Franktalk wrote:The comment from Bachmann is good in that it exposed how she thinks. That is why we have debates. For her to bring up 666 is just stupid. But as you know the world is filled with people who say the dumbest things. I know I have said some really dumb things. But I keep trying to get better and form a better view of reality as I go along.
I like Cain in the sense that he comes from a tough background and has been successful in business. The media used him like a tool when they came out with the painted rock issue. I am sure he learned something from that event.
I am not sure how long I will stay on this site but while here I am sure we will have some interesting chats.
FINALLY - Something on which we can agree.
It's a miracle!
(- uh nope, ooops, wait on that.)
As you were. ;-)
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Holy crap! I thought that Michelle Bachmann thing was just a joke based on stereotypes of that kind of thinking, but no, she really said that! ROFL.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Holy crap! I thought that Michelle Bachmann thing was just a joke based on stereotypes of that kind of thinking, but no, she really said that! ROFL.
Easy on Bachman. She is achieving something of great significance for Republicans everywhere.
Slowly but surely, she is managing to do what many said could never be done.
She is to making Sarah Palin look sane and even reasonably well grounded by comparison.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Chap wrote:But there may be innocent children reading this who are beginning to wonder whether (as their home-schooling parents are telling them) 'the Bible is true'. Well kids, if during your stolen moments on the internet you want to see an example of the intellectual caliber of the people who believe that, here's Hoops as a specimen. Enjoy.
Yes children this is what pride looks like. It is the belief that ones own self is the root of everything. It is the manifestation of self worship and the embrace of man's knowledge. Chap is right that one day you must choose between seeing powers beyond the creation or worshiping the creation. Isn't it wonderful that God gave us free will.
I don't believe that my own self is the root of everything.
I do not worship myself.
I do not worship the creation.
I gave Hoops a fair chance to give some reason for the assertions she made, and instead she just repeated herself in true EV chatbot mode.
If there is a deity, he she or it gave us reason and the capacity to evaluate evidence. A writer whom Hoops may reasonably be expected to respect enjoined his fellow believers (1 Peter 3:15) "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:". Hoops gave no reason, but merely repeated her assertion, while accusing her opponents (with no justification) of not knowing the Bible.
People like that do not deserve much intellectual respect, by either religious or secular standards.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:I gave Hoops a fair chance to give some reason for the assertions she made, and instead she just repeated herself in true EV chatbot mode.
If there is a deity, he she or it gave us reason and the capacity to evaluate evidence. A writer whom Hoops may reasonably be expected to respect enjoined his fellow believers (1 Peter 3:15) "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:". Hoops gave no reason, but merely repeated her assertion, while accusing her opponents (with no justification) of not knowing the Bible.
People like that do not deserve much intellectual respect, by either religious or secular standards.
Fair enough. I know that many of the answers I give will not be accepted by people with a scientific bent. That is fine, we can argue over the finer points.
I don't think Peter was referring to answers dealing with scientific issues. But of religious doctrine.
As for Genesis and time flow. Genesis is short and not detailed at all. I think this is done on purpose to have the widest possible interpretation. And this part:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also
So the entire universe is but a footnote to one verse dealing with the Sun and the Moon. Now one could say that this person writing this did not know the extent of the universe. But I have a different take. I see it as indicating the importance of the earth.
Now we don't know exactly how long the creation week took. It does say evening and morning as a day. But the original Hebrew may refer to organization rather than time. It is unclear. But I believe that God could do it all in an instant. So billions of years or an instant it does not matter to me. My issue is when people say they know for sure. That is unacceptable. Those I will point out problems with their view. The other issue with Genesis is the starting point for the week.
Now it says the earth was without form. Does that mean nothing or does it mean not in the form that He wanted it. I sure don't know. Now it does say He made light. But light is used to mean good. I am sure He did make light but was there some form of electromagnetic fields before that. I don't know. I think the object of Genesis is to give credit for the creation to God which I do.
The alternate theories about the creation are interesting. I like the white hole cosmology because it seems so much more real than a big bang from nothing.
Let's remember how and why I jumped into this conversation. Buffalo made the bold assertion that Gen 1 could only be interpreted only one way. And that i, as a Biblical literalist, must be beholden to a 24 hour literal day that in no way could be reconciled with science as we know it. In other words, either the claims of science are correct and the earth is is billions of years old, or the Bible is correct, and the mountains of evidence that tell us otherwise is incorrect. I was only saying that both can be correct since the Bible does not claim to be an entire history of creation, a science textbook, and that the language in Gen 1 points to a much deeper meaning than what one might think.
We look back on time and see a universe 15 billion years old. Were one to look forward in time from the small piece of matter one would see 6 days. That's the argument, anyway.
So a couple of points. 1) Time was created on day one. God may have created physical laws at that time, but the text doesn't indicate this one way or the other. So, let's appeal to science here. The physical laws, what I assume are the mechanism by which the universe was "created" could have existed, Biblically, before time.
Dt. 32:7 "The days of old..." Some Jewish scholars say this indicates the 6 days of creation.and that the second half of that verse "consider the years, generation by generation" is speaking of the days after the 6 day creation. That is: when we first started counting generations. Thus, these two epochs should be considered separately. So counting generations will get us to Creation-6, but no more than that. But why would the jewish calendar not include those 6 days? Because those events, that flow of time, has no relationship to human existence. If it did, then those 6 days would have been added. Clearly, those 6 days were seen as "days" unlike any kind of human "day", though still from our perspective they were literal 24 hour days. So, here, the Bible does not demand that the universe is "the generations + 6 days". I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that Buffalo's assertion is not the only option.
I believe science is telling us that the universe began as very small piece of matter (I'm sure this could be put more technically or precisely). And that when the universe began to expand that space expanded with it. When space expand, that has an effect on time. Not forgetting that time, Biblically speaking, was created on the first day. What occurred before that first day, I don't know.
here is a verse to support this
Isaiah 42: 5 This is what God the LORD says— the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
There are more.
So, the Biblical record supports "stretching" of space, which would have an effect on time, which would not violate the 6 day creation story.
When we talk to science types we will always be pigeon holed. That is the nature of the beast.
I want to point out a verse.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This can have many meanings. The first one is that time is not fixed for God so God is outside of time. So a day can mean a day on the earth or something else. I sure don't know. But what I do know is that time is not a constraint with God.
Now this verse is also linked with comments about the second coming. So another meaning could be that in the third thousand years (three days buried) He would return as a type. In prophetic years that works out to 1994 I think for the end of the second thousand years. I did the math a year ago.
When we talk to science types we will always be pigeon holed. That is the nature of the beast.
I want to point out a verse.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This can have many meanings. The first one is that time is not fixed for God so God is outside of time. So a day can mean a day on the earth or something else. I sure don't know. But what I do know is that time is not a constraint with God.
Now this verse is also linked with comments about the second coming. So another meaning could be that in the third thousand years (three days buried) He would return as a type. In prophetic years that works out to 1994 I think for the end of the second thousand years. I did the math a year ago.
As you and Hoops continue referring to scripture as the basis of your knowledge, understanding and worldview, I note that you never mention the Koran, for example.
Given that you claim to depend on the revealed word of the God of Abraham for your decision making, could you or Hoops provide some logical explanation as to why you ignore the Koran as revealed word of the God of Abraham?
The Koran certainly has a more legitimate claim in terms of time and place to be the revealed word of God than does the Book of Mormon, for example.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
jon wrote:Hoops, do you believe that Adam was created circa 6,000 years ago and that all human life started from him (and Eve)?
Do you also believe that humanity was wiped out in the great flood which took place between Adam and Christ sometime and from which all current human life on the planet stems from?
*cough, cough*
*AHEM...!*
Hoops, you seem to be avoiding answering these two relevant questions. Is there a reason for that?
Is it that scientifically these two things are untenable or some other reason perhaps?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
As you continue referring to scripture as the basis of your knowledge,
Not true, as usual. When did I write that I did this? Could you please respond to what I wrote? Again, my starting point in this conversation was to show that Buffalo's "either/or" stance is not required. I think I've done that.
understanding
Also not true.
and worldview,
I'll admit to a Christian world view.
I note that you never mention the Koran, for example.
Why should I?
Given that you depend on the revealed word of the God of Abraham for your decision making, could you or Hoops provide some logical explanation as to why you ignore the Koran as revealed word of the God of Abraham?
Could you explain wth this has to do with the topic at hand?