Posted on 04/16/2009 8:59:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I’ve been called worse, and I still leave the thread there as all the evidence I need.
“I’ve been called worse, and I still leave the thread there as all the evidence I need.”All bluster no muster ;-)
I owe you the courtesy of providing you with all the explanations and information you’ve provided to me.
Most people cut you alot more slack.
Most people don’t let a difference of opinion turn into a personal vendetta.
We will all learn the “truth” once we pass on (or wake from this dream) or just plain die.
I believe in the “Christian Ethic”. But I cannot beleive in the BIBLE (WORD) literaly. It has good teachings and philosphies and some bad.
The theories of the creation as presented in the BIBLE by the clergy scholars of the day was as good as it gets some 6000 years ago and the theory held up until the human race began to obtain the tools (telescope, etc) to start observing some of the Universal facts. Man began to realize there was no way the “Earth - Universe - Man” was all created in “7-days”. Plus the other fabels are impossible for most to accept as fact (Noah collecting 2 of every species for his arc; Moses splitting the sea; etc).
I do believe Jesus was the Greatest Human to walk this Planet.
The other “HOLY” books are also out-dated and need to be updated (EVOLVE) also. The Quran still teaches that the Earth is flat and that Moh was the man whose example we should follow. The Hindus; Buddhist; etc..All the basic religions will experience Evolution just as ALL the current living creatures of this planet have and will continue to do so.
Perhaps I will meet you in the afterlife.(if there is one)
If you are right, then I will be looking up having one of those V-8 eternal moments.
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”...
If creatioism is fact - provide the facts, evidence, or whatever that may have to prove it.
Scholars have been providing “evidence”; and facts for over 300 years to support their theories of evolution. New discoveries are being made regularly to give support to their contentions.
Creationism “scholars” have NO such evidence to support them other than ancient texts with someone’s theory (theology) on how it came to past based on their limited knowledge base at the time.
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”...
Your point?
The “Sorrow” has to be for anyone who will take ancient texts word for word as the “gospel”. Believe what you will but leave fantasies that cannot be supported by any evidence to support the theories to the private religious institutions - not in the public schools..
How did Noah get all those Dino’s in th Arc?
The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) did many things:
1. It established the State (the USA).
2. It recognized the right of man to freely speak his mind and to freely exercise his religion, and established those rights as bedrock principles of the new State (USA).
3. It forbade the establishment of an official State (USA) religion.
It is laughable to claim that the very Constitution that founded the State (USA) and that expressly guarantees the State cannot interfere with religion by prohibiting man’s free exercise or by establishing its own religion (but that nowhere mentions or even hints at “separation of Church and State”) somehow regarded religion as a private affair that should have no public role. It is especially laughable considering the actual practices and decisions of the federal and state governments regarding religion at the time the Constitution was ratified, immediately after it was ratified, and for the next 100 years after it was ratified.
You like to quote a line from a private letter that one religious skeptic, Thomas Jefferson, whose ideas about religion did not make it into the words of the Constitution. He wrote that line to persuade his audience to adopt his idea - an idea that the Constitution itself rejected.
If anything, the Constitution elevates the right to freely exercise religion to a special status that is shared by the right to speak freely. These are rights that elevate private actions (speaking, religious practice) and make them civic actions.
Please re-read the full definition of the 1st Amendment or at least concentrate really hard on that part after “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. Better yet when quote mining stop before you get to the parts where you are contradicted. I’d say ‘sonny’ but apparently you should be old enough to know better.
You would have to throw caution to the wind and open your mind completely to the truthfulness of uniquely ancient words from Genesis and throughout the Old Testament inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. I don’t know much about your background but I know God’s Words are true and timeless. Psalm 22 is prophecy about Christ’s death on the cross written approx 1,000 years before his birth! These are truly not man-breathed words. And all His inspired words - including the New Testament - are faithful and trustworthy. You can disagree with these statements all you want but have you studied the Bible enough to safely disregard it?
IF I have not lost you yet and YOU DARE TO READ IT . . .
The best reading I’ve encountered on the creation/evolution debates?
creationscience.com - online book complete w/ pictures and references
written by a former evolution scientist - Ph.D. in fact - Dr. Walt Brown. If you can see your way past uniformitarianism I think you’ll truely begin to appreciate the cataclysmic effects of a world-wide flood that led to the breaking of the earth’s crust and worldwide vulcanism. Forces so powerful they literally launched large chunks of earth into our solar system! His hydroplate theory redefines the prevailing views on platetechtonics and much more closely explains the most peculiar things found in geology.
Hi 56newblog! You appear to be a thoughtful skeptic, and that's good to see — not so much the skeptic part, but the thoughtful part. It's clear that you are applying some standard to discriminate between "good teachings and philosophies" and "some bad" ones in the Holy Scriptures. May I ask: What is that standard?
Some Christians read the Bible "literally." Others do not. I put myself in the latter category. My reasoning goes like this: In the Holy Scriptures God is speaking directly to man; but not just to the men of a particular historical period, but to men of all ages. The most effective way to do this is to employ a symbolic language which speaks to the ages. This language is not strictly literal, nor dependent on any particular human language for its sense.
The English texts we have are all translations from ancient languages that have fallen into disuse. The very act of translation is a once-remove from the pristine sense of the original, as directly experienced by the inspired authors and recorded by them. The reliance on the literal word cannot fully capture the spiritual essence of the Holy Scriptures, nor convey its character as God's Word spoken to universal humanity for all time. Plus as any student of symbolic language learns, symbols are an "open" language: They invite the participation (cognitive and spiritual) of the person who entertains them. Literal language, on the other hand, is "closed" by being essentially one-sided, declarative, and "factual" in character.
Another notable thing about symbols is they can compress many different levels of meaning with respect to the truth they convey. A literal word, on the other hand, denotes one specific meaning. Long-time Bible readers report that they constantly find something "new" in the scriptures on successive readings. This source of "newness" is what one would expect to find in the very nature of symbolic language.
Now we Christians believe that God seeks direct, intimate relationship with men. So I ask myself: Which style of language would a God Who seeks to engage His creatures, of all times, now and forever, use? The declarative language common to an instruction manual or a textbook? Or the sublime, divine language (i.e., symbolic language) — and even possibly the language of myth? (C. S. Lewis thought so.)
But then post-moderns tend to believe that myths are, by definition, "false." Which is not to understand what a myth is. I won't belabor this point further here, though I'd love to.
You wrote, "The theories of the creation as presented in the BIBLE by the clergy scholars of the day was as good as it gets some 6000 years ago and the theory held up until the human race began to obtain the tools (telescope, etc) to start observing some of the Universal facts."
Jeepers, 56newblog, I guess I'm going to have to disagree with your premise here — at least as I understand it. First of all, it is a complete mischaracterization of the Bible to call it "a theory." God's Truth is not, nor can it ever be, a "theory." Second, human beings since the dawn of man have been observing "the Universal facts" and trying to understand them. They made great advances, on which further advances were based in their turn. And so on.
But does this in any way involve man as an "evolving species," or is this just a case of man developing the potentialities which he already possess by reason of his created nature?
It seems you are identifying "evolution" with "progress" (which would be a very unscientific thing to do). You seem to imply that post-modern man is in some way "better" than the "clergy scholars" describing the world of 6,000 years ago. However my own view, FWIW, is that man is pretty much as he always has been; human nature is remarkably persistent and durable; the only thing that seems to "evolve" is the tools man has at his disposal in the particular age in which he lives. In other words, a Plato and an Einstein are true peers, notwithstanding the time separation between them.
Plus you seem to think that Christians are some species of incorrigible ignoramuses. Which is to overlook the amazing contributions of Christians to the very foundations of modern science in virtually all fields: Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, LeMaître, a horde of Jesuit astronomers (did you know there are 12 craters on the Moon named after Jesuit astronomers, true pioneers in this field?), etc., etc.
You wrote, "Man began to realize there was no way the 'Earth - Universe - Man' was all created in '7-days.'" If you mean seven 24-hour days, perhaps you are right about this. But — God is not in time. He is utterly beyond spatiotemporal reality as humans experience it. Further, Genesis does not specify the temporal length of a "day." There is thus no basis for us to presume that the Creation was completed in six consecutive 24-hour (by our human reckoning) time periods. (God tells us he rested on the seventh Day.) This insight is further supported by the fact that the "lights in the firmament" — the Sun and the Moon — were not created until the Fourth Day. It's hardly necessary to mention our human reckoning of day length is derived from the apparent motions of these "lights." And yet there were three "days" — i.e., Genesis 1–3 — before these "lights" appear.
When you speak of "evolution," 56newblog, I get a very strong sense of a desire to "evolve away from the past." As if humans in the past were in some way inferior to those now living, on the presumption that man is "fitter," or "better" now than he was in past eras.
And yet — please consider that all the foundations of modern science were laid in ancient Greece, commencing around 800 B.C., in an astonishing irruption of sheer genius, the likes of which has yet to be repeated in human history. These ancients gave humanity: the very idea of a "universal law"; foundational insights into the structure of mathematics and geometry; systematic logic; natural causation; they anticipated modern atomic theory and thermodynamics. Greek natural philosophy ("love of wisdom") — a term in use until it was displaced by the word "science" (scienzia, "knowledge") around the 18th century — is the very foundation of modern science. Modern science's great achievements rest on the shoulders of giants who lived some 2,500 years ago. Rather than think that modern discoveries render the Greeks obsolete and safely forgettable, we should appreciate that without the Greeks, science as we know it probably would not exist.
I take strong objection to your suggestion that religions (e.g., Christianity) "evolve." People can "evolve away" from Christian orthodoxy; and it's distressing that so many do nowadays — accommodations to the "spirit of the age" I gather. This is striking, in light of the fact that the one thing above all others that has allowed the Church to survive and flourish for over two millennia is its unflagging, uncompromising faith in, and devotion to changeless universal truth, to the divine Logos. Truth does not "evolve." If it did, the world would fall into chaos, and there would be no reason in the world.
So what if the Quran still teaches that the world is flat? IMHO, the children of Ishmael have got things all wrong anyway, so they might as well be wrong about this, too. In any case, Christians don't subscribe to the Quran: Christians are in the "liberty business," not the "submission business."
In closing, I just want to add that the currently favored physical theory (favored because substantiating evidence keeps piling up) regarding the origin of the universe — the Big Bang/inflationary model — is consonant with the Genesis account. Perhaps you'd find it ironic that the "father of the Big Bang" was himself a Roman Catholic Father — the Jesuit priest and physicist George LeMaître.
Oh, by the by, I haven't the slightest doubt that human life exists beyond the constraints of physical incarnation — i.e., is more than just our physical existence. Man is more than his body. So God willing, you and I may well meet up some day, in the world beyond this one.
Sorry I've run on so long. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, 56newblog!
Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete.. AND DID..
He cannonized evolution.. by the statement...
"You MUST be born again"- Jesus..
Some are evolving, some are not..
Very interesting take on this problem, dear brother in Christ!
Still, this sort of "evolution" would be spiritual, not physical. But I take your point!
Evolution from physical to spiritual..
I think you've "got it"...
Jeepers, you covered a lot of ground. Wonderful insights!
Truth conveys beautifully across thousands of years by parable and metaphor; and it also hides truth in plain view:
So very, very true dearest sister in Christ! And yet, for people whose hearts have "waxed gross" — I take this to mean swollen with pride, the superbia of life, and inordinate confidence in purely human powers — I note a tendency to "refuse to see" what is clearly presented to the eyes and mind.
And as the old saying goes, "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." Yet such are the very people who tend to "self-select" as our "thought leaders" (to ensure conformity to the currently reigning, politically correct orthodoxies, which definitely includes Darwin's macroevolution theory) and also as our political "rulers."
As for me, I'd much rather live "under God" than "under men." I think that's pretty much what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of support!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.