Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…281282284286287…822

Comments

  • Options
    #8492
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    daithifleming wrote: »
    Do ye just make this up as ye go along? Where is the evidence behind this?

    The Bible stupid :p

    The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had no "mutational load" (the greek translation of that particular phrase was tricky).

    Or belly buttons for that matter


  • Options
    #8493
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    No they don't, and Wicknight was, of course, completely correct in saying that they don't.

    In research which is quoted in a book I'm reading at the moment, the understanding of even very basic christian concepts has been shown to vary wildly from person to person, even within the same congregation. Having established this fact, the researchers asked believers to try to connect other believers' definitions with the concepts that the others defined, with results that were little different from random.

    The reason is quite interesting -- because there's no way on earth that, as a religion, you can make everybody think the same thing. People are much too different. Consequently, religious concepts have evolved to the point that they are sufficiently poorly and vaguely defined that they can mean exactly whatever the believer wants them to mean.

    Wishful thinking by definition, one could say.
    So no general consensus amongst Christians on adultery, theft, lying, etc?

    I must be most remarkable, for in my 40 years as a Christian I have found the opposite. Most Christians I have known personally and those I have heard or read of agreed that:
    Sex with someone else's spouse was adultery.
    Taking someone's property without their consent was theft.
    Misinforming someone with the intent to deceive was lying.


  • Options
    #8494
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    The Bible stupid

    The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had no "mutational load" (the greek translation of that particular phrase was tricky).
    The Hebrew phrase which gives rise to JC's explanation is found in Genesis 1:31 and is translated into English as:
    Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Emphasis mine].

    That is, Adam and Eve and all the rest of creation were created without flaw, physically or morally. No mutations in their genes, for example.


  • Options
    #8495
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:


    The Hebrew phrase which gives rise to JC's explanation is found in Genesis 1:31 and is translated into English as:
    Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Emphasis mine].

    That is, Adam and Eve and all the rest of creation were created without flaw, physically or morally. No mutations in their genes, for example.

    So, actually not just "very good", but perfect.

    pickily,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #8496
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So, actually not just "very good", but perfect.

    pickily,
    Scofflaw
    Yes, very good = perfect in this context. No sin, no death, no disease. Contrary to what came after the Fall.
    Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8497
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, very good = perfect in this context.

    How do you figure?


  • Options
    #8498
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Adam and Eve and all the rest of creation were created without flaw, physically or morally.
    Old age and original sin must have come as a bit of surprise then!


  • Options
    #8499
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    That is, Adam and Eve and all the rest of creation were created without flaw, physically or morally. No mutations in their genes, for example.

    Strange that they looked like humans then isn't it, consider how many of our human traits are due to known mutations, such as hair, of which they had none.


  • Options
    #8500
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Sex with someone else's spouse was adultery.
    Not according to Jesus!

    Wow, it didn't take long to demonstrate Robin's point. Perhaps better examples next time ... :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #8501
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    Old age and original sin must have come as a bit of surprise then!
    Original sin refers to man's condition after the Fall. Likewise old age. Had man not sinned, he would have remained eternally perfect - like Christians will be in the New Heaven and New Earth:

    Revelation 21:
    1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
    5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
    6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8502
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Sex with someone else's spouse was adultery.

    Not according to Jesus!

    Wow, it didn't take long to demonstrate Robin's point. Perhaps better examples next time ...
    You've lost me there. Specific text?


  • Options
    #8503
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Strange that they looked like humans then isn't it, consider how many of our human traits are due to known mutations, such as hair, of which they had none.
    Hair is known to be due to mutations? I don't think so.

    But being an evolutionist, you will think everything results from mutations. Why pick on hair?


  • Options
    #8504
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So no general consensus amongst Christians on adultery, theft, lying, etc?
    Nope. This has already come up in another thread recently and I'm not going to rehash the point. Suffice it to say that at least some christians (quite a lot, it seems) don't know what adultery is.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Taking someone's property without their consent was theft.
    An excessively simplistic definition.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Misinforming someone with the intent to deceive was lying.
    Actually, I only found out over christmas that this is the christian definition of lying -- I'd always assumed (and still assert) that lying is claiming that a falsehood is true. The difference is subtle and worth considering next time you've a few minutes to spare.

    The researchers I was referring to, btw, checked out more complex items than these, but as wicknight says, even the very simple examples you've chosen here demonstrate my point quite neatly. Thanks.


  • Options
    #8505
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    How do you figure?
    The nature of God revealed in the Bible - all He does is perfect. Then too the absence of the Curse before the Fall; the absence of death until the Fall; the relationship between Paradise before the Fall and the one to come at the end of time - perfect states.


  • Options
    #8506
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    So no general consensus amongst Christians on adultery, theft, lying, etc?

    Nope. This has already come up in another thread recently and I'm not going to rehash the point. Suffice it to say that at least some christians (quite a lot, it seems) don't know what adultery is.
    I can confidently say, They are not Christians. It's a no-brainer, so no excuse for any confusion on the issue.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Taking someone's property without their consent was theft.

    An excessively simplistic definition.
    I was trying to keep it simple.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Misinforming someone with the intent to deceive was lying.

    Actually, I only found out over christmas that this is the christian definition of lying -- I'd always assumed (and still assert) that lying is claiming that a falsehood is true.
    Not if you believe it to be true - hence the necessity of intent to deceive to qualify it as a lie.
    The researchers I was referring to, btw, checked out more complex items than these, but as wicknight says, even the very simple examples you've chosen here demonstrate my point quite neatly. Thanks.
    They should really check the credentials of their test group.


  • Options
    #8507
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Creationism is a fiction. The bible is a fiction. acceptance is based on faith.
    Trying to argue with either of these statements is pointless. #

    Evolotion is fact. Backed up with Evidence and not based on faith.


  • Options
    #8508
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    SetantaL wrote: »
    Creationism is a fiction. The bible is a fiction. acceptance is based on faith.
    Trying to argue with either of these statements is pointless. #

    Evolotion is fact. Backed up with Evidence and not based on faith.
    So you say there is no spiritual dimension, no chance that anyone receives truth in their minds from an spiritual source? You know this? You must do, since you know the Bible is a fiction.

    Is there anything you don't know? Or is it just that you hope it is all fiction?

    As to evolution being a fact supported by evidence not faith - that is the issue disputed on this thread. But thanks for your opinion.


  • Options
    #8509
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Wicknight said:

    You've lost me there. Specific text?

    Certainly

    Matthew 5:28
    But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    According to Jesus anyone who lusts after a women who is not his wife is committing adultery.


  • Options
    #8510
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Hair is known to be due to mutations? I don't think so.
    No, missing hair on our bodies is known to be due to mutations in our genome.

    So unless Adam and Eve were covered in hair like the rest of the Great Apes they contained at least one set of gene mutations.


  • Options
    #8511
    Ekancone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Ekancone


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, missing hair on our bodies is known to be due to mutations in our genome.

    So unless Adam and Eve were covered in hair like the rest of the Great Apes they contained at least one set of gene mutations.

    Ok, i want a go at this creationist stuff.

    Well, you see, its because there was 'phenotypical surfing' which led to the hair being held in suspension within genes and eventually led to the degradation of the mutations within specific kinds.

    How's that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8512
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Certainly

    Matthew 5:28
    But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    According to Jesus anyone who lusts after a women who is not his wife is committing adultery.
    That is certainly so. But how does that establish your assertion that Jesus did not teach that sex with someone else's spouse was adultery?

    You think He meant that imagining sex with a woman was adultery, but not the actual act???


  • Options
    #8513
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, missing hair on our bodies is known to be due to mutations in our genome.

    So unless Adam and Eve were covered in hair like the rest of the Great Apes they contained at least one set of gene mutations.
    Apologies for misreading you. So scientists know that missing hair is due to mutations in our genome, rather than being the nature of the genome?

    You're sure they are not just making assumptions - man came from a common ancestor with the modern apes and hair loss is better accounted for by mutation than hair gain?


  • Options
    #8514
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I can confidently say, They are not Christians. It's a no-brainer, so no excuse for any confusion on the issue.
    I suggest you take it up with Jakkass (here) who believes that he is a christian, possibly of a similar kind to you, but who appears not to understand the distinction.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    robindch wrote:
    Actually, I only found out over christmas that this is the christian definition of lying -- I'd always assumed (and still assert) that lying is claiming that a falsehood is true.
    Not if you believe it to be true - hence the necessity of intent to deceive to qualify it as a lie.
    Which creates the weird situation in which somebody telling the truth truthful can legitimately be called a liar. Moral ambiguity, if not downright confusion, seems to be as much a part of christianity as verbal confusion.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    They should really check the credentials of their test group.
    They checked with a number of large churches in the USA and from what you've helpfully, but inadvertently, written in support of the proposition, I'm quite confident that if the research were to be repeated anywhere else, the results would be pretty much identical -- religion works because it's evolved to work, regardless of location.


  • Options
    #8515
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch said:
    I suggest you take it up with Jakkass (here) who believes that he is a christian, possibly of a similar kind to you, but who appears not to understand the distinction.
    I'm sorry, I can't see from that quote how he defines adultery - perhaps you would point it out?

    Which creates the weird situation in which somebody telling the truth truthful can legitimately be called a liar. Moral ambiguity, if not downright confusion, seems to be as much a part of christianity as verbal confusion.
    Intent to deceive is the moral wickedness - so even if I tell you something that is true, but I believe is not, then I am lying. Conversely, if I tell you something that is untrue, but I believe it to be true, then I am not lying - just mistaken. I'm surprised you find that morally ambiguous or confusing. Ah, well.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    They should really check the credentials of their test group.

    They checked with a number of large churches in the USA and from what you've helpfully, but inadvertently, written in support of the proposition, I'm quite confident that if the research were to be repeated anywhere else, the results would be pretty much identical -- religion works because it's evolved to work, regardless of location.
    I would like to see what they asked and who they asked, as it is incredible to me that any Christian doesn't know that having sex with another man's wife is adultery. Can you provide the details?

    Does any Christian here have doubts about this? I'll open a thread to ask.


  • Options
    #8516
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm sorry, I can't see from that quote how he defines adultery - perhaps you would point it out?
    He says that marriage protects against adultery, without realizing that the definition of adultery requires the participation of a married woman. Without marriage, there'd be no married women and hence, no adultery.


  • Options
    #8517
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch wrote: »
    He says that marriage protects against adultery, without realizing that the definition of adultery requires the participation of a married woman. Without marriage, there'd be no married women and hence, no adultery.

    Heh, heh. I see your logical point, but I doubt it was the sort of protection he was talking about. He meant that having one's own spouse for sexual relief helps prevent the temptation to find it in someone else's.

    Yes, no marriage would mean no adultery - but much fornication! Both are damning, so it is much better to get married and enjoy one's own spouse.

    Proverbs 5:18 Let your fountain be blessed,
    And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
    19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
    Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
    And always be enraptured with her love.
    20 For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
    And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?


  • Options
    #8518
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    2Scoops wrote: »
    If they don't actually do creation science, why call them 'creation scientists?'

    Because they are Creationists, they usually have an interest in the results of Creation Science research......even if they may not conduct such research themselves......
    ......and as they are conventionally qualified they can provide a valid scientific opinion about creation research within their area(s) of expertise.
    2Scoops wrote: »
    With this working definition of creation scientist, the fact that they believe in creation will be largely irrelevant to their research. I mean, we don't say creation fireman, creation janitor, creation accountant, etc.

    You are correct that the position which a scientist holds on the 'origins' issue, is largely irrelevant over much of operative conventional science.......and both evolutionists and creationists are best described as a 'conventionally qualified scientists'.

    The only time it becomes appropriate to use the appelation 'Evolutionist' or 'Creationist' is when questions of 'origins' are being scientifically addressed.
    2Scoops wrote: »
    How many creation scientists that actually do creation research also do peer review for non creation journals, do you know? Just wondering.
    I couldn't tell you that!!!:D


  • Options
    #8519
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, missing hair on our bodies is known to be due to mutations in our genome.

    So unless Adam and Eve were covered in hair like the rest of the Great Apes they contained at least one set of gene mutations.

    Could I gently point out that hair follicle density is quite similar between Humans and other mammals.......it is just that most of the follicles are genetically suppressed........

    ........for example, most men could give any Ape a 'run for his money' in the 'hairy face stakes'.....but most woman couldn't.......even though both men and women have identical facial hair follicle densities !!!:D

    .......so our body hair profiles are the result of Intelligent Design.......with some decline from their originally created state.......due to deleterious mutations.
    daithaifleming wrote: »
    Ok, i want a go at this creationist stuff.

    Well, you see, its because there was 'phenotypical surfing' which led to the hair being held in suspension within genes and eventually led to the degradation of the mutations within specific kinds. How's that?
    Great to see such enthusiasm for Creation Science!!!!:D

    ......I'll give you 9 out of 10 for enthusiasm...

    .....and 4 out of 10 for content.....

    ......see the correct answer above IF you want to get full marks.....in future!!!:eek::)


  • Options
    #8520
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hmm. Subliminal evidence suggests that Americans do believe in evolution, as long as it applies to certain "other people".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8521
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Heh, heh. I see your logical point
    Excellent, I'm glad we can agree on something!
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    but I doubt it was the sort of protection he was talking about.
    Which is exactly the kind of common confusion that I was talking about here. Again, you've proved the point I was making.

    QED.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement