In the beginning...

Originally posted by CalJust
I don't normally resort to cut&paste postings, but this particular passage from Richard Rohr's book Soul Centering through Nature: Becoming a True Human Adult says it better than I could. The entire section below are his words, and mainly addressed at RJH, with his constant references to "Evilutionists".

******************************

[b]The Fir ...[text shortened]... d beckoning “Come!” (Revelation 22:17).

These two verses are the very bookends of the Bible.

It was a little while back that I started a thread on animals that defy evilution. I can't see how someone with common sense can think that some of those animals could have come about without being designed. Take for example, the hummingbird. You people just don't think.

Here we go:

Woodpecker Defies Evolution

YouTube

Animals whose existence defies Evolution

YouTube

Does DNA prove you were made by an intelligent designer?

YouTube

Should your church take a position on the Creation?

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was a little while back that I started a thread on animals that defy evilution. I can't see how someone with common sense can think that some of those animals could have come about without being designed. Take for example, the hummingbird. You people just don't think.

Here we go:

Woodpecker Defies Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKR9 ...[text shortened]... ould your church take a position on the Creation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSyaUBgw490

Dear RJH,

You are free to believe whatever you believe!

The only point where I challenge you is the incessant accusations that you make that evolutionists are, well, evil.

I am totally convinced by now that you are not open to discussion. Your mind is as closed as the sweat pores on a clay oxen.

However, I have posted this (and some of my other statements by Christians who support evolution) to show OTHER Forum participants that your claims about the religious aspects of evolution are false, and I was able to prove so. Whatever your theology, nobody can claim that the writer is not a Christian.

Now you are welcome to continue saying what you have always said, ad nauseum, but it will hopefully not have any impact on other readers - (not that I think it did before).

Oh, one more thing. I agree that there are many, many creatures that look like they have to be designed by a designer. But then, there are other creatures would could only have been designed by a very malicious designer.

I am not an expert biologist, but I heard this example mentioned. Apparently, there is a bug that lives in the brain that slowly eats its way through the tissue until the host is dead. Perfectly "designed", but by whom??

And what about the small pox virus, which medicine has taken such trouble to eradicate? Did we undo God's handiwork? And malaria? I could go on and on....

And please don't claim that it is because of Adam and a Fallen World. Even if it were so, there would have had to be a change organically from a Perfect World to such a world, and hey presto, we are again at evolution.

Originally posted by CalJust
Dear RJH,

You are free to believe whatever you believe!

The only point where I challenge you is the incessant accusations that you make that evolutionists are, well, evil.

I am totally convinced by now that you are not open to discussion. Your mind is as closed as the sweat pores on a clay oxen.

However, I have posted this (and some of my other ...[text shortened]... nge organically from a Perfect World to such a world, and hey presto, we are again at evolution.

You apparently do not understand the difference between adaptation, selective breeding, natural breeding, and evilution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently do not understand the difference between adaptation, selective breeding, natural breeding, and evilution.

I am not going to respond to your or GB's comments on evolution anymore, it's just too embarrassing.

But just this once - when you (and Grampy) try to distinguish (as all YEC authors do) between "changes within a species" to "grand evolution" you are clutching at straws.

ALL references to evolution, whether by Richard Rohr, Francis Collins, the Pope, and many other Christians, clearly refer to the accepted scientific definition of evolution, i.e. the development of organisms from less complex to more complex by means of mutation and the survival of beneficial mutations. Not just short haired vs long haired dogs and flightless insects and birds.

Originally posted by CalJust
I am not going to respond to your or GB's comments on evolution anymore, it's just too embarrassing.

But just this once - when you (and Grampy) try to distinguish (as all YEC authors do) between "changes within a species" to "grand evolution" you are clutching at straws.

ALL references to evolution, whether by Richard Rohr, Francis Collins, the Pope, a ...[text shortened]... eneficial mutations. Not just short haired vs long haired dogs and flightless insects and birds.

Certainly a true Christian would not believe a monkey turned into a man, when the Holy Bible clearly states that God created man in His own image. God did not say, "I am going to turn a monkey into a man", now, did He?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Certainly a true Christian would not believe a monkey turned into a man, when the Holy Bible clearly states that God created man in His own image. God did not say, "I am going to turn a monkey into a man", now, did He?

😴😴😴😴

Originally posted by rwingett
Dualism, the concept that mankind is separate from the rest of creation, is what led to his estrangement from god, and consequently to his expulsion from Eden. Salvation shall consist of mankind re-discovering the myriad web of interconnections which link him with creation at large, and the realization that there is no separation between him and the rest of ...[text shortened]... once again, merge back into the wholeness of nature, and find rapprochement with god.

Amen.

You must uproot the evil Tree of Knowledge that is your home computer, my brother. Cast the demon out!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You must uproot the evil Tree of Knowledge that is your home computer, my brother. Cast the demon out!

You misunderstand the nature of salvation. One cannot un-eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. The gates to Eden are forever closed to mankind. There is no going back. Salvation, instead, consists of learning to subjugate technology to nature, rather than the opposite. Relearning how to live sustainably, and using our technology toward that end, is the beginning of the rapprochement of mankind with nature (and thus with god).

Originally posted by rwingett
Dualism, the concept that mankind is separate from the rest of creation, is what led to his estrangement from god, and consequently to his expulsion from Eden. Salvation shall consist of mankind re-discovering the myriad web of interconnections which link him with creation at large, and the realization that there is no separation between him and the rest of ...[text shortened]... once again, merge back into the wholeness of nature, and find rapprochement with god.

Amen.

This is reminiscent of fictionalized history, wherein what has happened is viewed in light of what might have happened.

Everything you have said is little better than vain philosophical speculation.
I wouldn't call it tripe, necessarily, since there are a few interesting points and perspectives.

However, when you make dramatic departures from the actual I will (of course) object.
In the Garden, the woman added to the warning from God when she was being goaded by the serpent.
God had told her and the man to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but in the midst of the cross-examination, she took it a step further by adding...

not you shall eat from him and
not you shall touch in him
lest you shall die

Nearly needless to say, God forbade by one act and one act alone: eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Looking at it, thinking about it, wanting it, even touching it were not forbidden.
Just don't partake.

Your departure is in taking away from the account, instead of adding to it.
The forbidden fruit was not from the Tree of Knowledge, but rather, from the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Huge difference and undeniable distinction.

Every day, God walked with the man and the woman, imparting knowledge: knowledge of life, of Him and His essence.
He wasn't telling them to stay away from knowledge; He was telling them to stay away from that knowledge, from that system.

Man had two choices: either stay in the system of life with God, or enter into a system which was governed by Good and Evil.
Technology is a neutral value, neither inherently good or inherently bad and it can be used for either.
Trying to read too much into the text can lead to all manner of error, as at least part of your explanation reveals.

The salvation God has designed for man is far more than simply getting back to picking fruit.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was a little while back that I started a thread on animals that defy evilution. I can't see how someone with common sense can think that some of those animals could have come about without being designed. Take for example, the hummingbird. You people just don't think.

Here we go:

Woodpecker Defies Evolution etc etc

Somehow, I'm sure inadvertently, you neglected to respond to my answer to this matter.

How do you explain all the "malevolent" (please excuse the anthropomorphism) creatures that are so perfectly "designed" to cause mankind great discomfort?

e.g. the smallpox virus, the malaria mosquito, the ringworm.

Originally posted by CalJust
Somehow, I'm sure inadvertently, you neglected to respond to my answer to this matter.

How do you explain all the "malevolent" (please excuse the anthropomorphism) creatures that are so perfectly "designed" to cause mankind great discomfort?

e.g. the smallpox virus, the malaria mosquito, the ringworm.

To RJH:

Just bringing this to the top again so you don't miss it:

In your considered opinion, are we going against God's will, and attempt to undo his special design when we strive to eradicate malaria?

Originally posted by CalJust
To RJH:

Just bringing this to the top again so you don't miss it:

In your considered opinion, are we going against God's will, and attempt to undo his special design when we strive to eradicate malaria?

No, because Jesus was all for healing and casting out demons of any kind. So sickness and disease and death was not someting that I believe God designed into the creation, but a curse from God that we would have to deal with because of our disobedience and desire to replace God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, because Jesus was all for healing and casting out demons of any kind. So sickness and disease and death was not someting that I believe God designed into the creation, but a curse from God that we would have to deal with because of our disobedience and desire to replace God.

OK, let's follow that train of thought a little further.

So in the beginning God designed the smallpox virus and the malaria mosquito to be perfect and beneficial for man, and then after the Fall they became malevolent.

Could you suggest a process whereby this change happened?

And then maybe you could explain why the woodpecker, and the humming bird (as per your post) remained perfect?

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, let's follow that train of thought a little further.

So in the beginning God designed the smallpox virus and the malaria mosquito to be perfect and beneficial for man, and then after the Fall they became malevolent.

Could you suggest a process whereby this change happened?

And then maybe you could explain why the woodpecker, and the humming bird (as per your post) remained perfect?

Originally posted by CalJust
And then maybe you could explain why the woodpecker, and the humming bird (as per your post) remained perfect?

Genesis 1: 20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

CJ, "the woodpecker, and the humming bird" weren't contaminated with the human sin nature from Adam.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by CalJust
And then maybe you could explain why the woodpecker, and the humming bird (as per your post) remained perfect?

CJ, "the woodpecker, and the humming bird" weren't contaminated with the human sin nature from Adam.

But the malaria mosquito was?

Why?

Why did the humming bird not turn into, say, a blood sucking, disease carrying creature? Was there something inherently different between them and the mosquito? (Both, I would suggest, where equally impacted by the "human sin from Adam".)