? hmmm "Confirmation" confirm hmmm doesn't that mean I am confirming something? I never beleived one peice of crap I was forced to listen to every wednesday at ccd what ever the hell CCD stood for?

any way - just wanted it clear as to my past link with religion. oops sorry about the foul word (religion) I swear I won't say the F*cking word again. from here onI will refer to it as the "R" word.

At this point in my life I really MUST say The world is F*cked up because of the "R" word.

Before I continue I would like to mention I have friends of many faiths and we respect eachother... we may not agree but we do have respect. So this is NOT targeted at one religion but the whole freeking mess of them (stress on mess)

Let's look at the mid east - It's a pile of sandy wasteland, though parts are rich in history, it for the most part is a war torn crap hole because of thousands of years of war over the "R" word I don't even have to get into it for those of you intelligent enough to know what I mean and not get upset with that comment.

Hmmm let's move on - Israel and well let's say the rest of the mid east more war over the "R" word and the lands that the "R" word was formed on. if there is a god please let me go deaf so I don't have to here about this crap any more... it's boring me to death!

I live about 15 minutes from Ground Zero in NYC - they did in the name of the "R" word, yeah um they are sane people. I send my son out to blow himself up in the NAME OF GOD! and I am proud of him - he shit head if you think it's sooooo freekin great to blow yourself up go and do it your self numb nutz!

Now we have all these priests that have well to put it nice had some fun with some little boys... heh hey we all got our pervs and shit but that's plain sick... it's not like they got themselves a S&M woman and got tied up.... not like they played DR. with some nun but little freekin boys sorry the whole idea of marriage to your faith and absinance is so abnormal un human it's bound to attract sickos like that.... I bet some of them became priests just to avoid the law... hey he's a preist they don't do that. Grow the fu** up! it has happened was happening and will continue.

All this shit pisses me off so G*d Damn much and it's ALL tied to the "R" word
in case you missed it the "R" word is religion.

I have friends some are pagan, druid, shaman amongst the "normal" accepted religions and you know what? these people are more intelligent, more same, more normal, nicer, easy going, honest, true people.

I have found almost all that follow religion to be FULL OF CRAP! sorry but honest they are. They lie, they cheat, they steal amongst other things.

I'm very sorry to those I am sure to have offended but at least I am honest.
I just couldn't keep that in any more.

I honestly feel it is time for a revolution or a time for growth and change.
Religion is 2000 years old. All things come to an end or grow and mature.
Religion has not changed in 2000 years. It's time for change and growth.
I don't have the answer but I sure hope someone out there does, before the nukes fly and the world is gone, ALL IN THE NAME OF RELIGION!

Peace and Intelligence

 

[uoba]

first post 4398579-857!

 

[Bluefusion]

I lived 300 feet from the base of the world trade center, and now live about 1200 feet from its shattered outer wall, and I feel exactly the same way (although I could probably explain it a bit more eloquently, with fewer curses, if anyone is interested)

 

[ebolag4]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell

btw Matt - your faith, if it is real, isn't something you have to defend to anyone.

Not meaning to answer for MDLarson, but for myself. Ed, that is very true, but at the same time some of us feel the need to "defend" our faith, especially to people we care about. I will defend my faith in certain places and in certain situations, but at the same time, I really don't give a rip whether or not anyone else agrees with what I believe. I have faith, and no one else's opinion, belief, theology, science, mantra, whatever matters.

As for 4398579-857, don't lump all "religious" and "christians" together just because there are some fakes, pervs, and morons in the mix. I have met just as many atheists, evolutionists, agnostics, pagans, etc. that are bad. However, I have met many more of those who are upstanding, good contributing members of society. There is "good" and "bad" examples in all walks of life, in all faith/belief systems, etc. I never make the assumption that they're all bad because of just a few.

/rant

 

[Nummi_G4]

Has anyone stopped laughing yet? ahahhah! I also printed the article out. That man is soooo funny. Steve Jobs is god.

And what about Apple being a cult? isnt religion a huge cult?

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
matt - you are doing it again. espousing words that you get from others. you don't need the defender's whatever it is to answer questions about the bible. it is a primary source. we aren't s=discussing what other people believe or why they say it is true. we are discussing what you have stated as your belief.

to answer my question all you need to do is read Genisis. You have read Genisis haven't you? you know excatly what it says and can refer toit at any time to make your point. Or are you citing a source that you haven't read, having only read what others have said about it? poor scholarly work if that is what you are doing. if you want to use the bible as reference, then use only the original source material.

so how many people did God create in the Garden? 0? 1? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 9? 13? 25? 100? 1,000? more than the grains of sand on a beach?

the answer is in Genisis and you should know it before you go around quoting the first book of the Torah as your defense against evolution.

btw Matt - your faith, if it is real, isn't something you have to defend to anyone.

Yes, I must defend my faith because if I stand idly by and read others rip into its validity, it attacks me as a Christian. Yes, the Bible is a primary source, but I need help in determining deeper questions like the day-age theory, which I attempted to do. I could not have provided a strong enough case if I had just quoted Genesis 1 and the verses that have "day" in it. Somebody would surely have questioned if that's what it REALLY meant, so I took a step further and brought in the original Hebrew, which, I think, cleared up the question considerably.

To answer your question, God created 2 people in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve. I will be waiting for your response and elaboration.

As a side note, how would you feel if I or somebody else attacked your pagan faith? Not you, but your faith. Would you not feel motivated to respond and correct? If not right away, what if we kept doing it? You see, it becomes personal now and you cannot rightly say "You don't have to defend your faith if it's real", because some people just do not know what they are talking about. You would feel very compelled to DEFEND. Agreed?

 

[4398579-857]

I never said ALL are bad and yes while they seem to be fewer and far between, there are bad pagans, druid, etc notice I give no credence to "Satan" worshipers if you are a satan worshipper I hear your mommy calling please return home and grow UP!

any way...

I merely state that all the sh*t happening in the world today is directly related to religion, something that is supposed to bring peace and understanding!?!?

forget about problems of the world today let's go back to the very beginning of religion... IT IS THEE #1 CAUSE OF MORE DEATH AND WAR THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Sorry my posts on this topic are not eloquent but it's not a very eloquent topic.

 

[dricci]

So you bash all religions because there's a minority of bad members and leaders?

Sure, there are law breaking priests. There are also law breaking Cops, law breaking politicians, law breaking tow truck drivers, law breaking parents, even law breaking janitors! I'm not saying it's ok or these people shouldn't be punished, but I'm saying welcome to the real world, there are a lot of bad people. But the majority aren't. Don't blame an entire group or idea for problems that a minority of the believers start.

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, but don't try to make an entire idea or thing seem bad because of a minority of bad people. You sound like the media!

Religion helps a lot of people stay on focus and be generally good people. Don't forget that, too.

 

[AdmiralAK]

law breaking politicians

all politicians are law-breakers

 

[uoba]

we'd have to invent him.

...who said that? (wasn't me!) Anyway, I was think of 456634... whatever's response, of religion being the number one reason for war in the world and history. Then I thought, if you took that religion away, there would probably still had been war of the same scale. Equally, we would, as humans, have to believe in something, thus creating a religion, hmm a paradox.

 

[ebolag4]

uoba,

You are absolutely correct. Even as a Christian, I see that most of the stupid bloodshed and violence done in the name of Christ (Yahweh, Buddha, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, etc.) was just an excuse to commit atrocities and be excused from it. Do I think, as a Christian, that things in history like the Crusades and the Inquisition were terrible? Absolutely. In fact, I abhor them all the more because they were done in the name of "religion" or "faith" or "God" or whatever.

(Man! I told myself I wasn't going to get this deeply involved in this!)

 

[nkuvu]

As a side note, how would you feel if I or somebody else attacked your pagan faith? Not you, but your faith. Would you not feel motivated to respond and correct? If not right away, what if we kept doing it? You see, it becomes personal now and you cannot rightly say "You don't have to defend your faith if it's real", because some people just do not know what they are talking about. You would feel very compelled to DEFEND. Agreed?

Sorry, but no. You can attack my faith (which is actually a philosophy -- Taoism isn't a religion per se) as much as you want. All the while that you are attacking my beliefs, I will do one of a few things:
1. I will try to talk to you so that you understand -- this is assuming that you are attacking out of ignorance, and are listening to what I say.
2. I will assert that your beliefs are not my beliefs, nor are mine yours -- this is assuming that you are not listening, or already understand my beliefs, but will not stop trying to get me to believe in your beliefs.
3. I will ignore you -- this is assuming that I have tried the other steps (as well as anything else I can think of to do for you) and you still attack.

Maybe it's because of the nature of Taoism. But you attacking my beliefs does not in any way harm me. I believe what I do, and I will most certainly listen to your beliefs (I am not narrow minded), but do not expect me to agree with you.

As Ed said, I believe that true faith needs no defending.