@rajk999 said“You have attacked Christians and Christianity before. Maybe you should deal with whatever problem you have. Although this is the first time I am responding to you, I have read your posts before and ignored them.”
You have attacked Christians and Christianity before. Maybe you should deal with whatever problem you have. Although this is the first time I am responding to you, I have read your posts before and ignored them.
Now, your interpretation of the Genesis creation account ... where is Cosmos and universe stated or implied in [i]. ... Light and Darkness, Heaven and Earth, ...[text shortened]... es for the galaxy to make a complete revolution on its axis, which is several hundred million years.
You are absolutely right; I make no apaology for attacking Christianity since I view it, particularly Roman Catholicism, as quite sinister and responsible for much suffering in the world. I don’t see it as a problem that I am not a Christian!
Early man had no concept of The Universe that you quote. His only experience of that was of the sun and stars around him. Genesis offers an explanation of their creation. You have to understand how primitive man’s knowledge of science was then. Earthquakes and volcanos were God being angry. There was no concept of microscopic viruses causing disease, so all suffering was God’s discontent with them. All quite natural and understandable. The creation story of all religions are myths to explain existence.
293d
@pianoman1 saidI cant remember asking for any apology. I mentioned it to you and you said you never did that. Now apparently you are confessing you did it.
“You have attacked Christians and Christianity before. Maybe you should deal with whatever problem you have. Although this is the first time I am responding to you, I have read your posts before and ignored them.”
You are absolutely right; I make no apaology for attacking Christianity since I view it, particularly Roman Catholicism, as quite sinister and responsible fo ...[text shortened]... uite natural and understandable. The creation story of all religions are myths to explain existence.
I dont need any apology. If you are going to condemn then read up some more. Right now your knowledge of what you condemn is sketchy and limited.
@rajk999 saidAs usual on this site people get too emotionally involved, with ruffled feathers, for any rational level-headed discussion!
I cant remember asking for any apology. I mentioned it to you and you said you never did that. Now apparently you are confessing you did it.
I dont need any apology. If you are going to condemn then read up some more. Right now your knowledge of what you condemn is sketchy and limited.
@rajk999 saidThe problem with that interpretation is that carnivores cannot digest vegetables. Big cats' teeth can't even chew vegetables, and their guts can't digest it either. Bovines have the teeth and multiple stomachs necessary to chew and digest fibrous matter; cats don't. For those who deny evolution, the big cats must be the same now as they were in Eden, namely meat-eaters. So that pretty much shoots down a literalist interpretation of what animals ate in Eden; carnivores ate other animals, same as now.
I think those who take these Genesis accounts literally take the initial statement about food prior to the fall of man ..
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fo ...[text shortened]... KJV)
So all people and animals were vegetarians, and only after the flood meat-eating began.
@pianoman1 saidThat's not how I read it, and not how thinking Christians read it either. Thinking Christians read it as setting mankind in a spiritual context, where life has a meaning and a purpose which was given by a transcendent God. That is what it means to say that Genesis is about mankind's wherefore, not his whence. Only a literalist reads it as a history of how things came into existence, and the obvious flaws of it as history show that the literalists' interpretation doesn't work. Where did Cain's wife come from? Obviously there were other humans on the planet, apart from Adam and Eve. Only a child thinks Hänsel und Gretl is really about witches; same applies to the Book of Genesis.
Surely Genesis is entirely an explanation of the Creation of the Universe, of how the cosmos came into being.
I give the authors of Genesis enough credit to suppose they were not stupid, so they must have had some intelligible intention in composing that story. Genesis should not be interpreted as an account of where humans came from biologically. It is an account, in allegorical language, of the revelation of God's purpose to mankind embodied in the fictitious figure of Adam, it is an account of the awakening of mankind (represented by Adam as a placeholder) to his own mortality and to taking responsibility for the consequences of his actions (the knowledge of good and evil).
The claim that God created the universe is a poetical way of saying that humans are dependent on something we cannot control. As the planet gradually heats up, even modern scientific man will come to acknowledge this ancient wisdom.
293d
@pianoman1 saidI'm with you man. It was written by and for man of 3500 years ago. Simplistic.
“You have attacked Christians and Christianity before. Maybe you should deal with whatever problem you have. Although this is the first time I am responding to you, I have read your posts before and ignored them.”
You are absolutely right; I make no apaology for attacking Christianity since I view it, particularly Roman Catholicism, as quite sinister and responsible fo ...[text shortened]... uite natural and understandable. The creation story of all religions are myths to explain existence.
My only question is: do you describe yourself as Christian? Or no?
@josephw saidIt's only when you don't know how radiometric or any other method of dating works that you can ask such questions.
How can anyone believe that anything that existed on this planet 65,000,000 years ago could possibly leave any evidence of its existence after 65,000,000 years of tectonic shifts, earth quakes, volcano eruptions, winter, spring, summer and fall, wind, rain, heat, cold, tornadoes, tsunami and anything else you can think of year after year for 65,000,000 years?
I can't belie ...[text shortened]... onvenient excuse to deny the existence of a creator.
Small minds can't imagine an infinite mind.
The scientific method (observation, testing, experiments, etc.) which was used to develop ways to date the age of the earth is the same process used to send humans to the moon, machines to Mars and back and take crystal-clear pictures of Pluto, 3 billion miles away.
Notice how the only scientific fields Christians doubt are the ones that ones that contradict their beliefs.
292d
@pianoman1 saidYour faux humility isn’t fooling anyone. Well not me anyway 🙂
No, I do not align myself with any religion. I am a deeply ‘spiritual’ (?) person who simply seeks answers.
@vivify saidIf I may just point out here that the same scientific method is what makes computers and the Internet work, thereby enabling people to post things to RHP.
It's only when you don't know how radiometric or any other method of dating works that you can ask such questions.
The scientific method (observation, testing, experiments, etc.) which was used to develop ways to date the age of the earth is the same process used to send humans to the moon, machines to Mars and back and take crystal-clear pictures of Pluto, 3 billion mile ...[text shortened]... ow the only scientific fields Christians doubt are the ones that ones that contradict their beliefs.
It takes a severely compartmentalised mind to post here, claiming we don't know how old a fossil is (give or take a few million years).
@moonbus saidChristians like Kelly claim that while scientists are brilliant enough create wonderous technology that allows us to soar through space, see and speak to people thousands of miles away and have access to virtually all of human knowledge in mere seconds while lounging on the couch with our phones....
It takes a severely compartmentalised mind to post here, claiming we don't know how old a fossil is (give or take a few million years).
These same scientists are also too stupid to develop scientifically sound ways of determining the age of earth.
291d
@moonbus saidA sabertooth is just as capable if not more to chew vegetables and scavenge the varied fibrous materials (bark, nutshell...) as it is to chew meat or bones. Their stomachs could have adapted depending on how they're nursed and raised. Those who deny macro, one-size-fits-all evolution, are critical of assumptions saying it didn't just mutate of itself; flowering plants and pollinators developed together in higher order creation.
The problem with that interpretation is that carnivores cannot digest vegetables. Big cats' teeth can't even chew vegetables, and their guts can't digest it either. Bovines have the teeth and multiple stomachs necessary to chew and digest fibrous matter; cats don't. For those who deny evolution, the big cats must be the same now as they were in Eden, namely meat-eaters. So th ...[text shortened]... a literalist interpretation of what animals ate in Eden; carnivores ate other animals, same as now.
291d
@vivify saidI strongly suspect that Kellyjay is a bible flat-earther.
Christians like Kelly claim that while scientists are brilliant enough create wonderous technology that allows us to soar through space, see and speak to people thousands of miles away and have access to virtually all of human knowledge in mere seconds while lounging on the couch with our phones....
I also suspect that he will be a denier of the Moon landings.
291d
@of-ants-and-imps saidAre you making this up or do you have some evidence?
A sabertooth is just as capable if not more to chew vegetables and scavenge the varied fibrous materials (bark, nutshell...) as it is to chew meat or bones. Their stomachs could have adapted depending on how they're nursed and raised. Those who deny macro, one-size-fits-all evolution, are critical of assumptions saying it didn't just mutate of itself; flowering plants and pollinators developed together in higher order creation.