View Full Version : AMA (Ask Me Anything): My Beliefs have Changed
Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2010, 11:33 AM
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.
Richard
I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.
On another topic is Jesus returning....
Mad Mick
10-14-2010, 05:16 PM
I clearly felt a move of my spirit. It kind of like lept when John met Jesus while he was still a foetus.
Strange, very strange!
I don't know how to describe this moment any better than a transformation from an egg to a tadpole. You can see the development through the shell yet it's not free until it makes the transition through the shell.
I automatically felt a sense of an outing of some kind that you were holding off for no good reason. I feel this is good!
While you were writing this I was writing something very similar which I will have to post after I edit it, simply for the fact that it was too long!
I too cannot side with any one religion.
Where we differ is that I don't really side with the rigidities of science either.
I tend to think we are more like Lab Rats and that the truth is stranger than fiction.
Congratulations Richard, I felt immediately inspired, and that a great weight was lifted off your shoulders. I feel logic is more your saving grace. I tend to get along better with atheists than fundamentalists simply because of the logic and not a hand me down belief without a disciplined logic or proof of why we do it? The whole purpose of it needs to be constantly re evaluated or go through a kind of transformation for a more developed creature which we need to become.
You've rejuvinated me! Thanks Richard & Thank You God In Jesus' Name, Amen.
Mick
PS I believe this is strongly linked with the changing of the ages.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2010, 05:17 PM
I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.
The evidence of common descent is extremely strong. It is based on the "tree of life" which shows how all species are related to each other. The tree was originally based upon organizing the species according to their obvious characteristics like reptile, bird, etc., with different kinds of birds, for example, being on the same branch of the tree. This was strongly confirmed by the fossil record in which simpler forms were found in older rocks corresponding to lower parts of the tree. And then the whole tree was confirmed in an extremely convincing way when the same pattern was found using DNA sequencing.
If you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend a book by Sean B. Carroll called The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/10/14/the-making-of-the-fittest-by-sean-carroll-must-read/). The same kind of evidence that is now universally accepted in all courts as proof of guilt or innocence also provides evidence “beyond all reasonable doubt” about the evolutionary history of all living beings. Here’s is how Carroll explains his book:
More accurate and rigorous than fiber or fingerprint analysis, and far more reliable than eyewitness testimony, DNA analysis can provide conclusive proof about who was or was not at the scene of a crime. The authority of DNA evidence … led to a revolution in the criminal justice system and a vast increase in the use of DNA testing to both convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. …
The power of DNA testing extends far beyond criminal justice. The determination of paternity is now definitive, and testing for carriers of genetic diseases is now routing, thanks to DNA science. but there is one arena where that power is not yet widely appreciated: in what one might call the philosophical realm.
Just as the sequence of each individual’s DNA is unique, the sequence of each species’ DNA is unique. Every evolutionary change between species, from physical form to digestive metabolism, is due to – and recorded in - changes in DNA. So, too, is the “paternity” of species. DNA contains, therefore, the ultimate forensic record of evolution.
Is there any evidence that causes you to doubt common descent?
On another topic is Jesus returning....
Good question. My answer is "probably not, but if so, I can not think of any reason to believe so." If the Biblical predictions concerning the "coming of the son of man" in passages like the Olivet Discourse are true, then they must have been fulfilled in the first century. It is very interesting that most atheists use those predictions as proof that the Bible is false.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2010, 05:37 PM
I clearly felt a move of my spirit. It kind of like lept when John met Jesus while he was still a foetus.
Strange, very strange!
I don't know how to describe this moment any better than a transformation from an egg to a tadpole. You can see the development through the shell yet it's not free until it makes the transition through the shell.
I automatically felt a sense of an outing of some kind that you were holding off for no good reason. I feel this is good!
While you were writing this I was writing something very similar which I will have to post after I edit it, simply for the fact that it was too long!
I too cannot side with any one religion.
Where we differ is that I don't really side with the rigidities of science either.
I tend to think we are more like Lab Rats and that the truth is stranger than fiction.
Congratulations Richard, I felt immediately inspired, and that a great weight was lifted off your shoulders. I feel logic is more your saving grace. I tend to get along better with atheists than fundamentalists simply because of the logic and not a hand me down belief without a disciplined logic or proof of why we do it? The whole purpose of it needs to be constantly re evaluated or go through a kind of transformation for a more developed creature which we need to become.
You've rejuvinated me! Thanks Richard & Thank You God In Jesus' Name, Amen.
Mick
PS I believe this is strongly linked with the changing of the ages.
Hey there Mick,
Great post! I'm really glad you feel "rejuvenated." That's how I feel too.
I wasn't really "holding off" so much as waiting for the right moment. I was going to write a big well-structured post that would say everything "perfectly" but never felt inspired - and I'm glad. It's better just to shoot off a few quick comments and break the ice and see where it goes.
I "side" more with science only because it can be tested so we can discern objectively what is true and false. But the science folks have blind spots too. They tend to fall into a totally materialistic view of reality which I do not believe is justified, and there certainly is no "evidence" for that philosophical position.
Talk more soon,
Richard
Howdy Richard,Beck and Mick,
Richard>
AMA (Ask Me Anything): My Beliefs have Changed
________________________________________
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
Gil > I see it for the most part the same way. The lowest common denominator of evolution as well as the concept of God
Is Life itself. When science and religion dig deep enough, it is Life that they will ultimately become confronted with.
I don't thing the human mind will ever get beyond this seemingly profound mystery.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
Gil > I find myself in agreement once again.
The closest form of Christianity that I have been able to see is found within the Christology of Paul the apostle.
All other denominations of the reformed Roman church ( some call it Catholicism) have missed the truth to be found with our Bible.
This of course includes what some call the Mother church.
All other religions are based upon mans concept of the Gods and God.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
Gil> I have never really looked into your Bible wheel . Not because it may or may not shed more light on the scriptures
But does it give man a deeper look within himself as a walking, living human being that was born of the flesh?
Can it show how to have a meaningful relationship with a creator God?
Does it show anything of the purpose of man and the function that he was purposed for in the plan , purpose and function
Of the creation itself of which man appears to be but a part, here on this earth?
Does it show a path that man should follow, to not only walk in the footsteps of Jesus while he was in the flesh, but a means
To following the resurrected Jesus Christ to still another realm in which life continues in an ever new developing state.
Most see evolution as a physical phenomenon that has it's purpose here on earth.
I do not. It to me is an evolution of life itself in the many and ever changing states that are within the evolutionary process.
Man is no different in this regard. What most people see and look for in Christianity is not so far distant from the early
Concepts of a transfiguration of our physical flesh bodies that will no longer see death and find this earth
To be their future home and place of residence.
I won't spend much time on this thought, But Paul took the concept forward into a spiritual transformation of the soul.
He dropped the physical and moved inward to that which was in reality man himself. A spiritual entity that has life and it is the spiritual side of man, like life itself that continues on after the death of the physical body of flesh.
----------------
Beck>
I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.
On another topic is Jesus returning....
Gil > I read a book once in my early years ,called "A generation of vipers" by Phillip Willy.
He used the birth of a human baby from it's conception to it's fully formed state as it departed the womb
To show the similarity of Darwin's concept of the evolutionary process in picture's of each stage of a babies
Formation. It caught my attention as it moved from a tadpole , amphibian with a tail, then legs etc.
To me all science and Christianity are compatible with each other.
The Bible for the most part is looking into a darkened mirror . The truth is there , one needs to find it.
I consider myself lucky in a way. I have been home schooled by myself in the Bible and most concepts
That religion and Christianity hold to I have learned of after I had formed my own opinions.
Jesus returning. No. I don't think that it was ever within the plan and purpose that God had for man.
To me, Jesus is the path, the truth, the light and the way, that man in the flesh may continue his
Own journey with the life that has been given him.
He, in my own reality has never left.
The Father and the Son have always been within man. Man merely lost his way.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 10:21 AM
Hey there Gil, :yo:
I'm glad you jumped in to the conversation. :thumb:
Gil > I see it for the most part the same way. The lowest common denominator of evolution as well as the concept of God
Is Life itself. When science and religion dig deep enough, it is Life that they will ultimately become confronted with.
I don't thing the human mind will ever get beyond this seemingly profound mystery.
Yes, there is a "mystery" to Life and Consciousness. But I am not sure how to understand it since I see my cats have consciousness and some intelligence (they know how get me to open the door to let them out, for example). The only difference is that I have self-awareness whereas the cats seem only to have awareness of their environment. I tend to think that's because I got the bigger brain. I used to think that it was because I was a "spiritual entity" inhabiting a "body." But that doesn't explain why both the cat and I have "awareness" in general. If awareness is a property that arises from brains in general, then I would expect "self-awareness" to arise from more complex brains.
Currently there are two "singularities" that science has yet to penetrate:
Origin of the Universe: We can trace history back to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but we can not explain the event itself.
Origin of Life: No one seems to have a clue how life arose from non-living matter.
I believe the history that flows from those two "singularities of origin" can be fully explained by natural law. It may be that the Universe itself ultimately needs an explanation because of Fine Tuning, but I find it very difficult to imagine that God let the whole universe run on natural law except when he interrupted to make the first cell. That seems like a typical "God of the gaps" argument.
2) I believe that all religions are false. ...
Gil > I find myself in agreement once again.
The closest form of Christianity that I have been able to see is found within the Christology of Paul the apostle.
All other denominations of the reformed Roman church ( some call it Catholicism) have missed the truth to be found with our Bible.
This of course includes what some call the Mother church.
All other religions are based upon mans concept of the Gods and God.
Yep. And it seems that the conclusion is inevitable: God does not care what people believe, or at the very least, it is absurd to think that God has prepared an eternal conscious torment for those who hold erroneous opinions about Jesus and other religious propositions. I mean think about it! Most folks have no opportunity to study all the religions of the world to make an informed choice between truth and falsehood. And if they did, they would almost certainly come to the conclusion that no religion is true. But many folks don't even learn to read and don't live long enough to study such things anyway! The idea that our eternal destiny depends upon submitting to a specific sectarian religious dogma is the most obvious con game in the history of the world. It is used by all religious dictators to control the "sheep" so they can steal their money and use them any way they want.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? ...
Gil> I have never really looked into your Bible wheel . Not because it may or may not shed more light on the scriptures
But does it give man a deeper look within himself as a walking, living human being that was born of the flesh?
Can it show how to have a meaningful relationship with a creator God?
Does it show anything of the purpose of man and the function that he was purposed for in the plan , purpose and function
Of the creation itself of which man appears to be but a part, here on this earth?
Does it show a path that man should follow, to not only walk in the footsteps of Jesus while he was in the flesh, but a means
To following the resurrected Jesus Christ to still another realm in which life continues in an ever new developing state.
That's a lot of questions! If you believe the Bible itself answers those questions, the same can be said of the Bible Wheel.
Great chatting,
Richard
The evidence of common descent is extremely strong. It is based on the "tree of life" which shows how all species are related to each other. The tree was originally based upon organizing the species according to their obvious characteristics like reptile, bird, etc., with different kinds of birds, for example, being on the same branch of the tree. This was strongly confirmed by the fossil record in which simpler forms were found in older rocks corresponding to lower parts of the tree. And then the whole tree was confirmed in an extremely convincing way when the same pattern was found using DNA sequencing.
Currently there are two "singularities" that science has yet to penetrate:
Origin of the Universe: We can trace history back to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but we can not explain the event itself.
Origin of Life: No one seems to have a clue how life arose from non-living matter.
I believe the history that flows from those two "singularities of origin" can be fully explained by natural law. It may be that the Universe itself ultimately needs an explanation because of Fine Tuning, but I find it very difficult to imagine that God let the whole universe run on natural law except when he interrupted to make the first cell. That seems like a typical "God of the gaps" argument.
There in lays the problem for me with the theory of Evolution. Now to evolve is founded but the theory isn't. We then come up with unfounded theories.
[/INDENT]Is there any evidence that causes you to doubt common descent?
No, I not have any problem with that, only creation from Evolution.
Good question. My answer is "probably not, but if so, I can not think of any reason to believe so." If the Biblical predictions concerning the "coming of the son of man" in passages like the Olivet Discourse are true, then they must have been fulfilled in the first century. It is very interesting that most atheists use those predictions as proof that the Bible is false.
I would agree on your points of the Olivet Discourse of the "coming in the cloud", "coming of the Son of Man". To that point, how would you understand Jesus resurrection? Literal, if so then what about his ascension? Noted that they stood looking up in the clouds as he ascended. Just trying to work through some of these points myself.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 12:10 PM
There in lays the problem for me with the theory of Evolution. Now to evolve is founded but the theory isn't. We then come up with unfounded theories.
Yes, the main gap in our understanding concerns the origin of life. There are other gaps about the details of how some complex structures evolved and whatnot, but I have not seen anything to make me think we needed a supernatural explanation for any evolution after it got going. It seems, therefore, very odd to think that God had to intervene to design the first cell and then he just stepped back to let the natural process of evolution take care of the rest. It seems more likely that there is a natural explanation for the origin of life. I don't think we can use the problem of the origin of life to infer anything about God because we simply do not know if it could have happened naturally or not.
I would agree on your points of the Olivet Discourse of the "coming in the cloud", "coming of the Son of Man". To that point, how would you understand Jesus resurrection? Literal, if so then what about his ascension? Noted that they stood looking up in the clouds as he ascended. Just trying to work through some of these points myself.
Good questions. If we assume the Biblical narrative true, I would say the resurrection of Christ was probably literal (physical) so the disciples could see it and believe. As for the ascension - it certainly sounds literal, but it gets mixed together with the metaphorical use of the "clouds of heaven" so I don't know. And that's the real point - we don't know much about the real meaning, let alone the truth, of any of these things. No matter how hard anyone tries, no one can put together a complete picture of what even happened in most of the Biblical narrative. This is the basis of Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone):
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.
It's pretty difficult to argue with a simple challenge like this, isn't it? But who can answer? I think we all know the answer. No Christian can meet this simple challenge. The accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels are irreconcilable. And if this is the case, then it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to believe them because we can not even state what it is that we are supposed to believe.
Richard
alec cotton
10-15-2010, 12:51 PM
Evolution is a loose word which has very little meaning of itself .. Radio evolved . That is, men gradually added new concepts and so it grew more and more complex . The same way with computers. One man built on the ideas of others. . That is totally different to the concept which people have when they say, 'I believe in evolution ' What they really mean is , I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by the (accidental ) selection of the species. That theory is so absurd that I find it hard to understand how any man with a grain of intelligence could give it any credence There is not one shred of evidence to support such an idea. It is based on speculation and nothing else. Let us start with the cambrian period . Fossils from that time are quite rare . In my mind the graptolites are the most conspicuous . For seventy million years nothing changed . Suddenly there was a dramatic change . Most of the species dissappeared and numerous new species appeared. That era was called the ordovician. Vertibrates and fungi appeared . Plants grew on land. Nothing evolved for the next 50 million years or so and then lo and behojd , all things passed away and all things became new There was a brand new lifestyle on earth. During this period called the silurian ,land vertebrates and insects flourished for the first time. This situation remained for about forty million years and nothing evolved After that the devonian at the end of which a whole new raft of species was introduced. The difference in the different periods is so distinct that wherever you may go in the world , the rocks can be recognised by their age and the periods they belong to by the distinctive fossils which they contain. The holy grail of darwinism is 'the missing link' It does not exist . It never did . Nothing evolved . Everything is created with a purpose. All this is based on observation. The Darwin theory is purely speculation and supposition. The fact is that every animal is endowed with just enough intelligence to fulfill yhe purpose for which it was created . that fact can be verified under laboratory controlled conditions. Since the pseudo scientists fell over their own feet and recognised a chemical which the called d.n.a for short. They have used it to 'prove ' that all life evolved from a common origin. What they are looking at is the tool which the creator uses to fulfil his purpose. It is a chemical which the body produces. It is a product of the creator. To paraphrase the words of Martin Luther King Jr. We maximise the minimum and minimise the maximum . God created all things perfect. Think for a moment about water. Life cannot exist without it and yet we take it for granted . As far as I can see it is the only substance that expands when it freezes. Many years ago I pondered why water always froze on top of the water. I reasoned that heat always rises and cold always falls. Therefore the coldest part of the pond should be the bottom. I went out in winter with a rod and line and a thermometer and lowered it to the bottom of the pond . IT was warmer at the bottom than the top. Some time later I read that water expands when it reaches 34 Fahrenheit. Therefore it is lighter than the surrounding water. Now I see the logic of it . If it was not so the ice would form at the bottom and gradually reach the surface and all the fish would be exposed. I am convinced that the creator had all this under control when he planned H2O.
Alec
Yes, the main gap in our understanding concerns the origin of life. There are other gaps about the details of how some complex structures evolved and whatnot, but I have not seen anything to make me think we needed a supernatural explanation for any evolution after it got going. It seems, therefore, very odd to think that God had to intervene to design the first cell and then he just stepped back to let the natural process of evolution take care of the rest. It seems more likely that there is a natural explanation for the origin of life. I don't think we can use the problem of the origin of life to infer anything about God because we simply do not know if it could have happened naturally or not.
The logic that God created it is enough for me, also would God use nature to fulfill his plan of man,? Sure.
Good questions. If we assume the Biblical narrative true, I would say the resurrection of Christ was probably literal (physical) so the disciples could see it and believe. As for the ascension - it certainly sounds literal, but it gets mixed together with the metaphorical use of the "clouds of heaven" so I don't know. And that's the real point - we don't know much about the real meaning, let alone the truth, of any of these things. No matter how hard anyone tries, no one can put together a complete picture of what even happened in most of the Biblical narrative. This is the basis of Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone):
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.
It's pretty difficult to argue with a simple challenge like this, isn't it? But who can answer? I think we all know the answer. No Christian can meet this simple challenge. The accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels are irreconcilable. And if this is the case, then it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to believe them because we can not even state what it is that we are supposed to believe.
Richard
Richard, I fine that hard to believe that no one has come to a comprehensive reading of that narrative as for the four Gospels. If one read only the Gospels they would seem to contradict each other, but in reality they combine to give a complete picture, much like having four different people describe the same event.
I have in the past wrote out how they work together like a puzzle to describe Jesus resurrection, but I didn't go as far a his ascension. What I know from reading it's if Jesus disappeared before them as many times before with in the 40 days that he was with them. But this time two men in white tell them that Jesus would return as he left. That to me doen't necessary have to be in clouds of heaven, that is where they were looking for him. Maybe what is been said by the two messagers is that he left sudden and he will likewise return sudden. I have some other thoughs but will pick them up later.
Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order:
Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).
The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66).
At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).
The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).
The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).
The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).
The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).
Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).
The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).
Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).
Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).
Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13:32).
That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35).
Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).
Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31).
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 04:34 PM
I have created a new thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1852). We should continue that conversation there.
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-15-2010, 05:24 PM
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.
Richard
Hi Richard:
More on your post; but first this paragraph which can be pertinent.
I think there was an unended conversation in the science thread which I departed to think on a little. I still hold that you have no foundation whatsoever to view Abraham as a historical figure and then not Noah and the pre-flood administration and economy as 'figurative'. If you throw out Noah and predecesors; you need to throw out Abraham.
I think that just as you once felt that the bible wheel "prooved" the bible and yet now recant that testimony to some degree; you may find yourself recanting your present perspective on evolution at some time in the future. Thus be carefull on whom you may sway with this information.
You have mentioned the commonality of enzymes; proteins, molecules and atoms within various forms of life; but this does not neccessarily proove a evolutionary process.
You have stated that the current theory is that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old; but you also said that matter was never created "from nothing" or "Ex nihilo". Thus your starting date of 4.5 billion yrs is not the beginning of the matter and molecules which make up the earth and universe, but apparently the beginning of a 'big bang' theory from your perspective or the beginning of the first eclectric charge in a molecule to 'enliven' it... or something....???
This begs the question as to what state this matter was before 4.5 billion yrs ago.....lets say .... 10 billion yrs ago.... and many other questions. Was there any such thing as 10 billion yrs ago? Did matter exist 20 billion yrs ago?
Were the scientists there at this big bang??? Obviously not, but they assume that the date which they interpret this big bang can be arrived at through observing and interpreting various data, including the rate of expansion of the universe and so forth. They furthermore assume that this rate has remained constant for these 4.5 billion yrs and other various assumptions of laws under which they consider their data. They furthermore would (seemingly logically correctly) assume that "Light" is an uncreatable substance but must have begun from it's 'Star' and thus the distance of the star from the earth(?) is accurately the measure of the age of the universe?
Are these people in agreement that the earth is the center of the universe?
What if they continue to find further stars 'out there'?
Mirads of questions and possible variables that seem to be assumed constant and without outside influence or involvement from "the Creation" to arrive at any "date" for the age of the universe or earth. (whichever)
Since they were not there; is there anyone who's testimony is trustworth and who says that he was there? Several places, Jesus claims to be from everlasting to everlasting or 'eternal'. John the Baptist calls him the lamb slain (from the Creators will) from before the foundation of the world. Colossians states that by him and through him were all things created that were created. Thus; Jesus is the Creator according to Pauls testimony; and his ability to heal and reform molecular structures, including rising from the dead testify to His authority over life, his deity and his Sonship. (and his approval of our lives in their present form)
Genesis; the book of beginnnigs was said to be written by Moses or his scribes; Moses claimed to talk face to face with Jesus ( God; the Creator) on the moutain and the testimony of fulfilled prophecy confirm the Deity of the one on the moutain. Thus; although Moses wasn't there (at the beginning of Creation); he records the testimony of HIM who WAS THERE. (Or are we not agreed on this point?) This is more than we can say for the present day humanist/atheist physicists and astronomers and so forth. They haven't even spoken to someone who WAS there and its' unknown how many would be among those who had the identity and deity of Jesus (as Son of the LIVING GOD) revealed to them as Peter did. "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And upon this ROCK (the internal witness of his entity and deity) his church (meeting..ekklessia.. of his body) is built. Has this fact of the entity of Christ as SON OF the LIVING GOD....been confirmed and revealed individually to you in your personal soul and mind?
I for one am not insistant on a 7 day (24 hour period) for the creation of or the ordering of matter. In the pre-flood world, a mans "day" was 1000 yrs. In the post flood environment, a mans 'day' was limited to 120 yrs. Under law of moses, a mans day was stated to be 70-80 yrs. Under fulfilled/unconditional Mercy; based on faith, and in the restoration of the principles/foundations back to Eden without the presence of the conditional test (individually) IF John is the example of a mans "DAY"; then a day (a physical lifespan) seems to be limited to 100 yrs or perhaps 120 yrs... or simply his lifespan.
In the record of the days of creation, the morning and evening (a day) were mostly referring to the beginning of the design of that section of creation and the completion of that section. Thus it is unspecified weather the author intended it to be a actual 24 hour rotaion of the earth/mass/orb; or 1000 yrs; or the 'day' of the amount of time period of that section of creation took to Create.
However; I dont' subscribe to or follow the pro-thesis of the electrified atom at the beginning of creation obtaining with that electrification self determination and intelligence to find it's own way to develop a various and mirad of life forms apart from the will and design of it's creator.
That would eventually imply that the ionized atom/molecule would eventually create man who would eventually create "God" only in the mind of man. The physical visitation of Christ via the virgin birth; the manifestation of miracles through the prophets; Moses Abraham, apostles, etc; the tranfigurations on Mt Sinai and those in appearance to the 3 apostles are only the beginnings of the testimony against such a perspective.
There is a further question and observation that the progressive advancement of molecules and life from a common ancestor excludes the present reality that Life is continued only through 'pro-creation'. The evolutionary model has no need for pro-creation.
I see very little difference between your perspectives (unless I misunderstand them) and the perspectives of those who worshipped Baal. They worshipped whatever entity that caused the dung heap to turn to flies, thinking that the flies had in times past changed into other species. They worshipped 'shit'.
I don't fault you leaving of dictated "religion"; but the bible is NOT about "religion" nor is religion about having somebody elses right answers or right beliefs or a compelled attendance to sit under said dictator. It is a record and testimony of the Creator of Life and freedom(and power) in that LIFE through seeking to understand his statutes and principles which govern and bless that Life. "Religion" could be defined as the expression of what one's believes to be true at the present time. The "church" was originally the organic meeting (ekklisia) of persons to discuss issues; glory in and worship the Creator the Life and freedom of the fulfilled covenant of Mercy and to encourage one another in the truths and worshipping through the administration to one another's and the groups needs and gifts. (General, incomplete, non technical summary) In some senses; we have been having "church" at times in this forum, although 'church' is generally considered to be on a local face to face level.
I believe a relationship with the Creator and his truth and foundations can be found through reason; logic; observing that which is Created (especially and including mans properties and inquisitive nature) and in putting the Words and claims of Jesus to the tests of faith.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 07:10 PM
Hey there ED32,
Before commenting, I want to say that I very much appreciate your post and hope we can dig into the challenges you bring up. I know the changes in my beliefs may be "shocking" and "disturbing." So I hope we can use this opportunity to see things more clearly together.
Hi Richard:
More on your post; but first this paragraph which can be pertinent.
I think there was an unended conversation in the science thread which I departed to think on a little. I still hold that you have no foundation whatsoever to view Abraham as a historical figure and then not Noah and the pre-flood administration and economy as 'figurative'. If you throw out Noah and predecesors; you need to throw out Abraham.
Whoops! I forgot about that thread. Thanks for reminding me.
I think that just as you once felt that the bible wheel "prooved" the bible and yet now recant that testimony to some degree; you may find yourself recanting your present perspective on evolution at some time in the future. Thus be carefull on whom you may mislead or sway with this information.
I try to be very careful about anything I state as fact. If something is just an opinion, I always try to remember to indicate that.
As for the Bible Wheel - I have not "recanted" of any facts relating to it. But I no longer hold to my former opinion that it confirmed traditional Christian doctrines. I simply do not know what it "implies" about anything. I used to freely talk of "God" but now I see that the Christian dogmas concerning God are completely incoherent. So if Christians don't know what they mean by God, how can I believe that the Bible Wheel "supports" their incoherent beliefs? For example, omniscience implies that God has never made a decision. A truly omniscient God is nothing like a "person" and so the idea of the Christian God as a "personal being" makes no sense to me.
And I'm not worried about "misleading" people because I am only challenging folks to think for themselves. They are responsible for their own opinions. The can not blame me if they came to a false conclusion because
You have mentioned the commonality of enzymes; proteins, molecules and atoms within various forms of life; but this does not neccessarily proove a evolutionary process.
I think you misunderstood me. It is not mere "commonality" of "enzymes; proteins, molecules and atoms." I'm talking about markers like the streaks left by the copy machine that identify all "descendants" with complete certainty. We have disabled genes in our genome that are identical to those found in apes. They were turned off in our branch of evolution. How did they get there? We also have specific segments of viral DNA that were inserted at random points in a common ancestor millions of years ago. The insertion is random - like a streak on a copy machine - it marks all common descendants. The same DNA science that we use to determine paternity and guilt or innocence in courts of law is the science that confirms the evolutionary relations between species on the tree of life.
You have stated that the current theory is that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old; but you also said that matter was never created "from nothing" or "Ex nihilo". Thus your starting date of 4.5 billion yrs is not the beginning of the matter and molecules which make up the earth and universe, but apparently the beginning of a 'big bang' theory from your perspective or the beginning of the first eclectric charge in a molecule to 'enliven' it... or something....???
This begs the question as to what state this matter was before 4.5 billion yrs ago.....lets say .... 10 billion yrs ago.... and many other questions. Was there any such thing as 10 billion yrs ago? Did matter exist 20 billion yrs ago?
I'm confused - I'm don't recall stating that matter was not created in the Big Bang. The current theory is that all the energy in the universe emerged 13.75 +/- .17 years ago in the "Big Bang." It could be wrong ... but that's the best theory so far. As for the earth, the current understanding is that it is about 4.6 billion years old. I don't see how these issues are particularly relevant. Regardless of what we don't know or know imperfectly, we can be quite certain that the earth is billions of years old.
Were they there at this big bang??? Obviously not, but they assume that the date which they interpret this big bang can be arrived at through observing and interpreting various data, including the rate of expansion of the universe and so forth. They furthermore assume that this rate has remained constant for these 4.5 billion yrs and other various assumptions of laws under which they consider their data. They furthermore would (logically correctly) assume that "Light" is an uncreatable substance but must have begun from it's 'Star' and thus the distance of the star from the earth(?) is accurately the measure of the age of the universe?
Are these people in agreement that the earth is the center of the universe?
What if they continue to find further stars 'out there'?
Mirads of questions and possible variables that seem to be assumed constant and without outside influence or involvement from "the Creation" to arrive at any "date" for the age of the universe or earth. (whichever)
Granted, there are many questions. But there are also many answers. Look around at the world we have created using the SAME science that you bring into question. We can transplant hearts, send folks to the moon, use GPS to locate any person anywhere on the planet. The same science that gives us all this technology also gives us the understanding about the age and origin of the earth. I admit that science is not perfect, but it is infinitely better than opinions formed by trying to interpret ancient religious texts.
Since they were not there; is there anyone who's testimony is trustworth and who says that he was there? Several places, Jesus claims to be from everlasting to everlasting or 'eternal'. John the Baptist calls him the lamb slain (from the Creators will) from before the foundation of the world. Colossians states that by him and through him were all things created that were created. Thus; Jesus is the Creator according to Pauls testimony; and his ability to heal and reform molecular structures, including rising from the dead testify to His authority over life, his deity and his Sonship. (and his approval of our lives in their present form)
Granted - the Bible sometimes presents Jesus as the Creator. But Jesus spoke in a way that was consistent with the scientifically false world view of 2000 years ago. He never corrected any false scientific views. So at best we must assume that he was accommodating their ignorance - speaking in a way to communicate spiritual truths to folks who knew nothing of how the world really worked. It seems foolish to use the Bible in an attempt to overthrow the confirmed results of modern science.
Genesis; the book of beginnnigs was said to be written by Moses or his scribes; Moses claimed to talk face to face with Jesus ( God; the Creator) on the moutain and the testimony of fulfilled prophecy confirm the Deity of the one on the moutain. Thus; although Moses wasn't there (at the beginning of Creation); he records the testimony of HIM who WAS THERE. (Or are we not agreed on this point?) This is more than we can say for the present day humanist/atheist physicists and astronomers and so forth. They haven't even spoken to someone who WAS there and its' unknown how many would be among those who had the identity and deity of Jesus (as Son of the LIVING GOD) revealed to them as Peter did. "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And upon this ROCK (the internal witness of his entity and deity) his church (meeting..ekklessia.. of his body) is built. Has this fact of the entity of Christ as SON OF the LIVING GOD....been confirmed and revealed individually to you in your personal soul and mind?
For many years I believed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. I had a vibrant and living sense of His presence. But now I can not discern between that and feelings that folks generate by their own thoughts and imagination. But none of that matters for the sake of our conversation. I can accept (for the sake of argument) that Moses talked face to face with the Creator. But that does not mean that the Bible is a science book! I do not see how the story of Genesis 1 could be anything but false if we insist that it must be interpreted literally.
This is not an issue of my "beliefs" so much as my "understanding." A man can not believe something he does not understand. And my understanding is telling me that the Bible is not a science book and it would be extremely foolish to reject the results of modern science merely because they seem to contradict the interpretation of an ancient religious text.
However; I dont' subscribe to or follow the pro-thesis of the electrified atom at the beginning of creation obtaining with that electrification self determination and intelligence to find it's own way to develop a various and mirad of life forms apart from the will and design of it's creator.
I don't understand your emphasis on "electrified" - electromagnetism is just one of the four fundamental forces that govern energy and matter. The others are Strong and Weak Nuclear forces, and Gravity.
The idea of "obtaining with that electrification self determination and intelligence" makes no sense to me. It does not sound like anything I have ever read in any scientific text. It is not how scientists talk about evolution.
I grant that the origin of life is still a mystery, but the evolution that followed from that event is a demonstrable fact, as far as I can tell. Have you read any of the popular science books that attempt to explain the evidence for evolution? The best I've read recently is called The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution. It's a very easy read. I would highly recommend it if you are interested in this topic.
That would eventually imply that the ionized atom/molecule would eventually create man who would eventually create "God" only in the mind of man. The physical visitation of Christ via the virgin birth; the manifestation of miracles through the prophets; Moses Abraham, apostles, etc; the tranfigurations on Mt Sinai and those in appearance to the 3 apostles are only the beginnings of the testimony against such a perspective.
I have never heard any scientist ever speak in terms like that. No one ever says thing like "the ionized atom/molecule would eventually create man." I get the impression you have not read anything written by evolutionary scientists. And if that is the case, how can you have such a strong opinion about it?
There is very little difference between your perspectives (unless I misunderstand them) and the perspectives of those who worshipped Baal. They worshipped whatever entity that caused the dung heap to turn to flies, thinking that the flies had in times past changed into other species. They worshipped 'shit'.
I think it's probably safe to say that you "misunderstand" my perspective!
Again, if you want to express such strong opinions, that's fine, but do us both a favor and read a book or too first! Your comments are just plain silly. Pasteur is a SCIENTIFIC HERO because he debunked spontaneous generation of flies from shit.
I don't fault you leaving of "religion"; but the bible is NOT about "religion" or of having all the right answers or right beliefs. It is a record and testimony of the Creator of Life and freedom(and power) in that LIFE.
Yes ... and so we can know with perfect certainty that the All Wise Creator delights in the fact that we do not treat the Bible as if it were written by and for morons. We must use all the power of intelligence that he gave us, right?
Great chatting!
Richard
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-15-2010, 09:40 PM
Hey there ED32,
[QUOTE]Before commenting, I want to say that I very much appreciate your post and hope we can dig into the challenges you bring up. I know the changes in my beliefs may be "shocking" and "disturbing." So I hope we can use this opportunity to see things more clearly together.
Actually no, I'm not shocked or disturbed as you alluded to these views before.
I'm confused - I'm don't recall stating that matter was not created in the Big Bang. The current theory is that all the energy in the universe emerged 13.75 +/- .17 years
It was in the discussion of "Ex Nihilo". You stated that you never said that matter was created from nothing.
Granted, there are many questions. But there are also many answers. Look around at the world we have created using the SAME science that you bring into question. We can transplant hearts, send folks to the moon, use GPS to locate any person anywhere on the planet. The same science that gives us all this technology also gives us the understanding about the age and origin of the earth. I admit that science is not perfect, but it is infinitely better than opinions formed by trying to interpret ancient religious texts.
No, I think it's somewhat different. The science of transplanting hearts, GPS, and so forth is applied science. The study of 'billions' of years is theory since as we both agree; none of us were there and applied science can't recreate the origination or a big bang. Most of the books are likely based on 'theory' or a group of theory and then mount supporting evidence.
No; I've not read many of the books and at the present time I have little interest in doing so. Perhaps sometime later.
Granted - the Bible sometimes ?presents Jesus as the Creator. But Jesus spoke in a way that was consistent with the scientifically false world view of 2000 years ago. He never corrected any false scientific views. So at best we must assume that he was accommodating their ignorance - speaking in a way to communicate spiritual truths to folks who knew nothing of how the world really worked. It seems foolish to use the Bible in an attempt to overthrow the confirmed results of modern science.
I don't recall Jesus (or the apostles) thinking or discussing science at all????
And I can't imagine the theory of a "Good God" pacifying any intellectual misunderstandings with false information. Paul talked about the 'unknown God' in Mars hill and introduce the concept of a Creator/designer of Men.
For many years I believed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. I had a vibrant and living sense of His presence. But now I can not discern between that and feelings that folks generate by their own thoughts and imagination. But none of that matters for the sake of our conversation. I can accept (for the sake of argument) that Moses talked face to face with the Creator. But that does not mean that the Bible is a science book! I do not see how the story of Genesis 1 could be anything but false if we insist that it must be interpreted literally.
Perhaps you could go to Him and ask HIM if these perspectives of these evolutionary friends and books your reading are Truth. Ask HIM in faith in His Love to you to reveal to you their lies or mistakes if there are any. Recall again John 14-16. Recall in Deut 30 and Rom 10 where THE WORD (Jesus) himself is in your heart and in your mouth. This is not the commandment of laws written in your heart, but the Living God.
This is not an issue of my "beliefs" so much as my "understanding." A man can not believe something he does not understand. And my understanding is telling me that the Bible is not a science book and it would be extremely foolish to reject the results of modern science merely because they seem to contradict the interpretation of an ancient religious text.
Again: I dont' view the bible as a "RELIGIOUS" text; but the Revelation of the Creator of Life (In his image)
The idea of "obtaining with that electrification self determination and intelligence" makes no sense to me. It does not sound like anything I have ever read in any scientific text. It is not how scientists talk about evolution.The idea of self determination and intelligence was taken from Rose's one post.
I grant that the origin of life is still a mystery, but the evolution that followed from that event is a demonstrable fact, as far as I can tell. Sounds like a not so demonstratable and proven FACT; but a Belief; or else you wouldn't have to add the disclaimer of as far as I can tell.
Have you read any of the popular science books that attempt to explain the evidence for evolution? The best I've read recently is called The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution. It's a very easy read. I would highly recommend it if you are interested in this topic. No: I haven't but there are philosophies behind how people interpret information and opinions, and we've touched on this before. If Life is based on survival of the fittest; then the laws of Life can be humanistic. Humanistic laws cam permit some "more fit" to rule over others rather than to each man to grow to be be self govorning and free in LOVE as is ordained by the laws of the everlasting covenant of life/mercy. By changing the foundational laws of heaven, which respect the divinity of Life and acknowledge the image/likeness of it's Creator within that Life; into "laws", statutes and ordinances generated by humanists we can permit wars, infanticide; killing of the elderly before their day and so forth. "Just war theory" would also fall into the idea of those "fit to rule over others" deciding the terms of what is 'just war' and upon who is allowed to live out their lives normaally and who shall be decimated by wars. All supported by 'survival of the fittest". And yet; Jesus, though being able to excape by calling a multitude of Angels; did not war....and neither did the disciples when given the chance to fight against the Romans.
This enters into the communist/socialist/atheistic goals also. One of their planks of the communist manifesto was to perpetuate evolution and the denial of the Creator. These are/were also goals of judaism where the elite race (jews) would be 'divine' and others are mere 'animals' (GOY) It is even alluded to in the U.S. code that it's 'citizens' are in the same class as "other animals".
Without a Creator, and the fulfilled covenant of Mercy/life from the Creation (whenever the garden scenario started) Without a confirmed faith in a Creator and his reward would the disciples endured the sword of the Romans?
I have never heard any scientist ever speak in terms like that. No one ever says thing like "the ionized atom/molecule would eventually create man." I get the impression you have not read anything written by evolutionary scientists. And if that is the case, how can you have such a strong opinion about it?
They were mentioned on another forum and are loosly referred to. This is not a technical discussion for me but one of principle. The (what you call) strong opinon is based on the principles behind the supposed evolutionary truths which go against the confirmed and historically proven ordinances of the covenant of Love Mercy and LIFE from the foundation of man from the biblical recorded standpoint. If there is no "Garden"; there is no "my" covenant to Noah; no covenant of "BLESSING and forgiveness/approval/protection/power and mercy to Abraham; no need for a covenant confirmed by the Messah in Dan 9; no need for a Messiah (God with us) to come to earth to approve the divinity and holiness of Life created in His image....etc etc.. There would be no reason to have the negative corporal/national/conditional mosaic covenant where the 'company' or the nation became the peoples God. No new testament: no healing by Jesus; no feeding of 5000; no desolation of the temple by the Romans or the escape of the followers of the "WAY OF LIFE" (alluding to the garden covenant); no 'River or Tree of Life in Revelation....
All just story lessons.
These principles and the favor given to those who believed these ordinances (as described in Dan 7 and experienced by the foreknown escape to Pella) historically prove the favor of the Covenant of Life/Mercy and prove the prophets from Moses through Isaiah and so forth. And again; without Eden (of some form or another) and the promise seed to crush/bruise the adversar(ies) there is no historically proven ordinances of Life by the Holy Spirit. No need for a rebirth in the Spirit as 'all' wouild be naturally God's.
Again, if you want to express such strong opinions, that's fine, but do us both a favor and read a book or too first! Your comments are just plain silly. Pasteur is a SCIENTIFIC HERO because he debunked spontaneous generation of flies from shit. If the scientists of that day needed Pasteur to do that; they were in deep shit anyhow. If Pasteur had not done that; would scientists still be worshipping shit? Are they still doing that in Spirit and attitude even though "Pasteur" debunked it; only using other items instead of actual manure?
Yes ... and so we can know with perfect certainty that the All Wise Creator delights in the fact that we do not treat the Bible as if it were written by and for morons. We must use all the power of intelligence that he gave us, right?
Right; and not forgetting to you ALL the facets of intelligence including the understanding of persuasive forces to perpetuate what may amount to lies which may be in direct conflict with established and historically proven laws of eternal Life and evidence and proof of this God/Creator.
And how; for one answer of question does that intelligence and evolution answer the question of pro-creation? Why would a evolutionary system fabricate itself to pro-create between male and female when it could simply continue to split cells.
Could there be other 'answers' to the data....etc... etc.. etc..
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.
Richard
If I have not heard you wrongly RAM, I think you are on the road to atheism. I feel the urge to warn you about this as I do know that one of the problem with preterism is that there is a tendency for preterists to revert to atheism. I do hope and pray you are not thinking in this way, RAM. If you do, then receive our prayers :pray::pray::pray:Amen. RAM needs our prayers!
May God Bless You.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 10:54 PM
It was in the discussion of "Ex Nihilo". You stated that you never said that matter was created from nothing.
Right. That was in this post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24231&postcount=33) where I said:
Scientists do not believe that the "atoms, molecules and chemical elements that formed the earth were created Ex Nihilo (of nothing)" at any time. The theory of the Big Bang states that the universe began as a super-hot super-dense purely radiant "ball" of energy that cooled as spacetime expanded from the singularity. Then, as the radiant energy cooled, basic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons began to form, and so we got hydrogen atoms. Gravity collapsed the hydrogen clouds to form stars and helium was produced through the natural physical process of fusion. This kind of stuff went on for a few billion years and second generation stars produced the heavier elements like carbon used in life. Gravity gathered these elements together to form planets like the earth about 4 billion years ago.
I wrote that in response to a misunderstanding you had about the "creation of the earth ex nihilo" as implying that "that there was a time when all matter (or the earth?) was only 6-10 thousand years old. ... Thus you yourself agree with a 'young earth' or instantaneous creation model only that it was long ago." That is an extremely misleading characterization of the modern scientific understanding.
Granted, there are many questions. But there are also many answers. Look around at the world we have created using the SAME science that you bring into question. We can transplant hearts, send folks to the moon, use GPS to locate any person anywhere on the planet. The same science that gives us all this technology also gives us the understanding about the age and origin of the earth. I admit that science is not perfect, but it is infinitely better than opinions formed by trying to interpret ancient religious texts
No, I think it's somewhat different. The science of transplanting hearts, GPS, and so forth is applied science. The study of 'billions' of years is theory since as we both agree; none of us were there and applied science can't recreate the origination or a big bang. Most of the books are likely based on 'theory' or a group of theory and then mount supporting evidence.
You seem to have a false understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. The idea of a scientific theory is like the "theory of gravity" that explains the "fact of gravity." It's not like "just a theory." It is a systematic body of knowledge that explains how the world works and makes testable predictions like how fast an apple would accelerate when falling from a tree near the surface of the earth.
The THEORIES (systematic bodies of knowledge) that allow us to do super-accurate GPS are based Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which tells us that adjustments must be made because the surface of the earth in deeper in the gravity well surrounding the earth than the satellites. The same Theory of Gravity tells us important things about the age of the universe. All science is integrated like this. Cosmology is not an isolated science. It gives the same results we get from Geology and Biology which tells us how long things have been evolving because we can measure the mutation rates. Our genome is like a clock ...
No; I've not read many of the books and at the present time I have little interest in doing so. Perhaps sometime later.
How did you arrive at such firm opinions without reading any books? How can you think to contradict the conclusions of ten thousand scientists without any scientific knowledge at all?
Granted - the Bible sometimes ?presents Jesus as the Creator. But Jesus spoke in a way that was consistent with the scientifically false world view of 2000 years ago. He never corrected any false scientific views. So at best we must assume that he was accommodating their ignorance - speaking in a way to communicate spiritual truths to folks who knew nothing of how the world really worked. It seems foolish to use the Bible in an attempt to overthrow the confirmed results of modern science.
I don't recall Jesus (or the apostles) thinking or discussing science at all????
And I can't imagine the theory of a "Good God" pacifying any intellectual misunderstandings with false information. Paul talked about the 'unknown God' in Mars hill and introduce the concept of a Creator/designer of Men.
Many professional scientists who are also Christians have wrestled much with the problem of the scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. Some think that the "accommodationist" view is best, others reject it for the same reasons as you. But then they must look for another explanation. Few, if any, suggest we should challenge the scientific results.
As for your big question mark - I assumed you were aware of the many NT verses that speak of Jesus as a man. This means that the NT explicitly speaks of Christ as Creator only sometimes. This gave rise to the Arian controversy.
For many years I believed that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. I had a vibrant and living sense of His presence. But now I can not discern between that and feelings that folks generate by their own thoughts and imagination. But none of that matters for the sake of our conversation. I can accept (for the sake of argument) that Moses talked face to face with the Creator. But that does not mean that the Bible is a science book! I do not see how the story of Genesis 1 could be anything but false if we insist that it must be interpreted literally.
Perhaps you could go to Him and ask HIM if these perspectives of these evolutionary friends and books your reading are Truth. Ask HIM in faith in His Love to you to reveal to you their lies or mistakes if there are any. Recall again John 14-16. Recall in Deut 30 and Rom 10 where THE WORD (Jesus) himself is in your heart and in your mouth. This is not the commandment of laws written in your heart, but the Living God.
When I pray, I hear my own voice. If I relax my critical thinking I can imagine that God is speaking through whatever feelings or thoughts that happen to pass thought my mind. I have a friend who has lived this way for decades. A couple years ago she felt that God was very clearly telling her it was time to take all her savings and consolidate them in the stock market. So she took all her money and bought stocks at the PEAK when the Dow Jones was around 14,000 - just before the big crash. She lost half the value within a month after following the "voice of God" that she imagined in her own head. I'm not making this up. It really happened. It's been two years and the stocks still have not recovered fully.
When it comes to questions about science, we do not ask God to tell us where the error lies. We must use the mind he gave us. Of course, we must always be skeptical - and what does that mean? That means we must THINK CRITICALLY as best we can.
I grant that the origin of life is still a mystery, but the evolution that followed from that event is a demonstrable fact, as far as I can tell.Sounds like a not so demonstratable and proven FACT; but a Belief; or else you wouldn't have to add the disclaimer of as far as I can tell.
I wrote no disclaimer. I was talking about two different topics. 1) The origin of life, and 2) the evolution of life after it began.
I am still mystified by why you have such strong opinions about something that you have not studied.
Have you read any of the popular science books that attempt to explain the evidence for evolution? The best I've read recently is called The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution. It's a very easy read. I would highly recommend it if you are interested in this topic. No: I haven't but there are philosophies behind how people interpret information and opinions, and we've touched on this before. If Life is based on survival of the fittest; then the laws of Life can be humanistic. Humanistic laws cam permit some "more fit" to rule over others rather than to each man to grow to be be self govorning and free in LOVE as is ordained by the laws of the everlasting covenant of life/mercy. By changing the foundational laws of heaven, which respect the divinity of Life and acknowledge the image/likeness of it's Creator within that Life; into "laws", statutes and ordinances generated by humanists we can permit wars, infanticide; killing of the elderly before their day and so forth. "Just war theory" would also fall into the idea of those "fit to rule over others" deciding the terms of what is 'just war' and upon who is allowed to live out their lives normaally and who shall be decimated by wars. All supported by 'survival of the fittest". And yet; Jesus, though being able to excape by calling a multitude of Angels; did not war....and neither did the disciples when given the chance to fight against the Romans.
This enters into the communist/socialist/atheistic goals also. One of their planks of the communist manifesto was to perpetuate evolution and the denial of the Creator. These are/were also goals of judaism where the elite race (jews) would be 'divine' and others are mere 'animals' (GOY) It is even alluded to in the U.S. code that it's 'citizens' are in the same class as "other animals".
Without a Creator, and the fulfilled covenant of Mercy/life from the Creation (whenever the garden scenario started) Without a confirmed faith in a Creator and his reward would the disciples endured the sword of the Romans?
Einstein's Theories were rejected as "Jew science" by the Nazi morons. The Soviet morons rejected Genetics because it contradicted their Marxist ideology. Christians who reject Science for ideological reasons are making the same error.
Again, if you want to express such strong opinions, that's fine, but do us both a favor and read a book or too first! Your comments are just plain silly. Pasteur is a SCIENTIFIC HERO because he debunked spontaneous generation of flies from shit. If the scientists of that day needed Pasteur to do that; they were in deep shit anyhow. If Pasteur had not done that; would scientists still be worshipping shit? Are they still doing that in Spirit and attitude even though "Pasteur" debunked it; only using other items instead of actual manure?
Scientist do not and never have "worshiped shit."
There is no connection between "spontaneous generation" debunked by Pasteur and the origin of life through chemical evolution. It is absurd to make that connection. Again, let me suggest that you just read one or two books to educate yourself on these matters. You are only confirming the atheist view that Christians reject science out of ignorance and ideology.
And how; for one answer of question does that intelligence and evolution answer the question of pro-creation? Why would a evolutionary system fabricate itself to pro-create between male and female when it could simply continue to split cells.
Could there be other 'answers' to the data....etc... etc.. etc..
The evolution of sexual reproduction is an advanced topic. It would be pointless to attempt to discuss it if you have not taken the time to educate yourself about the basic facts of evolution.
All the very best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2010, 11:11 PM
If I have not heard you wrongly RAM, I think you are on the road to atheism. I feel the urge to warn you about this as I do know that one of the problem with preterism is that there is a tendency for preterists to revert to atheism. I do hope and pray you are not thinking in this way, RAM. If you do, then receive our prayers :pray::pray::pray:Amen. RAM needs our prayers!
May God Bless You.:pray:
Hey there my friend,
I very much appreciate your kind thoughts. But let's just hope I'm "on the road to truth" where ever it leads.
Now it is very important to understand that none of my changes have anything to do with Preterism. On the contrary, Preterism strengthens my faith in Scripture because it shows how God predicted things before they happened. Futurism makes me doubt the Bible because the predictions don't make any sense, are just made up, and are always wrong. Also, it is very important to note that Preterism is the only thing that stops many serious students of the Bible from rejecting it as false. Just read the Atheist writings. They all agree with the Preterists that the Bible plainly states that the "end" was supposed to happen in the first century. But then they agree with the Furturists and say that Jesus was wrong, and the end did not come as predicted. Even C. S. Lewis felt forced to declare that Jesus was wrong on this point! Therefore, the Futurist denial of the first century fulfillment supplies Atheists with ammo they use to reject the Bible.
In truth, my conclusions have nothing to do with eschatology. On the contrary, they are based on the reasons I gave, namely 1) Evolution is good science, 2) Religions are all wrong, including all sects of Christianity, and 3) The Bible Wheel is amazing, but it does not prove any particular sect of Christianity.
All the very best my friend,
Richard
Gil > All,
Your moving to fast for me, so will inject thoughts if they seem related to your posts.
Am just getting around to reading them.
CHW,
Atheism cannot see a God with personality, that man may have a relationship with.
When I speak of a living God, it means that God has life within him.
Theism thinks that all that was created was created by GOD .
This statement is an Image that was being formed and handed down through the ages.
It places GOD in an Exterior position and above all that was created. An Image which depicts GOD on the outside of a ball , if the ball be the cosmos.
Whether one sees this event of creation like the Creationists, that all was made manifest instantly, and in the case of the earth, Six literal days, or the big bang of evolution, it is the same.
How was this changed through Jesus > Jesus Christ.
"Know ye not that the kingdom of heaven is within you."
One statement that should have shattered their prior beliefs.
God dwells within man and is not outside of the ball or in the case of the Hebrews, over the top of their Wok Pot.
A move made from the exterior to the interior.
Are not the related scientific fields moving from the exterior of which is physical matter to the interior also. They are mentally trying to look at the smaller ever smaller as the move into the spiritual Realm.
By spiritual ,I mean it cannot be perceived as the macro cosmos can by the human eye alone, but must be entered with the mind and instruments that can peer into the micro cosmos.
It was through this method that intelligent design began taking hold.
More so in the field of micro Biology or Biochemistry.
One cannot lose sight of the Mental world either. Psychology ,philosophy the arts etc.
Quantum Physics gets heavy in their world of quarks, particles of strangeness,
nothingness etc.
The one thing that a Christian must not do, as CWH points out is lose a consciousness toward God.
Because to think in this direction is to go back to the garden once again in the flesh.
Without attributing life itself to God, man will believe that he himself is that life within him.
That he is the captain of his own ship and the master of his own destiny.
A Christian may want to say that all design began within life and that Life is to be found within God.
I'm glad this thread is devoted to more original thoughts and POV,s instead of denominational tug of wars.
The outcome should be to get evolutionists and Christians to find common ground .
Some evolutionists may become Christians , but I don't think many Christians will abandon their faith in favor of a Godless evolutionary stance.
If there is such a thing as the sixth sense , it is how we perceive him.
The Bible takes us as far back as life, and science is trying to find the same
life that the Bible talks about.
GOD,God and Life are abstracts , but we can find the relationship which
was lost in the garden , through God the Fathers Son ,Jesus > Jesus Christ.
Without passing through the Son to meet the Father will be a tough row
to how for one that is seeking God.
Jesus said, to see me, is to see the Father.
Also, If you do not know me, you know not the Father either.
Also, If you have not me, you have not the Father either.
We may see God through his Son and have a relationship with God only
through his Son.
I'm of the belief that with life as with love we only may see it's manifestation
through other living things. If per say one finds that life and love to be made manifest within himself he/she will be coming face to face with his own consciousness, that of the flesh man.
Gil
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-16-2010, 01:59 PM
You had a good response to Cheow;
I dont' wish to take the time to continue this interaction now; perhaps later and perhaps I'll get some of those books.
I dont' subscribe to the impulse method of "hearing from God" or so much of the 'inner voice" but rather an inner appeal to and waiting for the witness of the sealing of the Spirit of Truth through the unconditional covenant of Mercy/Life/love etc. I guess that could be construed as an 'inner voice". I'd also question if the motives would be in line with the other teachings of Christ; plus perhaps she had long term goals in mind and will recoup the temporary losses.
This was the manner in which I gradually came to the fulfilled perspectives and which were confirmed by understanding the zionists/humanists efforts to suppress truth and promote lies of dispensational futurists.
I 'hear' from God differently; When he came into my life; he 'sealed' me with a sense of Peace and unconditional Love and truth.
When I "pray" to ask him...especially about the truthfullness of something...or a particular understanding of scripture; but also for direction or requests of the heart; I lay it there and leave it there with Him confidently expecting an answer; I do not pick it up again to seek to force my understanding of it; while depending on him to answer and lead to all truth. Sometime; usually in the near future he will bring something into my arena of observation, or an idea, or a reading to 'prick' my conscience with a similar feeling or witness with that of which I was sealed. There is usually some study afterwards to confirm the truthfulness and so forth.
I dont' think your praying from Faith that he is, and that he Hears and answers those who diligently seek him, or perhaps that he cares for you and for your inquisitive nature (which he created). John the apostle echoed in first John the Promise of the Spirit to lead to all truth that Jesus laid out in John 14-16 and echoed the ability to ask God (from a pure heart submissive to his will) for anything that we desire.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
In the context of first John 5, he makes the application that 'brothers' are to pray for those who see their friends fall into 'sin'. I dont' take this 'sin' to be puritanical 'sins' against the law of Moses; but a 'sin' against the Spirit and against the ways of positive life; love; truth, understanding and of knowledge.
If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children; keep yourselves from idols (which would include worship of anything but God; the creator/giver of life.
But the promise of the Spirit to guide into all truth was given by Jesus to beleivers in John 16 with the promise to give to his children all things that they ask in His name and to those abiding in Him.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
And this is based on the earlier promises in ch 14,15 to be able to ask and petition God (in faith believing that He is eager to answer) and recieve that which we ask for and which our heart does not condemn us for.
And YES: Science and the study of origens and the laws of the universe are part of the realm of the inquisitive nature with which God created within man and therefore are within the Love and concern for truth which God administers to us. Thus; we can ask God about 'science' and to lead us in 'all truth' and expose any lies within the 'hypothesis' of men. This is what I suggested and asking of you, even without damning your or their perspectives. But you must first be predisposed with your will and with Faith in Him and in your heart believe that HE IS and guides those who dilegently seek HIM.
You seem to have a false understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. The idea of a scientific theory is like the "theory of gravity" that explains the "fact of gravity." It's not like "just a theory." It is a systematic body of knowledge that explains how the world works and makes testable predictions like how fast an apple would accelerate when falling from a tree near the surface of the earth.
I agree that some laws of nature are 'facts' while some may not be. I understand Phythagoreans theorem as fact; and not hypothesis any longer due to the mathematical relation of the sides of a right triangle. There was one time when it would have been 'theory' and hypothesis.
Steven Hawking disagrees with you and agrees that there is still THEORY involved in scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
From Stephen Hawking: He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.
How did you arrive at such firm opinions without reading any books? How can you think to contradict the conclusions of ten thousand scientists without any scientific knowledge at all?
You state that my 'opinions' are firm; but I mostly saying simply that the propositions (theories) basically generally exclude any possible divine intervention or guidance from an outside source. "Life" to atheistic evolutionists is a result of the haphazard process of evolution. To them, man is made from and for science; not by and for it's Creator. These are against the revealed nature of God and of the relationship between Him and man through the Spirit.
They exclude the possibility of divine "miraculous" intervention which would prove to be contrary to the natural and striclty atheistic laws upon which they attempt to base the observations and theories upon. And again; the miracles of Moses; of Elisha, and his floating ax head; of calling fire from heaven; the miracles of Jesus... including feeding 5000 from 7 fish and two loaves; of healing men born blind were/are all physical realities contrary to the observable laws established by God in his creation. Jesus was showing his authority to command molecules and atoms for good to regenerate eyes or their nerves; even regenerating fish (with no spontaneous generating matter mentioned in the bottom of the bowls). These were/are also physical realitys and LAWS of God's nature and abilities which would be dismissed by scientific laws from the evolutionists/atheist perspective and which would not enter into their set of data to consider. Just as the historical record of documented visitations to the ARK and how the story of the Noah (Gilgamesh) permeated most cultures even without the written testimony of Moses are dismissed and excluded from 'scientific data'.
I'm not interested in a continued detailed discussion at this time; and as you noted I'm not up on their theories or the supposed scientific proofs or of the measured lengths of mutations needed to advance.
Although not a 'scientist'; all truth can be proven and I'm very thankfull for the basic truths of science which I have recielved. To state that I have no 'scientific knowledge' at all would be false. I'm not indoctrinated into the theories and hypothesis' your presenting as truth's' but neither am I ignorant of the concepts of science.
A few rhetorical questions though would be:
Which part evolved first? The sperm or the egg? The gonads or the ovaries? Why?
If we double the 14 billion years from the 'big bang'. What was 14 billion years BEFORE the big bang? Are they saying the 'big bang' was 'ex nihilo'?
What was a 'year' before the first revoluton of the earth around the sun? Or is this just scientists way of using non scientific words to relate to the common language of men.??
This thread seems to be intended to introduce your following your inquisitive nature and search for truth apart from some peoples religious dogmentation and opinions. I dont' have any problem with that for your life. But I don't have interest to continue at this time and you may find me taking a break from the forum for awhile.
Perhaps I'll get a chance to pick up some or one of the books you mentioned and then rejoin the convesation; likely in another thread with a topic of the so called evolutionary theories.
Howdy,
Quote : ED32
[ I dont' think your praying from Faith that he is, and that he Hears and answers those who diligently seek him, or perhaps that he cares for you and for your inquisitive nature (which he created). John the apostle echoed in first John the Promise of the Spirit to lead to all truth that Jesus laid out in John 14-16 and echoed the ability to ask God (from a pure heart submissive to his will) for anything that we desire.]
Gil > The Book of John ( not John of the apocalypse) , the epistles of Paul and his concepts of the BODY/body , the sermon on the mount and all red letter sayings of Jesus > Jesus Christ are intertwined with each other.
I do the same thing with regard to Faith. I don't know why, but I see prayer and asking a little differently.
Prayer sounds like writing a letter to someone in the hope that he will answer. I just ask in a meditative way
And leave it with him. Sometimes he answers and sometimes not. The response is in most cases time delayed.
Just depends what it is that was asked for. The answer may come from someone else, the paper, radio, TV, Books , in a dream or if instantaneous, as intuition or just a feeling of knowing to do this or that.
I never hear audible voices in my mind.
The Spirit of God ( when I say Spirit of God , I am referring to Life itself, as it is to be found within all living things.
We can not see God ,but we may see him in all things that have life. That life that we see is God in his relationship with that which He has created and destined to have life. ( destined is through design, not chance or how egotistic people may see themselves to be in their little world of self, ego, love turned inward toward themselves that they may glory in their own self righteousness.
Solomon would say this is all vanity and vexation of spirit.) When I speak of God in this way [ lower case _od ] I see this life to be within that which he has created [ I prefer the term Bara when a joint manifestation is being expressed. Like God / life was given to that which was to be manifested in a material /physical covering or body of some form , AND the former of that
Body of dust within a womb . As is the case of a blade of grass, a flower, a tree, a fish, a bird, an animal or a human within a body of flesh.
Elijah was told that God the Father does not speak through thunder, lightning ,smoke or fire and brimstone .[Sound like Sinai?]
But with a still, small voice. This voice comes from the inside, outward or to be heard within our mind (consciousness).
Conscience is associated with consciousness , but I see it to be within the sub-conscious of the mind.
A still, small voice because there is no medium that the sound of a voice must travel. It is a spiritual/mental voice that flesh man perceives as silent words that form images of that which was spoken within our own consciousness.
Intuition (gut feelings) are of the sub-conscious, as are survival mechanisms , motor functions like heartbeat and breathing and the urge to reproduce.
{This insert without backtracking : This God, that is within life that his creation may have a relationship with is not the unknowable ,omniscient, all powerful etc., GOD (all caps) that must have existed before his creation.
Some would say that the life within is of the same essence as the Life of GOD. Whatever, life is life.
This can be the only logical outcome from a Christian, scientific conclusion when examining the Evolutionary/Biblical Evidence. }
Will close this with ; I believe in the evolution of life in whatever form, some life forms are completed and fully formed and for them the process has came to an end; There are only their seeds which is a continuation of the life within them. ( Corporal/corporate survival ) different from individual survival.
I see evolution like looking at the Image of a tree. It has roots, a trunk, forks of the trunk, branches, limbs and twigs.
Using building blocks instead of genetic examples, life was manifested as a block, then two, etc., changing directions from time to time.
Adding on to old and making new blocks ,splits ,twists and turns in the forming of all species of life. I see each species as a different ,intentionally different life form that in their forming had in their beginnings the same blocks until moving away from each other in another direction.
Darwin's pictures and theory run in a climbing spiral like on a pole. One on top of the other.
He was not able to separate the species into their own houses.(IMO).
Not because he was dumb, they just did not have the science that we now have.
The strain that was to become man was always present within the complex design, but in his own order.
First things first and last things last. In the case of the man in the flesh, he has not as yet been fully formed and complete.
Jesus > Jesus Christ told us things , things that were and are now and will be. Paul for the most part, as the angel (messenger) that would carry on the Gospel to all flesh spoke of things that the other apostles did not. Paul was taught by the Spirit of Jesus Christ as to the purpose of his coming in the flesh as he did.
He told him about his resurrection and his new life and body .
He said, "in my Fathers house are many mansions and I go there now to prepare a place for you."
Why did he say this, unless there be still a continuation of our individual life, and it is not yet fully formed or complete .
As a life form, we as human beings in the flesh , are being made ready for a new experience that is not to be upon this earth. This earth and flesh body is but a stepping stone in our path of development.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light of life" . " follow me, and walk in my footsteps, least ye stumble and fall." " I am the resurrection and the life ,there is no other ,but me."
Remember these things while the evolutionary process is being studied, Think like the writers of scripture in their world of limited science and knowledge. They knew a lot more than they put on though, and audience relevance
Was kept in mind.
Evolution and science are compatible with Christianity and the Bible.
They are as much complimentary as Genesis is to Revelation.
To not understand evolution and science, is to not understand Christianity and the Bible.
To not understand Genesis is to not understand Revelation.
I'm slow at this ,especially typing.
See ya when you get back DT32.
Will read some more of your posts that are here ,then respond.
I don't think this thread should dive straight into biological, biochemical evolution as a whole. The question should be ,"How is scripture as it was written ,compatible with the latest science and evolutionary theory ? Was the simplicity of their form of expressing thoughts ,saying the same thing as the complexity of our scientific language is trying to tell us?
Gil
Clifford
10-17-2010, 06:16 PM
Hi Richard,
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
I got a couple of books on evolution by evolutionists and am in the process of reading the first one now so I will withhold my opinion on it until I have finished reading them.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
When it comes to Christianity and its many different sects I think you like a lot of people are emphasizing the differences and not looking at the much common ground they all hold. I would say off the top of my head that the various Christian sects probably agree with each other on 90 percent or more of their doctrines. Many of the disagreements are on silly little things like whether water baptism should be full immersion or is just sprinkling water good enough.
Whenever people are involved there are going to be disagreements and since we are fallible creatures none of our beliefs are going to be 100 percent correct. So differences are to be expected.
Clifford
Hi Richard,
I got a couple of books on evolution by evolutionists and am in the process of reading the first one now so I will withhold my opinion on it until I have finished reading them.
When it comes to Christianity and its many different sects I think you like a lot of people are emphasizing the differences and not looking at the much common ground they all hold. I would say off the top of my head that the various Christian sects probably agree with each other on 90 percent or more of their doctrines. Many of the disagreements are on silly little things like whether water baptism should be full immersion or is just sprinkling water good enough.
Whenever people are involved there are going to be disagreements and since we are fallible creatures none of our beliefs are going to be 100 percent correct. So differences are to be expected.
Clifford
You've have said it perfectly right, Clifford!:thumb: I agree with you. But I do not think we should judge a sect as demonic even if you totally disagree with them. Who are we to judge?...do not judged or you be judged. If you judged someone as a false prophet then YOU must be a true prophet. If we judged a Christian sect as demonic, unknowingly your own Christian sect may be demonic or indirectly you are declaring your sect is the only true Christian sect; everybody is destined for hell except those from your sect....this is cultish arrogance! Let God be the Judge for He stands by the door! Who then can be saved? No one goes to the Father but through Him. "It's impossible with men (to enter into the kingdom of heaven by his own) but all things is possible with God".
Many Blessings.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-18-2010, 10:21 AM
I got a couple of books on evolution by evolutionists and am in the process of reading the first one now so I will withhold my opinion on it until I have finished reading them.
Great! I look forward to discussing them with you. What are the names? I'd like to know so I can read them too before we discuss them.
When it comes to Christianity and its many different sects I think you like a lot of people are emphasizing the differences and not looking at the much common ground they all hold. I would say off the top of my head that the various Christian sects probably agree with each other on 90 percent or more of their doctrines. Many of the disagreements are on silly little things like whether water baptism should be full immersion or is just sprinkling water good enough.
Whenever people are involved there are going to be disagreements and since we are fallible creatures none of our beliefs are going to be 100 percent correct. So differences are to be expected.
Clifford
Yes, disagreements amongst humans are always to be expected and their existence is not a test for truth, except when they are mutually exclusive in which case we know that they both cannot be true. We see this, for example, in the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman Catholic who mutually anathematized each other, declaring their opponents to be damned by God!
But there are also big problems with points that most Christian religions agree upon. For example, most Protestants and Roman Catholics agree that there is a hell where God consigns non-believers to eternal conscious torment. I find that doctrine to be an abomination, yet it is taught as the "Gospel Truth" in almost all churches. But then they monkey with it because most humans will not accept the idea of little babies burning in hell forever, so they invented another doctrine that says little babies are automatically saved until some mysterious and undefined "age of accountability" at which time they are damned if they do not accept a set of logical propositions about Jesus. (As an aside, this makes abortionists the greatest saints of all time since they have ensured that every baby they killed got into heaven, whereas we know that some of those babies would have been damned if allowed to grow into sinners.) I find these kinds of arbitrary rule-making and lawyer-like convolutions absolutely absurd as an answer to questions about Ultimate Reality. They are obviously wrong - God cannot be running reality this way. They are obviously made up by humans with poor intellects and questionable motivations.
Great to be chatting,
Richard
Clifford
10-18-2010, 05:34 PM
Great! I look forward to discussing them with you. What are the names? I'd like to know so I can read them too before we discuss them.
Yes, disagreements amongst humans are always to be expected and their existence is not a test for truth, except when they are mutually exclusive in which case we know that they both cannot be true. We see this, for example, in the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman Catholic who mutually anathematized each other, declaring their opponents to be damned by God!
But there are also big problems with points that most Christian religions agree upon. For example, most Protestants and Roman Catholics agree that there is a hell where God consigns non-believers to eternal conscious torment. I find that doctrine to be an abomination, yet it is taught as the "Gospel Truth" in almost all churches. But then they monkey with it because most humans will not accept the idea of little babies burning in hell forever, so they invented another doctrine that says little babies are automatically saved until some mysterious and undefined "age of accountability" at which time they are damned if they do not accept a set of logical propositions about Jesus. (As an aside, this makes abortionists the greatest saints of all time since they have ensured that every baby they killed got into heaven, whereas we know that some of those babies would have been damned if allowed to grow into sinners.) I find these kinds of arbitrary rule-making and lawyer-like convolutions absolutely absurd as an answer to questions about Ultimate Reality. They are obviously wrong - God cannot be running reality this way. They are obviously made up by humans with poor intellects and questionable motivations.
Great to be chatting,
Richard
Richard,
The issues you brought up are not what would be considered "essential doctrines" of the faith. They are just side issues. The foundational doctrines that are the core elements of Christianity that Jesus became incarnate, died for our sins, and rose again on the third day, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Belief in these essential doctrines constitute the core principles of Christianity and belief in them is what defines a person as a Christian. The Catholic Church and just about all the sects of Protestantism believes in them. So when you say all the sects of Christianity are false you are basing that on non-essential doctrines. Their core doctrines are correct.
I just finished reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. It is an introductory book on evolution and lays out the basic premises. The other book which I just started reading today is the one you recommended, "Survival of the Fittest, DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean Carrol.
Clifford
Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2010, 10:03 AM
Richard,
The issues you brought up are not what would be considered "essential doctrines" of the faith. They are just side issues. The foundational doctrines that are the core elements of Christianity that Jesus became incarnate, died for our sins, and rose again on the third day, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Belief in these essential doctrines constitute the core principles of Christianity and belief in them is what defines a person as a Christian. The Catholic Church and just about all the sects of Protestantism believes in them. So when you say all the sects of Christianity are false you are basing that on non-essential doctrines. Their core doctrines are correct.
Hey there Clifford,
I understand your point, but I'm pretty sure that the doctrines concerning hell are actually taken as "essential" by almost all denominations. They don't like to talk about it, but if you suggest to them that hell is not an essential doctrine or that it's not true (as in the case of universalism) they will usually respond by saying that you have GUTTED the faith, that Jesus died for nothing if not to save us from hell, and so on. In other words, my experience in discussing the doctrine of hell has convinced me that it is considered to be an "essential" doctrine."
But on the other hand, the doctrine of hell is not in the earliest creeds like the Apostles' Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Amen.
The meaning of "descended into hell" is debatable, and according to this page (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Apostles_Intro.htm), it was not added to the creed until the fifth century. It is also interesting that this creed does not speak explicitly of the Trinity. This is found (blue) in the much more elaborate Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
It is interesting that this creed omits any mention of "descended into hell" and it makes no mention of the eternal fate of unbelievers at all.
But now we need to ask ourselves about the form of Christianity that we have received. The doctrine of hell is missing from the creeds. Why is it central to the teachings of most churches? Perhaps because the Roman Catholic Church used it to control the minds of her subjects for a thousand years??? She threatened anyone who disagreed with her rule with eternal conscious torment! And this then was inherited by all her Protestant children. And so now everyone teaches it as the "gospel" truth!
But there's more. The whole futurist thing with its pretribulational rapture is now being taught in almost all "evangelical" and "fundamental" American chruches. It was made up in 1830 by Darby et al. And the whole thing about "receiving Jesus as your personal savior"? That was made up by Charles Finney (http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13%7C17%7C94) in the 19th century:
Many Evangelicals have not only perverted the gospel message, but have also developed a ritualized method of inviting sinners to Christ in their church services, 'revival' meetings and evangelistic crusades. This ritual has been called 'the invitation system' or 'the altar call.' In these services people are told to come forward to receive Christ. Whatever the intent of the preacher may be, the audience which hears the invitation to come forward or walk down the aisle equates coming to the front of a church with coming to Jesus Christ. This ritual was never practiced in any church (Eastern or Western) until after 1830, when it was invented by the Pelagian Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of confused, false, and ludicrous teachings based on personal interpretations of the Bible and hucksterism. So the question is ... why should we think it matters what we believe? If I happen to "get it right" then that means almost everyone else who believes what they have been taught in the modern church got it "wrong" and what happens to them? I can not imagine that the true God would care what opinions we hold concerning such a mass of confusion.
Great to be chatting,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2010, 10:12 AM
I just finished reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. It is an introductory book on evolution and lays out the basic premises. The other book which I just started reading today is the one you recommended, "Survival of the Fittest, DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean Carrol.
Clifford
Those are the two books I would recommend. I'm half way through Coyne's book now. It is good and has many convincing arguments, but I found DNA evidence in the Making of the Fittest to be the "final nail in the coffin" for any claims against common descent. Of course this does not say anything about the existence of God or the truth of the Bible, but it tells us a lot about our understanding of how God created and our interpretation of the Bible. It was a HUGE mistake for Christians to attack Science in their efforts to protect their interpretation of the Bible. It's no different than the Catholic attack on Galileo for supporting the heliocentric view that contradicted their ignorant interpretation of the Bible.
Bottom line: Reality always wins, so we should do everything in our power to align our understanding with Reality.
Richard
alec cotton
10-19-2010, 01:15 PM
Hello Richard
Perhaps you didn't read my post on evolution or maybe it was too distasteful to you. In it I completely debunked the theory of evolution by the survival of the fittest or the accidental selection of the species. I will state it briefly now. Take a quick glance at the geologic periods and how long they lasted. We'll say fifty million years from beginning to end of each period . In between there was plenty of time (millions of years ) for the fittest to survive and the less fit to succumb and fall by the wayside. In all the millions of years there is not the slightest trace of that having happened in the fossil record. On the other hand there is absolute , stonewall proof that at the end of each geological period there was a dramatic change and that change was instant. Vast swathes of species were wiped off the face of the earth, never to be seen again . New species appeared which had never existed before. These new animals , fish ,plants and corals continued unchanged for fifty million years and abruptly changed again : and again About fourteen times each lasting fifty million years . The evidence is not just overwhelming , it is conclusive. This is not the outcome of speculation but the result of observation. You seem to be impressed by the grandiose claims of the pseudo scientists. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. D.N.A is a chemical produced by the body. This body is capable of manufacturing any chemical at all. D.N.A is a tool which God uses to fulfil his purpose. To me that is obvious. I am sure that I read in one of your recent posts that scientists had discovered hundreds of cures for diseases .as a result of the study of D.N.A .I would like someone to name just one. The other day there was a case in the paper where a woman was making a claim for state benefits for her four children She and her husband were asked to give D.N.A samples to demonstrate true paternity and maternity. The results showed that the husband was the father but the wife was not the mother . The authorities were ready to prosecute her for fraud. To cut it short . She proved that different parts of her body were producing different D.N A. They can do wonders with their vast collective mouth but when the chips are down it has been my experience that they can do exactly nothing. Kind regards .
Alec
Faithful are the wounds of a friend , but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2010, 07:03 PM
Hello Richard
Perhaps you didn't read my post on evolution or maybe it was too distasteful to you. In it I completely debunked the theory of evolution by the survival of the fittest or the accidental selection of the species.
I will state it briefly now. Take a quick glance at the geologic periods and how long they lasted. We'll say fifty million years from beginning to end of each period . In between there was plenty of time (millions of years ) for the fittest to survive and the less fit to succumb and fall by the wayside. In all the millions of years there is not the slightest trace of that having happened in the fossil record.
Hey there Alec,
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your post. It was not because it was distasteful. It was because it seemed too far removed from the actual facts of the situation. Where in the world did you get the idea that there was no natural selection occurring during those periods of 50 million years?
Please cite the source of your information so I can answer your post.
On the other hand there is absolute , stonewall proof that at the end of each geological period there was a dramatic change and that change was instant. Vast swathes of species were wiped off the face of the earth, never to be seen again . New species appeared which had never existed before. These new animals , fish ,plants and corals continued unchanged for fifty million years and abruptly changed again : and again About fourteen times each lasting fifty million years . The evidence is not just overwhelming , it is conclusive. This is not the outcome of speculation but the result of observation.
Again, please site the source of your information.
And more to the point - you seem to be asserting that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This is not correct.
And most important - you site the fossil record as CONCLUSIVE proof against evolution whereas all the evolutionary scientists come to exactly the opposite conclusion and assert that it gives conclusive evidence in favor of evolution. How is it that you came to possess this SUPER KNOWLEDGE that refutes ALL the working biologists in the entire world? Where did you get this knowledge?
You seem to be impressed by the grandiose claims of the pseudo scientists.
Those same "pseudo-scientists" are accepted in all courts of law when questions of guilt or paternity are determined by DNA evidence. So now you claim superior knowledge to ALL judges, lawyers, biologists, geneticists? Where did you get such marvelous knowledge? And by the way, can you isolate DNA in your kitchen?
We are fearfully and wonderfully made. D.N.A is a chemical produced by the body. This body is capable of manufacturing any chemical at all.
That is not true. Our bodies LOST the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. We once had that ability. This leads to testable predictions that can confirm or disconfirm the theory of evolution. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html):
Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below)
The article then presents the evidence that confirms evolution.
D.N.A is a tool which God uses to fulfil his purpose. To me that is obvious. I am sure that I read in one of your recent posts that scientists had discovered hundreds of cures for diseases .as a result of the study of D.N.A .I would like someone to name just one.
I did not say anything about curing "hundreds" of diseases. Here is what I wrote (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=24224#post24224) in response to your false assertion that Darwin was a "moron."
So let me ask you a question. Can you imagine any blatantly false scientific theory surviving 150 years merely because it appears to contradict one particular interpretation of Christianity? Do you really believe that? Have you ever known any biologists? They spend their lives working with the theory of evolution to explain the facts that they observe. And what they have found is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of evolution that is also extremely practical in that it leads to understanding and even cures of genetic diseases!
As you can see, I said nothing about "hundreds of cures." As it stands, my statement is not precisely accurate. The news has talked a lot about the potential cures that genetics will lead to, but I do not know if they have been successful as yet. Therefore, we see that I left out a crucial word. I should have said that it "leads to understanding and even potential cures of genetic diseases."
The other day there was a case in the paper where a woman was making a claim for state benefits for her four children She and her husband were asked to give D.N.A samples to demonstrate true paternity and maternity. The results showed that the husband was the father but the wife was not the mother . The authorities were ready to prosecute her for fraud. To cut it short . She proved that different parts of her body were producing different D.N A. They can do wonders with their vast collective mouth but when the chips are down it has been my experience that they can do exactly nothing. Kind regards .
Alec
Again, could you provide me with the source? It sounds like an interesting case. But I don't see why you cite it. The fact that different cells can produce different DNA is common knowledge. That's why some cells become cancerous. Here is a recent report (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/eveningnews/main4580721.shtml) of progress in this area:
"This is a landmark, this is the first time we've had the complete DNA instruction book, of a cancer cell," said Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
Richard Wilson, a Ph.D. at the Washington University School of Medicine said: "We found 10 changes; 10 mutations in her tumor genome that may very well be related to her disease."
This may revolutionize the most advanced type of cancer treatments, called targeted therapies.
Note that Francis Collins is an outspoken EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN.
So are you really maintaining that all the scientists and medical doctors and biologists involved in all this genetic research are either morons or part of a big conspiracy???
Richard
Clifford
10-19-2010, 07:17 PM
Hi Richard,
I understand your point, but I'm pretty sure that the doctrines concerning hell are actually taken as "essential" by almost all denominations. They don't like to talk about it, but if you suggest to them that hell is not an essential doctrine or that it's not true (as in the case of universalism) they will usually respond by saying that you have GUTTED the faith, that Jesus died for nothing if not to save us from hell, and so on. In other words, my experience in discussing the doctrine of hell has convinced me that it is considered to be an "essential" doctrine."
What I meant by an "essential doctrine" was what one must believe to be a Christian, not what any one particular domination or sect believes is essential to be a member of their group. What I would consider an essential doctrine is what Paul said in 1Cor 15:3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
Just about all Christian domination's believe in that. That is what I meant when I stated that just about all dominations are in agreement on those doctrines that define you as a Christian. Whether you believe in Hell or not has no bearing on whether you belong to the faith.
But on the other hand, the doctrine of hell is not in the earliest creeds like the Apostles' Creed:
Its omission does not prove that it is not a correct doctrine. The Creeds are just distilling the core essential doctrines of Christianity. Hell is another doctrine that I am going to look into and do some more study on down the road. I have accepted the doctrine of Hell because that is all I was ever taught. That is a good thing about this forum, it challenges some of your views and makes you reconsider them and to find out if the Bible really supports them.
It is interesting that this creed omits any mention of "descended into hell" and it makes no mention of the eternal fate of unbelievers at all.
I think the idea that Jesus descended into hell comes from Rom 10:6-8 where Paul say:
But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
But there's more. The whole futurist thing with its pretribulational rapture is now being taught in almost all "evangelical" and "fundamental" American chruches. It was made up in 1830 by Darby et al. And the whole thing about "receiving Jesus as your personal savior"? That was made up by Charles Finney (http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13%7C17%7C94) in the 19th century:[INDENT]Many Evangelicals have not only perverted the gospel message, but have also developed a ritualized method of inviting sinners to Christ in their church services, 'revival' meetings and evangelistic crusades. This ritual has been called 'the invitation system' or 'the altar call.' In these services people are told to come forward to receive Christ. Whatever the intent of the preacher may be, the audience which hears the invitation to come forward or walk down the aisle equates coming to the front of a church with coming to Jesus Christ. This ritual was never practiced in any church (Eastern or Western) until after 1830, when it was invented by the Pelagian Charles G. Finney (1792-1875).
But again these are just peripheral issues. Belief or non-belief does not determine whether you are a Christian or not.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of confused, false, and ludicrous teachings based on personal interpretations of the Bible and hucksterism. So the question is ... why should we think it matters what we believe? If I happen to "get it right" then that means almost everyone else who believes what they have been taught in the modern church got it "wrong" and what happens to them? I can not imagine that the true God would care what opinions we hold concerning such a mass of confusion.
I think it matters a great deal what we believe. It might not affect our eternal destiny, but it certainly affects how we live our everyday lives. For instance if you believe the end of the world is coming very soon you will probably not be doing much to make it a better place. I think it does matter to God what we believe. Jesus said you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free. If you are in bondage to false ideas they will hold you captive and you won't be experiencing the freedom that God wants you to have in that area.
Clifford
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-20-2010, 06:21 AM
That is not true. Our bodies LOST the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. We once had that ability. This leads to testable predictions that can confirm or disconfirm the theory of evolution. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html):
Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below)
The article then presents the evidence that confirms evolution.
Richard
Hi Richard:
Just a brief note; I appreciate the accuracy of your words. That these observations about Vitamin C could "confirm" evolution may be true; but they would not yet seem to "PROVE" evolution and especially on an atheistic level. There would seem to be a miriad of other variables to consider. Will the ability for these species to manufacture their own vitamin C return if it was truly once 'lost'?
Are there assumptions being made with the data.? Is there an assumption of the 'predicated' ancestors actually being 'ancestors'? etc etc
All it takes is one jump of assumption or breaks in the links of proven and absolute truth to create a lie.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-20-2010, 08:29 AM
That is not true. Our bodies LOST the ability to synthesize Vitamin C. We once had that ability. This leads to testable predictions that can confirm or disconfirm the theory of evolution. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html):
Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below)
The article then presents the evidence that confirms evolution.
Richard
Hi Richard:
Just a brief note; I appreciate the accuracy of your words. That these observations about Vitamin C could "confirm" evolution may be true; but they would not yet seem to "PROVE" evolution and especially on an atheistic level. There would seem to be a miriad of other variables to consider. Will the ability for these species to manufacture their own vitamin C return if it was truly once 'lost'?
Are there assumptions being made with the data.? Is there an assumption of the 'predicated' ancestors actually being 'ancestors'? etc etc
All it takes is one jump of assumption or breaks in the links of proven and absolute truth to create a lie.
Excellent points. When I use the term "confirms" I do NOT mean "proves." You could have a lot of evidence that "confirms" or "supports" a theory that is later proven to be false. For example, Newtonian Mechanics has a massive amount of data that "confirms" its validity, but in the end, we found that it was only approximately correct, and had to be replaced with the wildly different and more complex theory of Quantum Mechanics.
And yes, creatures that lost the ability to synthesize vitamin c could gain it again. There are many cases of independent evolution of similar traits such as color vision in Old World monkeys and New World monkeys documents in the book The Making of the Fittest.
As for the assumptions made, I don't know. I just grabbed this as an example. I have not researched this particular case deeply yet.
All the best,
Richard
Mad Mick
10-21-2010, 10:37 AM
Cheow, not wanting to put words in Richard's mouth, I would best describe this exercise as a re evaluation of all that was accumulated of God independent of religious natural biases that we can pick up on our journey.
This is more of a walk through agnosticism which for a believing scientist is essential to do from time to time. It's like when Elijah spent 2 years in the desert. There were no weekly Sabbath ceremonies, trimming of the candles, sin offerings and sacrafices, church administration duties etc.
No this was a time for soul searching, more like a Nazarite. Getting back to basics outside of the daily ordinances and arguments. No I don't fear this transition in the least.
If anything it is a positive step in the reassurance of why we believe what we do.
I'll give you an example:
In '87 I considered over unity (perpetual motion) my spirit felt deep down that it should exist, yet what I was brought up to learn was the contrary. As a diligent scientist, to get to the bottom of this riddle I had to not allow my mind nor my spirit to misguide or leave out possibilities no matter how absurd they may be just because of a bias I may have sub consciously picked up.
I had to get back to basic engineering and reinvent or rediscover the transference of energy/work for myself. It was a wonderful exercise which broadened my total understanding of how the universe operates.
You see later I realised that whether or not I succeeded in proving My Point was not as important as the whole lesson I'd learnt from embarking on the journey itself.
Sometimes we Have to go into the desert and look back from that perspective only to realise that we,
"Couldn't see the Forest for the Trees!"
So fear not Cheow, for our fellow Brother Richard. You'll find as with all the honest God seeking men and women of the past, that a time in the wilderness, reinvigorates the spirit, lifts the veil of confusion, and draws them ever closer to the Lord.
It is a good thing no matter the outcome, for the Lord said,
Rev. 3:15-16
"15.I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16.So, because you are lukewarm neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth!"
In other words it is better to RUN in the opposite direction than to linger on the fence;
for Woe unto that man who digs a hole and buries his Talent!
May God bless this journey for the sake of understanding that which is truth in the Word, Amen.
Mick
alec cotton
10-21-2010, 11:56 AM
Hello Richard
It is impossible for me to cite the source of my information as you suggest. Most of my information comes from observation.
My observations often clash with accepted notions of 'scientists' I will give you one or two examples. Near where I live there is a source of septarian nodules. I considered them for some time. Now the text books ( written by the knowledgeable ones) state that these round objects are the result of balls of clay which were washed up on an ancient beach. They dried in the sun and cracked . They were subsequently submerged in the surrounding silt and over the millennia the cracks were filled with calcite. Simple observation tells me a different story. To begin with ,clay balls are invariably spherical . These nodules are oblate. A clay ball always cracks with the widest crack on the outside and narrows towards the centre. In the septarian nodule, the cracks are always widest in the centre and narrow to almost nothing on the outer surface. The composition is identical to the surrounding shale only much harder. How could this happen?. OBSERVATION. Look at an oil ball washed up on the beach and dessicated by the sun. It is the same shape. Oil balls swept up on ancient beaches . There were vast amounts of volcanic ash on the beaches. The movements of the waves caused these balls to be mixed with the ash. . The result was a slightly harder composition
than the mud. After a few thousand years , the nodules were buried beneath hundreds of feet of material. Heat was generated turning the residual oil into gas. The pressure from the inside caused the nodule to crack on the inside but it could not explode because it was now contained in shale. (Oily shale that is)As the years passed , these cracks were gradually filled with calcium rich water which crystallised into the mineral which we see to-day. I tried to discover if there were any vestiges of oil left . I am a swineherd, ,a coal miner , a road digger and have only basic education . I have never travelled more than two hundred miles from the place where I was born and so all that I have to draw on is observation and judgement Having no knowledge of chemistry I crushed a septarian nodule to powder ,dissolved it in hydrochloric acid and filtered it. I put the resultant liquor on a slide and dried it in the hope of finding some crystallisation ,put it under the microscope. After a while it began to liquefy. The substance was hygroscopic. After a while tiny crystals appeared . They must have been one molecule thick. That ,I assumed , was the result of supersaturation .I wrote to the paints division of I.C.I and they were kind enough to tell me that it was probably Ferrous chloride. I bought some ferrous chloride and it did not do the same . I tentatively concluded that I had maybe produced Ferric chloride . The problem then arose : Where did the Iron come from . What I am trying to say Richard is : If I was to accord with your proposition and cite the source of my information it would require an encyclopaedic volume.My main sources are the result of a lifetime of observation and consideration. I live in a place which is rich and varied in geological forms. The main rock is carboniferous limestone. The Cambrian and precambrian are also present. How do I know/. Because in a nearby slate quarry there are graptolites to be found in abundance. I have witnessed the fierce prejudice harboured by 'experts ', Geologists and professors.. One time when we were on a field trip with the Cumberland geological society, I happened to say to the leader, What do you think of the possibilities of oil or gas in the Irish sea /.( just off our coast) He nearly bit my head off. He started by saying , You have been reading professor so and so's paper. ( I had never so much as heard of professor so and so ) After a long rant he finished by saying : Unless and until they get out there and drill , they will never know one way or the other. My conclusion was based on my own observations. To begin with , our county is rich in coal seams . I have studied the shale formations for miles . I had observed the direction in which the shale was inclined. Near Walney Island there is a salt dome. A few years later I watched as great plumes of water Shoot up in the distance. Followed shortly after by a rumble. They were prospecting for oil in the Irish sea. For the last twenty years gas has been piped ashore from that source. Our local council employed a geologist to advise them where to drill for the best chance of finding a potable water supply in case of severe drought. The first well was dry and so they tried again , this time with a bit more success. I have never set foot on the social ladder but I could have told them where to drill and there would be enough to supply a city. My knowledge comes from anecdotes , observation and from iron ore and sand miners. The text books confidently declare that coal was formed by rotting vegetation something like the peat bogs of today. Poppycock. I worked at the coal face for two years. I saw millions of fossils Mainly ferns. I often tried to separate the leaf from the rock but it was only the thickness of a coat of paint . I concluded that that is exactly what it was. The coal seam which I worked in was only two feet six inches from floor to roof. Sometimes we would find slips and rolls in the roof. These posed a very real threat to life. They were in fact, the fossil imprints of giant plants that looked like trees ,one hundred feet high. All that was to be seen in the roof was a black circular line . Because it was solid rock and the surrounding rock was only held by the slippery surface , it could easily break free and a column of rock one hundred feet long and three feet thick would descend in the blink of an eye. Observation!. You could dig down 400 feet in solid rock and find fossils all the way . I worked at the coal face for two years and never saw one fossil in the coal itself. Conclusion !, Coal was never formed by decomposing vegetation. If it was so ,the animal remains would be evident as fossils and vegetable remains would most certainly be evident. I came to the conclusion that what is now coal was once a sea of oil . Oil cannot be compressed. When vast pressures built up and the heat increased , the volatile gasses seeped out and in a way the oil 'dried out'. I want to go back for a minute . On another occasion , I was out with the geological society when a young lad asked the eminent geologist what to you think of this? He handed over a piece of rock in which was the fossil remains of a fragment of woven cloth. The big man handed it back and said ' someone did a bit of concreting round there. He did not dare countenance the notion for one instant for fear of ridicule. So profound is his prejudice. A member standing by me said. ' In that case they must have been concreting in the carboniferous because I have a similar piece from a coal mine only black. A few miles from where I live there is a prehistoric volcanic vent. The plume of ash travelled for miles and deposited ash to a tremendous thickness . That event occurred in the carboniferous period . How do I Know?. Because of the fossils that are found in it. .
Quote
And more to the point - you seem to be asserting that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This is not correct.
And most important - you site the fossil record as CONCLUSIVE proof against evolution whereas all the evolutionary scientists come to exactly the opposite conclusion and assert that it gives conclusive evidence in favour of evolution. How is it that you came to possess this SUPER KNOWLEDGE that refutes ALL the working biologists in the entire world? Where did you get this knowledge?
Sarcasm does not become you. Charlie Darwin is the messiah of the evolutionist. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that any animal evolved during any geological period. Now I will do that which is repugnant to me . I ask you to do precisely what you asked me to do . Tell me of one species of animal which evolved in the history of the earth according to the rules set out by brer. Chuck. Not you nor any other human being can do it. If I remember rightly, it was about three years ago that a fossil was 'found' in China. It was the holy grail of evolution. A fossil dinosaur with the characteristics of a bird . It was headline news. A transitional animal . Whoopee.! Tough . A fossil hunter saw an identical fossil in a rock shop and bought. It . He recognised it as the mirror image of the first . It was only then that the fake was exposed . Someone had taken one fossil and another fossil from the same kind of rock in the same area and skilfully juxtaposed them . It fooled the experts. The value of the 'fossil' had increased at least a hundred fold. Where did I get my knowledge ?. From observation. No matter where you go in the world and no matter how deep you dig or drill . No matter what the nature of the rock. , the period can be determined by the fossils which it contains and that is a fact.
Quote
' I did not say anything about curing hundreds of diseases'.
Sorry about that one Richard . I tried really hard to trawl through all your posts to find it but failed and so wrote what I wrote from memory. Having said that the result is similar . These eminent people are always being quoted as saying 'We are on the verge of a break through'. Or This should make progress possble . Or , It is likely that. Etc. You said that it is well known that different cells can give off different D.N.A and yet you just said that courts depended on the evidence. The woman whom I quoted was to be prosecuted for fraud on D.N .A evidence. It was only the skill of her lawyer and the use of the internet that saved her. I am not saying that all doctors are idiots : Just the majority. One eminent researcher produced thalidomide. He was awarded the nobel prise. The result was that thousands of babies were born without arms . Some were terribly deformed . Some were just a stump. The slob should have been tarred and featherd , hung drawn and quartered.
If I may quote you again. 'And what they have found is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of evolution that is also extremely practical in that it leads to understanding and even cures of genetic diseases' . NAME ONE!. It is only in the past thirty years or so that unexplained chronic fatigue became prevalent . Up steped the eminent doctors and declared it was not real . They with a curl of the lip called it yuppy flu. . However , when some very important people suffered from it they made a suddeb about turn . They gave it a highfalutin impressive sounding name : Myelgic encephelamylitis. What a difference money makes. There was a string of unexplained 'cot deaths' some were two or three in the same family . The eminent doctors stated confidently that the deafhs were deliberate. Once again when it happened to the rich and famous the important doctors demonstrated their superior knowledge and gave it the acronym SIDS. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome . The same movers and shakers declared that mad cow disease could not pass to humans. When it did they gave it the name : New varient creutsfelt Jacobs disease. . I could go on about stem cells , scrapie , hormone treatment and all sorts but what's the use. Common sense is anything but common . One mure thing Richard ; Never despise a fool. He might know something you don't know.
Alec
The Bible does not concern itself with the physics of matter.
You are undoubtedly looking into the evolution of life ,like did man evolve from an Ape or Chimp.
It is not making these references within the Bible.
Grass, seeds, fish, birds, animals and man are about the extent of it.
The evolution in the Bible is about the evolution of Life through it's many forms.
It is a story that tells us how Life ends up from its beginnings in the Bible.
The early life forms exhibited an evolving, developing consciousness which came to be called a soul.
Without life there is no consciousness, and this soul of which only man possesses makes it's final change through the transformation on the cross to a new consciousness within Jesus Christ.
Gil
Cheow, not wanting to put words in Richard's mouth, I would best describe this exercise as a re evaluation of all that was accumulated of God independent of religious natural biases that we can pick up on our journey.
This is more of a walk through agnosticism which for a believing scientist is essential to do from time to time. It's like when Elijah spent 2 years in the desert. There were no weekly Sabbath ceremonies, trimming of the candles, sin offerings and sacrafices, church administration duties etc.
No this was a time for soul searching, more like a Nazarite. Getting back to basics outside of the daily ordinances and arguments. No I don't fear this transition in the least.
If anything it is a positive step in the reassurance of why we believe what we do.
I'll give you an example:
In '87 I considered over unity (perpetual motion) my spirit felt deep down that it should exist, yet what I was brought up to learn was the contrary. As a diligent scientist, to get to the bottom of this riddle I had to not allow my mind nor my spirit to misguide or leave out possibilities no matter how absurd they may be just because of a bias I may have sub consciously picked up.
I had to get back to basic engineering and reinvent or rediscover the transference of energy/work for myself. It was a wonderful exercise which broadened my total understanding of how the universe operates.
You see later I realised that whether or not I succeeded in proving My Point was not as important as the whole lesson I'd learnt from embarking on the journey itself.
Sometimes we Have to go into the desert and look back from that perspective only to realise that we,
"Couldn't see the Forest for the Trees!"
So fear not Cheow, for our fellow Brother Richard. You'll find as with all the honest God seeking men and women of the past, that a time in the wilderness, reinvigorates the spirit, lifts the veil of confusion, and draws them ever closer to the Lord.
It is a good thing no matter the outcome, for the Lord said,
Rev. 3:15-16
"15.I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16.So, because you are lukewarm neither hot nor cold, I am about to spit you out of my mouth!"
In other words it is better to RUN in the opposite direction than to linger on the fence;
for Woe unto that man who digs a hole and buries his Talent!
May God bless this journey for the sake of understanding that which is truth in the Word, Amen.
Mick
Hi Mate Mick,
It may be good to have a break for a while to reflect on your religious life and to revigorate the spirit.. But it is a No No to go back to the former evil ways. To be an atheist is also a No No....remember, "A fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Proverbs). Do you want to be a fool?
Many Blessings.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-22-2010, 11:55 AM
The Bible does not concern itself with the physics of matter.
You are undoubtedly looking into the evolution of life ,like did man evolve from an Ape or Chimp.
It is not making these references within the Bible.
Grass, seeds, fish, birds, animals and man are about the extent of it.
The evolution in the Bible is about the evolution of Life through it's many forms.
It is a story that tells us how Life ends up from its beginnings in the Bible.
The early life forms exhibited an evolving, developing consciousness which came to be called a soul.
Without life there is no consciousness, and this soul of which only man possesses makes it's final change through the transformation on the cross to a new consciousness within Jesus Christ.
Gil
Hi Gil,
You are correct that I am researching evolution. But it's not quite accurate to say that humans evolved from an "ape or chimp" but rather, modern humans, apes, and chimps have a common ancestor.
I like the idea that the Bible teaches a "transformation on the cross" that brings the soul "to a new consciousness within Jesus Christ."
All the best,
Richard
Mad Mick
10-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Cheow,
an Agnostic is a person who believes in God, but just not big on religion. See you can believe in the God of Abraham and not be a Jew.
I know what it may seem like to you, but it is an important evaluation that's being made right now. It has shaken the whole camp.
That can only be a good thing!
The winnowing fork is doing it's job, it's a time for believers to really go out on a limb and choose one way or the other!
Remember when Jesus said that the followers had to drink his blood and eat his flesh. That was just to get rid of the free loaders and the wishy washy. Those who believed in him stuck like glue. Now that's a message for guys like you me and Alec.
God Bless you Cheow, may your prayers be answered through Christ Jesus, amen.
Mick
EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-24-2010, 05:51 PM
Richard:
There was a Creation seminar locally and I stopped in too late to sit in on the seminar; but still chatted with the person at the dvd table.
You might be interested in "The pillars of evolution" to get a balanced discussion. There are other topics which may be of interest to you. http://www.natureofcreation.org/store.htm
In closing/summary; You had one time mentioned that in order for someone to have a job in a ministerial level; they almost must be a futurists. And yet we both agree that the futurist perspective is lacking. This insistance and pre-requisite on having the futurist perspective should throw up some red flags by itself especially as a condition for employment.
From a discussion on another forum; it came out that in order for a person to retain a job as a scientist and especially as an educator they must almost suredly disband their creationist ideas and embrace evolutionary thought. How much persuasion could a knowledge of this critereon for maintaining a job have on ones' objective and logical thinking ability? Do you find this to be true?
Quote: ET32 >
[ From a discussion on another forum; it came out that in order for a person to retain a job as a scientist and especially as an educator they must almost surely disband their creationist ideas and embrace evolutionary thought. ]
Gil > That is the way it was in the 1980's when a lot of scientific educators who said the Genesis creation account of 24 hour days was incorrect and held to scientific evidence. Especially hit hard were the ones who had stated openly that Darwin had it wrong and began to speak openly of theistic evolution from an intelligent design point of view.
A new war had erupted between science and creationists that would rival the scopes trial of 1925.
To combat the harassment and firings a group of scientists banded together to form an organization in Seattle, Washington ( forgot the name) through which their voice could be heard.
I doubt if its changed much. The court cases involving the separation of Church and State keep filling the system.
The ministry does follow suit. If denominational, you preach what they teach or your gone.
Home churches are on the rise. Non denominational , that are neighborhood orientated. Meeting each week at a different house. Anyone can speak their piece and Pot lucks included.
In regard to evolution , about the best, most open forum is http://biologos.org/ .
(clip)
The BioLogos Foundation explores, promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.
Gil
Panman
10-25-2010, 08:55 PM
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.
Richard
Just another run of the mill donut dunkin false prophet wanna be.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2010, 10:44 PM
Just another run of the mill dunkin donut false prophet wanna be.
Hey there Panman,
That's about as "off-the-wall" as any comment ever aimed at me.
If you have anything meaningful to say, please do so.
Richard
Panman
10-26-2010, 01:22 AM
Hey there Panman,
That's about as "off-the-wall" as any comment ever aimed at me.
If you have anything meaningful to say, please do so.
Richard
Out of respect for your forum, and all the hard work and passion it must take to run a forum, I have deleted my strong disgreement to your views. It doesn't matter what I think any way. The truth is an unmoveable rock, I pray that you swim over to it and anchor yourself and build your house on it, all other ground is sinking sand. You will be eternally glad you did. God bless you. God has obviously let you discover something in this Bible wheel, again I don't understand what it is, but it should if anything be exciting you to read and study exactly what the bible has to say to you. You need to ask Christ to reveal himself to you, and to do this you need to humble yourself.
There is secular scientific proof that links all of humanity to a common ancestor, this is of course in line with the Genisis account. There is no scientific evidence to proof that every living organism has a common ancestor, that is a lie and the closest you will common to proving that one is a common creator.
NumberX
10-26-2010, 01:33 AM
Hi Panman,
About Ivan Panin sites: Besides good sites about Ivan Panin's work there are bad ones. We have to understand that there are also persons who want deliberately spread false info and can't stand divine origin of the N.T. and O.T. as he investigated and they deliberately want to be negative about it, no matter the facts. Those set up the bad websites. We shouldn't go along with those of course, we know better and can demonstrate divine origin easily it in other ways also.
You are German so you can maybe take pleasure in reading info from http://www.weinreb-stiftung.org/ The info not only deals with divine origin but also with connecting to the creation as we see it.
When I published info on the forum it's not for Richard only. It may be him who reacts most to it, but the info is for everyone to read. There are also persons on the forum who never talk(ed) about gematria, some wrote more then a thousand posts! About everything except gematria. When you filter those away the forum isn't crowded any more. But the gematria keeps existing, there's nothing wrong with.
Panman
10-26-2010, 02:20 AM
Hi Panman,
About Ivan Panin sites: Besides good sites about Ivan Panin's work there are bad ones. We have to understand that there are also persons who want deliberately spread false info and can't stand divine origin of the N.T. and O.T. as he investigated and they deliberately want to be negative about it, no matter the facts. Those set up the bad websites. We shouldn't go along with those of course, we know better and can demonstrate divine origin easily it in other ways also.
You are German so you can maybe take pleasure in reading info from http://www.weinreb-stiftung.org/ The info not only deals with divine origin but also with connecting to the creation as we see it.
When I published info on the forum it's not for Richard only. It may be him who reacts most to it, but the info is for everyone to read. There are also persons on the forum who never talk(ed) about gematria, some wrote more then a thousand posts! About everything except gematria. When you filter those away the forum isn't crowded any more. But the gematria keeps existing, there's nothing wrong with.
Cool, sorry number X I dont speak German but I agree with everything you have said.
alec cotton
10-26-2010, 12:50 PM
Hi Gil,
You are correct that I am researching evolution. But it's not quite accurate to say that humans evolved from an "ape or chimp" but rather, modern humans, apes, and chimps have a common ancestor.
I like the idea that the Bible teaches a "transformation on the cross" that brings the soul "to a new consciousness within Jesus Christ."
All the best,
Richard
Hi Richard
There is so much happening on this forum that it is impossible to keep pace. I just backtracked and spotted this bit about evolution . I don't know much about the theories for or against apart from Darwin and you can't miss that . It is trotted out at every turn. I think that there is one which has something to do with purpose and direction. That is much more feasible than accidental evolution . Of course if you call it nature that is all right, but if you call it God you are in lumber. If you call it the God of the Bible, that is heresy Why?. Because the God of the bible demands restraint and that is what men hates most. How short sighted are the adherents of Darwin.
The dinosaurs are a good example They flourished in the Jurassic period and then they were extinguished Now it might be barely feasible if one or two species disappeared but not all. . By the law of survival of the fittest they should be prevalent today. What the Darwinists do not consider is the food chain It is designed ; and if it is broken then survival is out of the question. The dinosaurs were dependant on herbivores carnivores ,Scavengers, beetles , butterflies , bees and an infinite variety of other creatures for their survival. Everything indicates design and purpose. The eye could not evolve by accident or by increments because , unless an eye is complete and functional it can have no survival value at all. Right now I am considering the compound eye and the ocelli. They are vastly different than the eyes of fish animals or birds . They function differently They did not evolve . I wish I could get hold of a bit of genuine amber and show that the eyes of the fly have never changed from the beginning of time including the three oceli on the back of the head. Unfortunately there are so many forgers and cheats about . I sent for an amber specimen from china. It is a scorpion trapped in amber. One problem . It is resin and not fossil amber I could prove it by dissolving the "amber ". Problem. If it is genuine , The chitin will dissolve with the amber . If it is not genuine then I will be left with a dead scorpion The question is often heard ; What caused the demise of the dinosaur?. In the face of all the contrary evidence how can the theory survive. If and when it is proved that man preceded the apes , will the proponents then say that apes descended from man?.
Alec
Richard Amiel McGough
10-26-2010, 02:30 PM
Hi Richard
There is so much happening on this forum that it is impossible to keep pace. I just backtracked and spotted this bit about evolution . I don't know much about the theories for or against apart from Darwin and you can't miss that . It is trotted out at every turn. I think that there is one which has something to do with purpose and direction. That is much more feasible than accidental evolution . Of course if you call it nature that is all right, but if you call it God you are in lumber. If you call it the God of the Bible, that is heresy Why?. Because the God of the bible demands restraint and that is what men hates most. How short sighted are the adherents of Darwin.
Hey there Alec,
What makes you think that "adherents of Darwin" are "short sighted?" It's ironic, but I think the facts are precisely the opposite. Darwin was able to "see" how species evolved because he was exceedingly "far sighted" - he was able to extrapolate how big the changes would be if you extended small variations over a really long span of time, like a million years.
The eye could not evolve by accident or by increments because , unless an eye is complete and functional it can have no survival value at all.
A one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind.
The idea that the eye must function perfectly or be completely worthless is false. Seeing a blurry image gives a huge advantage over a blind competitor.
The supposed impossibility of the evolution of the eye is is a standard anti-evolution argument that has been debunked for a really long time. A quick Google should give you all the information you need to discover this for yourself.
I wish I could get hold of a bit of genuine amber and show that the eyes of the fly have never changed from the beginning of time including the three oceli on the back of the head.
Certain features are extremely stable because no simple genetic variation makes them better. That's not evidence against evolution.
In the face of all the contrary evidence how can the theory survive. If and when it is proved that man preceded the apes , will the proponents then say that apes descended from man?.
Alec
I'm sorry Alec, but I have not seen any evidence that threatens the survival of the theory. So I guess we have to say that evolution survives because it is the "fittest" in the sense that it fits the evidence better than any other. :p
But you propose a very stringent test, and that is good! It is the "pre-cambrian rabbit" test made popular by this story about famous evolutionary scientist J. B. S. Haldane. When asked what it would take to shake his confidence in the theory, he said "fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian!" That's the kind of evidence you should be presenting ~ something that really "bites." As it is, you are presenting a lot of worn out arguments that have been debunked long ago (like the eye) and some rather odd speculations about finding fossil humans older than fossil apes which does not make sense, since humans did not evolve from apes, rather, apes and humans share a common ancestor.
I think it would be very interesting if you read a recent article or book about evolution and tried to show an error in what is actually being claimed by the scientists. As it is, your arguments don't seem to be connected to the theory at all.
Great chatting,
Richard
NumberX
10-27-2010, 07:46 AM
Cool, sorry number X I dont speak German but I agree with everything you have said.
Oh :signthankspin: I like that.
Hi Richard,
Just thought to ask you about your view on the trinity has it changed?
Richard Amiel McGough
11-13-2010, 11:32 AM
Hi Richard,
Just thought to ask you about your view on the trinity has it changed?
Excellent question. My beliefs about the Trinity have changed in two ways.
First, I am not able at this time to conceive of God as a "person" ~ a "guy in the sky" who is a personal agent with super-powers. So the whole question of the reality of the Trinity is currently moot, since it involves "three persons" within "one person" of the Godhead.
This leads directly to a big problem with the traditional Christian view. Many apologists (Hank Hanegraaff, James White) attempt to formulate the doctrine by asserting that there are "three who's" and "one what." But that directly contradicts the nearly universal Biblical testimony that states God is a personal being who is properly referred to by the singular pronoun "he." The Bible speaks God as "one who" not "one what." The apologists argument is fatally flawed. Now I've known about the flaw in the apologists argument for a long time. The fact that their argument is flawed does not mean that the Trinity is false. But on the other hand, the nature of the flaw exhibits a fundamental logical challenge with the doctrine. I have known about this problem for a long time, and have been willing to accept it as a "mystery" since it is supported by many passages that present Christ as Creator, Lord and Savior, while being distinct from the Father who is Creator, Lord, and Savior. But there is another deep problem with the traditional doctrine because it states that the three persons are "co-eternal." I have never seen any Biblical foundation for this position. It makes a lot more sense that the Trinity represents the manifestation of the singular God (The Father) like three concentric rings: The Son "proceeds" from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. This frees the doctrine from many of its logical problems. But none of this is of any concern to me as long as I can not conceive of God as "a person(s)" in the first place.
And why can I not conceive of God as a personal agent who goes about concerned with matters in space and time? There are many reasons. The first, I suppose, is the lack of evidence. God quit intervening in our affairs (in any provable way) about 2000 years ago. Back then, folks could pray and there would be direct answers in the form of the sea splitting, columns of fire, earthquakes, voices from heaven and other supernatural wonders. That simply does not happen any more, despite the shows put on by outrageous charlatans like Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley.
Another reason is more philosophical. I simply can not conceive of God as a "personal agent" with a personal will like some glorified human sitting in heaven intervening in human affairs. That's just too much like the Greek religion of Zeus. That just doesn't make sense to me, and worse, if that really is an accurate description of God, then God seems to be doing a lousy job of running the world. It seems like there are many things such a being could do better, and we are in the position to judge because we are assuming that God is an "agent" like ourselves. The common defense that says we can not judge because God is an infinite mystery and we are finite dunces does not satisfy because exactly the same argument applies to every false agental deity such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Indeed, the answer is identical to that given by the Wizard of Oz ~ Pay no attention to the man behind the screen! A religion that can not answer such obvious questions, and actually discourages the use of our minds, simply can not be "true."
Ram, In the past I always believed what was tought to me but in the past years I'm inclined to study the scriptures out for myself and the "trinity" is one of those topic's were I felt like it's no hard to understand anyway. But again a friend of mine press the question about the trinity and to some great extend explained to me. So in short i'm inclined to have changed my beliefs on the One God with Three persons. See how hard that is to explain.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-13-2010, 12:17 PM
Ram, In the past I always believed what was tought to me but in the past years I'm inclined to study the scriptures out for myself and the "trinity" is one of those topic's were I felt like it's no hard to understand anyway. But again a friend of mine press the question about the trinity and to some great extend explained to me. So in short i'm inclined to have changed my beliefs on the One God with Three persons. See how hard that is to explain.
Yes, I see how hard that is to explain! :p
But I think it is very much worth the effort. I think the doctrine of the Trinity is particularly curious because nobody actually understands it, yet it is presented as the acid test to discern between true and false believers. But what does it mean to believe a doctrine that you don't understand? The "establishment church" puts great value on people "believing" the Trinity, but what exactly is the average believer really believing??? Barna reports (http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/82-americans-draw-theological-beliefs-from-diverse-points-of-view) that:
"the concept of the trinity - "God is one being in three separate and equal persons - God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - is deemed to be a reality by 79% of adults. Women are considerably more likely than men to accept the Trinity as real, by an 85% to 72% margin, but few members of either gender doubt its existence."
Great. Folks can assert "belief" in what they have been told they must "believe." But if you sat them down and asked what their belief actually means? I think you'd get a sea of confusion. How then can belief in the Trinity be any kind of test other than a test for whether or not you have submitted your mind to the authority of religious leaders??? And that's a scary thought in my mind. The loss of autonomy and the enslavement of the mind to the will of others.
Even at the Nicene there where some that just followed alone and those that thought otherwise was put out. I just wonder how Martin Luther with all of his corrections on the church doctrine concerning salvation that he taught the doctrine of the Trinity.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-13-2010, 12:45 PM
Even at the Nicene there where some that just followed alone and those that thought otherwise was put out. I just wonder how Martin Luther with all of his corrections on the church doctrine concerning salvation that he taught the doctrine of the Trinity.
Good point. I was going to mention the "odd fact" that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted without any controversy that I know of by the Reformers. But we must remember that Luther did not begin by thinking to start a new religion or even to leave the Catholic Church. His original intent was to help reform the church which had become corrupt. Thus many Catholic doctrines were accepted by various reformers. For example, the perpetual virginity of Mary was accepted by some, and many believed in infant baptism which was very hard to change because ignorant mothers had been taught that their children would go to LIMBO if they died unbaptized. Thus blind brainwashed terror strongly influenced dogma. Go figure why there's so much confusion and falsehood in religion.
If it's okay with you Ram, here's a excerpt from what my friend address about Trinity. He bring out some interesting points in how one views the tri-unity.
A common argument is the use of the Hebrew word elohim. It is shown that elohim is the plural form of the Hebrew word for "god". elohim is applied regularly to Yahweh, therefore Yahweh must be a God comprised of plural persons. And that's the argument. But when one truly objectively studies the Hebrew of Scripture, this falls flat. Aside from the fact that elohim is applied to various men, angels, and (false) gods, we would never dare claim that these beings were inherently comprised of plural persons. But there is the basic fact that many nouns in the original Hebrew of Scripture are given in the plural form despite being adamantly singular objects. To claim otherwise is simply nonsensical... and hence the argument that elohim infers that Yahweh is a plural-person God can't stand.
Or another. The Hebrew word for "one" as used in the Shema ("Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is God. Yahweh is One.") is claimed to mean "compound unity". This is completely baseless when the argument is approached without any bias. The Hebrew word used, echad, simply means, "one, single, sole". It's the number 1. That's all. Any manner of "compound unity" is derived from the noun which the number is applied to, not the number itself. If I see "one herd", it is not echad that infers that the herd is a compound unity, it is definition of "herd" that infers a compound unity. The plurality is found in "herd", not "one". As such, when "one" is applied to nouns which do NOT have an inherent plurality, it would be arbitrary and speculative to suggest that a plurality should be found on the basis of the usage of echad, the number 1. Hence, "Yahweh is One" does not mean, "Yahweh is a compound unity", it means, quite simply, "Yahweh is 1." By Mark Edward
Richard Amiel McGough
11-13-2010, 01:20 PM
If it's okay with you Ram, here's a excerpt from what my friend address about Trinity. He bring out some interesting points in how one views the tri-unity.
I agree with your friend. I think he accurately showed why both of those arguments fail.
NumberX
11-14-2010, 03:20 AM
The three in creation are like this, you may call it trinity if you like as the base.
First about the four:
The four creates ten different situations, as 1+2+3+4=10. This makes the four the base of the whole system that goes through the creation of the world and our thought. Four seasons, four parts of the day etc. The four is the door. Gen. 1 has therefore ten times "And God says", four in the first three days.
The first three days are 1+2+3=6 who are the base of the next three days. The six days of creation. So the three and four are joined together here as a base structure.
alec cotton
11-14-2010, 01:15 PM
If it's okay with you Ram, here's a excerpt from what my friend address about Trinity. He bring out some interesting points in how one views the tri-unity.
Hello Beck
Perhaps you could direct your friend's attention to genesis 17:1 Jehovah ( singular )said to abraham," I am El Shadai"(singular) . Verse 27 and Elohim (plural)went up from Abraham. THREE names used for God . It could only be to draw attention to the number three. In the next chapter, God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men . Each time God spoke to abraham, it was in the singular (Jehovah.) Each time Abraham addressed God it was in the plural (Adonai) Now ,God in his wisdom Choreographed this scene in such a way as to circumvent the kind of argument that your friend put foreward : that adonai could mean singular or plural. Sarah stood behind the tent door and said to herself ,"shall I have pleasure , being old . My lord (ADON) singular, being old also."
Alec
Hello Beck
Perhaps you could direct your friend's attention to genesis 17:1 Jehovah ( singular )said to abraham," I am El Shadai"(singular) . Verse 27 and Elohim (plural)went up from Abraham. THREE names used for God . It could only be to draw attention to the number three. In the next chapter, God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men . Each time God spoke to abraham, it was in the singular (Jehovah.) Each time Abraham addressed God it was in the plural (Adonai) Now ,God in his wisdom Choreographed this scene in such a way as to circumvent the kind of argument that your friend put foreward : that adonai could mean singular or plural. Sarah stood behind the tent door and said to herself ,"shall I have pleasure , being old . My lord (ADON) singular, being old also."
Alec
Hi Alex,
If I would address him with your comments he would tell me that he had already addressed that issue. Here it is again:
But there is the basic fact that many nouns in the original Hebrew of Scripture are given in the plural form despite being adamantly singular objects
Here is how Markedward explain it to me.
The Father
I follow the consistent witness of Scripture, from beginning to end: Yahweh is One, not two, nor three (nor nine, as some maddening false prophets would claim today). The simplicity of the matter is that, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ is consistently and emphatically distinguished from "God". They're not the same.
Jesus himself said, "This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." The and completely divides "Jesus Christ" from being "the only true God". The revered Augustine was apparently so troubled by this obvious distinction, that he intentionally twisted the text around so that it read "that they know you and Jesus Christ as the only true God". This perversion is inexcusable.
The witness of Paul is even more adamant: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." How can this be any more plain? "For us there is one God, the Father". Jesus is completely distinct from this "one God, the Father", and the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in this creed. To put it simply, Paul defines only "the Father" as being the "one God".
His creedal statement to Timothy is just as clear: "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". What does he say? "There is one God". Does he clarify who this God is? No. Because that statement is self-explanatory. And following this statement, he completely distinguishes this "one God" apart from the "one mediator between God and men". And how does he define this "one mediator"? Does he claim that he is God, but different from the Father? Does he claim that he is both God and man? No. He simply calls him "the man Christ Jesus".
Yahweh is God. Yahweh is One. Dividing him into three would have been an explosive change to the common Jewish theology of the first century, and yet, the concept is (even according to trinitarians) completely undeveloped by the authors of the gospels, and hardly touched upon by the authors of the epistles.
The Holy Spirit
Depending on the context, this phrasing is either one of the many titles or labels or descriptions for God (i.e. the Holy Spirit, the Father, the Most High, the Almighty, the Ancient of Days, the One Who Is and Who Was and Who Will Come, etc.), or a reference to God's divine presence and power working in the world and/or through Jesus Christ.
Many of us know about the basic Hebrew parallelism found throughout Scripture (both Old and New). If you're not familiar with this, Hebrew parallelism is when one particular idea or sentiment is expressed in Line A, then restated immediately again in Line B. The two statements are distinct in expression, but identical in concept, and cannot be rightly divided as being two different ideas. I'll provide a few examples if you're new to the idea:
God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
The Grave is naked before God,
and Destruction has no covering.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Thus says Yahweh: Keep justice, and do righteousness,
for soon my salvation will come,
and my deliverance be revealed.
Hebrew parallelism is obviously found and recognized here. There is no doubt about this cultural writing device. But, for some reason, when we get to the New Testament, we become completely ignorant to this device.
The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
The parallelism should be obvious here to those who are familiar with the cultural device; the "Holy Spirit" is explicitly parallel to "the power of the Most High". The Holy Spirit here is referring to God's divine presence and power working in Mary, not to a distinct person "within the Godhood". A similar example, though less poetic, is found in Acts 4.3-4, where Peter says,
Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.
There's no reason here to presuppose that "the Holy Spirit" and "God" are distinct persons. Peter is just restating the same thing.
The Son
The beginning of Jesus was at his birth to the virgin Mary, via his divine conception in her womb by his Father. He is the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of Adam. He is the Anointed, the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior, the Prophet, the High Priest, the Lord. He was sinless, and perfect, and divinely represented God his Father. He was crucified and died on the cross for the atonement of mankind's sins. He was resurrected on the third day to everlasting life. He was exalted to the right hand of the throne of Yahweh in heaven. He received all authority in heaven and earth. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the last Adam, bringing about the new creation.
But, he was not Yahweh, he was not God, he was not a distinct person "within the Godhood". "Son of God" does not mean "God the Son". "Son of God" does not mean "God". By Markedward
That's all I have in reguard to any comments beyond these for I'm not able to debate in this subject for myself.
Richard Amiel McGough
11-14-2010, 07:48 PM
In the next chapter, God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men . Each time God spoke to abraham, it was in the singular (Jehovah.) Each time Abraham addressed God it was in the plural (Adonai) Now ,God in his wisdom Choreographed this scene in such a way as to circumvent the kind of argument that your friend put foreward : that adonai could mean singular or plural. Sarah stood behind the tent door and said to herself ,"shall I have pleasure , being old . My lord (ADON) singular, being old also."
Alec
Hey there Alec,
The consonants in the word Adonai are the same ADNY for both the singular and the plural. The difference is only a single little vowel point under the Yod. I checked the Hebrew text and found that the word written in Gen 18 is not the plural. Where did you get the info that said it was plural?
Also, when Abraham spoke to the three "men" he used a mix of singular and plural verbs. For example:
Genesis 18:3 And said, My Lord (Adonai, singular), if now I have found favour in thy (singular) sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let (singular) a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves (plural) under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye (plural) your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye (plural) come to your servant. And they said (plural), So do, as thou hast said.
I am guessing that he was speaking to the "leader" of the three men when making requests, but had to use the plural when speaking of the washing of their feet. But it is interesting that THEY spoke in response. We see a very strange mixture of singular and plural throughout this chapter:
Genesis 18:9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. 10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
I think there is some basis for seeing a "hint" of the Trinity in Gen 18 because the three "men" are spoken to in the singular as the "Lord" but I don't think anything definitive can be proven from this passage. It's just a debatable "hint" at best.
All the best,
Richard
PS: As an aside, I find it sadly ironic that Abraham served up milk and beef together in Gen 18:8! This is a direct violation of the kosher laws made up by the rabbis centuries later. I say it is "sadly" ironic because of the endless hassle the Jews put upon themselves when they invented the non-biblical "kosher law" that forbids the eating of milk and meat together.
alec cotton
11-15-2010, 01:13 PM
I believe the Bible for many reasons . Reading it I am forced to the conclusion that Jesus is God Jesus said " I and my father are one emphatically. Isaiah wrote ,Unto us a son is born and he will be called the everlasting father : Mighty God. So the son is identified as the father.John one states that in the beginning was the word and the word was God. Go to Genesis and you read the word Elohim .
Jesus is elohim who created all things. Further along you read Jehovah elohim or Jehovah Jesus. He himself said "before abraham was ,I am (THE)
I am . God made man in his own image. To think that because I am this shape then God must be this shape is stupid. God is a triune being and I am a triune being. I am body soul and mind . What ever label you might want to put on them it comes out just the same.I have seen several times , instances which prove that the brain is not the mind. This body can be kept funcioning indefinitely withot a mind or soul (life force). A body can have a life force without a mind. The person is then said to be comatose or in a permanent vegetative state. Body soul and spirit are separate and yet inseparable.
Alec
gilgal
11-15-2010, 04:22 PM
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:
1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.
2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam)) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.
3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.
I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.
Richard
RAM or AMA!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.