Posted on 09/20/2005 5:35:52 PM PDT by curiosity
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Not quite...
...it's based on INTERPRETATION of physical evidence.
Just change your screen name to OPTIMIST and you can post thus:
"People like you give us all HOPE!"
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
Maybe not; but it WOULD bring into great suspect his spelling!!
Ignorant is an ok word.
It merely means that one does now know a certain something.
Thanks :-)
No, they believe it for the same reason they believe the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun.
OK, you're outraged. It can't be helped when you choose to ignore evidence and reason.
What science actually says is their is no physical evidence supporting the creation story or the flood story. Your decision to believe in miracles does not need to rest on physical evidence.
"I certainly cannot see God creating the Earth with fossils already in place, thus suggesting and supporting evolution if it didn't happen."
OK. So you are accepting the idea that life has evolved, but you don't believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains it. I've got it. That is certainly more reasonable than the other. Sorry if I confused you with someone else, because there have been a lot of people discussing this.
A lot of new names have started showing up on these threads. A couple of years ago there were maybe thiry regulars. Now there are hundreds.
"We can't discuss the science of evolution directly, but must cross reference it to the Bible. This is by your insistence, because in your religious tradition, the Bible is the source of our knowledge of God. I disagree profoundly, but if I don't agree to limit myself to a discussion of the Bible - if I don't consent to stay on your selected turf - then we can't have a discussion at all, because you'll keep citing the Bible for all of your propositions, and accept nothing external to it. So, I have left off any discussion of scientific evidence and moved straight into the Bible."
Ok, the first question we ned to establish is whether the Bible can be relied upon as being authoritative in the subject of the origin of the earth and all that exists in it. However, before we can discuss that we need to establish this one pricipal before we can move on. I am copying the rest of your points so we can progress with them as we move on.
Do you agree that there is an origin for everything that is solely of this universe, or do you believe everything exists with no beginning? Also, to save time, if you believe that everything solely of this universe had an origin, do you believe that God is the one who created the Universe and all that exists in it (barring a discussion of procreation by species, for now)?
While we are at it, I make this assumption: We both agree there is a God, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present; the general idea of God as accepted by most mainstream Christian religion. I make this assumption because you indicated you are a practicing Catholic. Also, I want to limit the definition of God as can be agreed upon only because it is a commonality, and this definition does not limit any expansion of that description of God as we continue.
I had a good link on this (but I can't seem to find it now...) - apparently this problem was only thoroughly & quantitatively solved within the past couple years - you're totally right - the problem lies in the fact that the doorway itself has to have a particle selection mechanism that itself must obey physical laws.
Gibbs' Paradox is another strange thermo. problem - it involves the amount of entropy in a system being dependent on the way particles are labelled; i.e. unless the quantum mechanical principle of truly identical particles is introduced, entropy is a subjective quantity. (I always enjoyed reading about this one)
I believe in the first Adam and the second Adam.
One day...You will bow on your knee and confess with your mouth that the second Adam is Lord.
I know from your posts that you're not really religious - but I always enjoyed Ecclesiastes - some of the best poetry in the Bible, IMHO.
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.