Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster
Ah, the fine art of apologetics.
Ah and there is where our fundamental differences begins.
You want to justify the God's Word with mans conclusion, I on the other hand, seek to justify mans conclusion(s) using the God's Word of God, the Holy Bible.
You put your faith in mans word, using it to disclaim the Bible, while I take God's Word to be absolute and therefore deny mans claim(s) by my belief in God's Word, the Holy Bible.
Are you one of the ones Paul is referring to when he wrote: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator...
Apparently Hitler believed in atoms too. He completely rejected the notion of "intelligent matter".
You're funny.
As I said, they have the ball and are running in the wrong direction.
And before you get off on the days mean bull, go to Exodus and read what God has to say in the ten commandments about six days. Not six eons, not six million years, not six thousand years, six days.
If you do not believe God when it comes to how the earth came into existence, than how can you claim to believe Him on anything else? Tell me do you believe in the virgin birth? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe in Christ resurrection? All these are supposedly impossible in the eyes of modern science.
No , to deny God created the world and that it did not evolve is to call God a liar. And that does go against Scripture.
Perhaps you should read Darwins works on this matter. He made it absolutely clear that he considered all human beings to be of the same species, and that the advantages that Europeans enjoyed over "savages" were cultural, not genetic. Let us hear him talk for himself:
" On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; - nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such enquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears.
It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feelings, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumbscrew be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffer from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner and with cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; - what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beast to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin. "
Darwin had frenzied arguments on the subject with Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle. Fitzroy was a Christian Fundamentalist who justified slavery on Biblical Authority and believed that Biblical Authority trumped all considerations of reason, morality, or logic. Now who does that remind you of?
If they deny Christ and embrace satan than what would you call them? And if you say they embrace Christ and deny satan, than how can they refuse to believe Christ account of creation?
You fail to address the point that atheism is not the same thing as rejecting your particular brand of scripture. To claim that it is, is a lie.
Why would you think I am joking, I am serious. Don't read between the lines, take it a seriously as I meant it. I would prefer not to share my heaven with you! And as a joint heir with Christ, it is my heaven!
You accused biologists of being and promoting atheists. That's false, so you deserve no apology.
I would prefer not to share my heaven with you!
Sorry, that's not your call. Unless you are God's Official Spokesperson (as you seem to regard yourself).
I made no such accusation, I said evolution is 180 degrees opposite of God's word. And is therefore satanic.
Now, yur apology please.
The bible says "the sun stopped for a day". Physicists would say that is impossible. QED: Physicists are also satanic.
This is fun.
You'll need to do better than that, like providing, oh what is the stuff called? Evidence, thats it.
I did not say he couldn't also be a joint heir, all I said was I would prefer he not share my heaven.
Why does that so bother you? Are you concerned about where you will spend eternity? Are you concerned about where he will spend eternity?
Aethiest amaze me, they get offended by Someone they don't even believe exist.
My brand of scripture is not relevant. Are you seriously trying to suggest that everyone who doesn't share your exact beliefs is an atheist? That is, most Christians, and everyone of every other religion?
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.