19 Aug 08
Not a poetry at all, dear FF; there is not a single/ unique authority that is able to tell to every Christian which way he must dig in the Bible; the Christian heresies are so many that one can easily get hiself lost in that tangled forest, and all of them claim that they have the right interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is a compilation of older myths, compiled in order to promote the unity of the members of a single race; the Bible urges this unique race to follow a specific procedure in order to get specific gains over other races; the "god" of that religion is a partriarchic monstrosity that pushes constantly the members of that specific race to follow "his will"; within that "religion" the women are lesser beings
-have you ever noticed a "Christian priest" without testicles?
When we are pushed to debate not over a "religion" although we are free nowdays to debate over every other issue, we just accept that we don't have the right to have our own opinion over everything. Let the believers follow their delusion: "they read it in the Bible" afterall;
19 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThere is many correct ways to interprete the bible. Yours is one, I think Palynka's is one.
Not a poetry at all, dear FF; there is not a single/ unique authority that is able to tell to every Christian which way he must dig in the Bible; the Christian heresies are so many that one can easily get hiself lost in that tangled forest, and all of them claim that they have the right interpretation of the Bible.
The Bible is a compilation of older ing. Let the believers follow their delusion: "they read it in the Bible" afterall;
A wrong way is to treat the bible as a book of science. Therefore, young earth creationism is allways wrong, because the foundation is the bible, and bishop Ussher.
I distrust everyone that claims that he knows the Truth and thinks that those who not agree with him are going to hell. Those humbleless christians who think that way are the ones who really should fear their death.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by gambit3That is supposed to mean what to me since i'm not a Baptist?
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. You and a few others are teaching your own form of christianity. I know of no Baptist Church that teaches the doctrines that you are teaching.
Kelly
20 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's my answer. You don't like the answer, or the way I'm going to answer it, but anyway, here's my try. Bear with me.
Just incase you lose track of questions put to you FabianFnas.
You are so wrong, but it does not matter there are several views on
how old the earth is, read Gen 1:1 and 1:2 and tell me how much
time passed between those two verses? So if there are billions of
years there and countless events that could mean the universe is
billions of years ol ...[text shortened]... darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
I sometimes teach math. If one of my students asks me a question like this: "What will be the difference between 5/0 and 4/0?" I would answer: "You start with something that I don't believe in, you cannot ever divide by zero." He might answer: "But 5/0-4/0 should be 1/0, shouldn't it?"
Now, if we start with something impossible, then the answer cannot be relevant. So my pupil cannot ever have an answer in terms of a mathematical result.
Is it possible to believe in division by zero? Can we do any calculations and rely on the result if we divide by zero? No, absolutely no.
If we include the division by zero in some kind of religious belief, is it then possible to divide by zero? What about 5/0-4/0 religiously? Irrelevant. You can define it as 1/0, but you cannot use is to anything. It's plain impossible.
Now you ask me how much time there was between two biblical verses. Again, when you start with something that has no scientific relevance, then the answer will be irrelevant. You want it to be one day? Then fine, one day it is, religiously. Do you want it to be 14 billion of years? Then fine, then it is 14 billion of years, religiously. But it has nothing to do with science.
Because religion and science cannot ever be mixed. The belong to different domains, they cannot ever be mixed. If we try to mix them, we can come into any result. Therefore there are many branches of christianity, those who believe this, and those who believe that. If you state a religions question, then the answer is religious.
So what answer do you want? Then you get it. I don't mind. But it has nothing to do with science.
This is my answer to your question. I bet you don't like the answer.
20 Aug 08
1 edit
One big problem in creationism and ID and 'freedom of expression' is the political use of science as a kicking ball when in fact the protagonists of the ID argument cares little for science, only in the corruption of science to make it seem like science to the lay christians who also have no science education to speak of, so if a so-called 'creation scientist' speaks, he is taken by that group of gullible people as an expert and so the ' creation scientist' has achieved his goal, dissention in the ranks. It's a political game having nothing to do with science and everything to do with simply winning votes.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasLet’s go back to the smears you were spewing a little while back about
Here's my answer. You don't like the answer, or the way I'm going to answer it, but anyway, here's my try. Bear with me.
I sometimes teach math. If one of my students asks me a question like this: "What will be the difference between 5/0 and 4/0?" I would answer: "You start with something that I don't believe in, you cannot ever divide by zero." He mig ...[text shortened]... science.
This is my answer to your question. I bet you don't like the answer.
what 'good Christians' believes! You are the one that misquotes the
Bible takes things out of context and suggests they mean one thing
than another. I put your dream quote back in context, I gave you a
passage of scripture the could Biblically suggest millions/billions of
years and you punt and say no you don't want to touch it because it
isn't science? We are in the Spiritual forum here, you started out this
thread talking about scripture! Now that you and your scriptural
knowledge on the hot seat you fall back to
"...has no scientific relevance"!
You should go back to the science forum and stay there and stop
speaking about matters you have no clue about, and quit calling
people morons for disagreeing with your world view, since you do not
have a clue what makes them tic.
Kelly
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasEven so, can you see that even a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't automatically translate into an age of 6000-odd years for the Earth? In other words, you simply can't use the age of the Earth as a stick to beat Christians with.
This is my answer to your question. I bet you don't like the answer.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by sonhouseOh please, give examples not just general attacks on the miss use
One big problem in creationism and ID and 'freedom of expression' is the political use of science as a kicking ball when in fact the protagonists of the ID argument cares little for science, only in the corruption of science to make it seem like science to the lay christians who also have no science education to speak of, so if a so-called 'creation scienti ...[text shortened]... al game having nothing to do with science and everything to do with simply winning votes.
of science!
I am not an ID person, I'm a creationist, and I did not arrive at my
point of view through science it is a matter of faith therefore not a
matter that can be shown correct or in correct through science. The
thing that upsets me about the discussion on creation is that there is
nothing, no theory, no hypotheses, no best guess, just pure nothing
that even compares to creation from science. There is much to do
about evolution vs. creation as if they were apples and apples but
they are not, evolution is a process and creation is the start of the
universe and all things in it, both could be true at the same time, and
because of that evolution does not dismiss the creation out of hand
they are two completely different topics. The Big Bang and creation are
also two completely different topics since like evolution the Big Bang
starts a process off with an explosion of the so called singularity it
does not say where the singularity came from, and basically has the
singularity sitting in the midst of nothing as well. So with science as
near as I can tell there is nothing quite literally that science can hang
its hat on for the beginning of all things, there is not an answer there,
and nothing is likely to be forth coming to compare to creation.
If you don’t understand the how and why something began odds are
your grasp of it will be limited.
Kelly
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut I thought you've said earlier that you are a Young Earth Creationist? Have you changed your mind?
Even so, can you see that even a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't automatically translate into an age of 6000-odd years for the Earth? In other words, you simply can't use the age of the Earth as a stick to beat Christians with.
And, for the record, i don't think christians are stupid, they don't need to be beaten at all, who do you think I am? It's Young Earth Creationists with no knowledge in science yet trying to use scientific arguments I think are stupid.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou didn't answer his question...
But I thought you've said earlier that you are a Young Earth Creationist? Have you changed your mind?
And, for the record, i don't think christians are stupid, they don't need to be beaten at all, who do you think I am? It's Young Earth Creationists with no knowledge in science yet trying to use scientific arguments I think are stupid.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayHi dear KJ and sonhouse and all;
Oh please, give examples not just general attacks on the miss use
of science!
I am not an ID person, I'm a creationist, and I did not arrive at my
point of view through science it is a matter of faith therefore not a
matter that can be shown correct or in correct through science. The
thing that upsets me about the discussion on creation is that there ...[text shortened]... t understand the how and why something began odds are
your grasp of it will be limited.
Kelly
I am an evolutionist not because I suggest that evolution is sacred but because every indication shows that evetything has to do with the concept of the evolution. Creationism is based on axioms, which all of them you, as a good Christian, are free to accept them. However I stand for the theory of evolution because it is backed up from the science instead of religionist axioms;
You asked for specific examples, my friend KJ; well, for example, I think that the eyes of the human beings are clearly a product of an evolution process and not disigned by a supernatural genious. We may have a debate over this in case you disagree;
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by black beetleAccording to evolutionists the eye developed over 'millions of years'. It did not one day just pop up. This is problematic since the eye is irreducibly complex and can only function as an eye in its whole. But when it formed over 'millions of years' it had to be formed piece by piece meaning that it was useless most of this 'million of years'.
You asked for specific examples, my friend KJ; well, for example, I think that the eyes of the human beings are clearly a product of an evolution process and not disigned by a supernatural genious. We may have a debate over this in case you disagree;
Evolutionists say that natural selection directs the course of evolution
-> meaning eye will be usefull so let the creature evolve an eye.
Is it nature that decides the eye will be usefull? The animal can't predict the future, let alone think about it so it can't be the animal thinking it will now evolve an eye. This means that nature is personified by the evolutionists (nature thinking what is best for animals).
You call it nature, but i'd rather call it God.