Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
>.If God can't be above the pettiness inherent in humankind<<
Who says it's pettiness?
Key word: Appears
Appearances can be deceiving.
Believe it or don't. It matters not to me. Just don't expect anyone else to accept your position without question.
The story of the woman caught in adultry does not appear IS NOT in the earliest extent versions of the Gospel and appears to have been added sometime around the 4th century.
It appears that your "soft tissue" is not soft tissue. At least that is what appears in your link.
What does it appear to be to you? Or, are you one of those who blindly accepts the cop-out "God works in mysterious ways?" This is nothing more than a way to deflect uncomfortable questions, and is about as satisfying as "because I said so."
There is lots of discussion on this topic, from both sides.
Here is one interesting take, but there are many others. http://www.direct.ca/trinity/john8.html
Also, notice from this particular article:
"This passage can be found in translations that date from the second century. This can be confirmed by the comments on this passage by the Early Church teachers which range from Didascalia (third century) to Saint Augustine (430 AD). Saint Augustine gives us a little more insight into the problems of this passage by many of his time..."
However, for the curious, it goes even deeper than this. Enjoy!
Must've been a bad link... ;)
>>What does it appear to be to you?<<
You miss my point. If there is no creator and we are all accidents, what it appears to be to me is relevant only to me. It has no value outside of me, except when that belief causes me to directly impact others. And even then it does not make it right or wrong - only something to be dealt with by others.
If we are only an accidend, that is... ;)
Bull crap. First off, even without God we would not be "accidents." We are the product of natural environmental stresses, and of late societal stresses. No accidents in there at all, unless, um, your parents weren't "prepared" for you...
Secondly, in a society of interacting individuals, relevance is judged not just by the holder, but by the people he interacts with. You seem to hold some sort of idea that it's just you and God in the equation, whereas it's you and about 6 billion other folks, and maybe God. And, right or wrong is outside the provenance of God -- otherwise God telling you to kill a small child would be "right" even though it is universally considered "wrong." Why is it universally considered wrong? Because it severely impacts the survival of the group (tribe; society; he-man, woman-hater's club, whatnot).
The Greeks realized how improper it would be to use gods as the arbiter of good and evil, or right and wrong. And yet they managed to have a good idea of what these concepts meant. Go figure.
I came across that site in my research. You don't suppose they have a sacred cow they're trying to protect, do you? Most dispassionate sources give the earliest inclusion of that story at around the 4th century. I could recommend a couple of good books for you on this subject, if you'd like.
>>Bull crap. First off, even without God we would not be "accidents." We are the product of natural environmental stresses, and of late societal stresses. No accidents in there at all, unless, um, your parents weren't "prepared" for you...<<
Call it what you want. That makes it an accident. Just selfish genes in action...
Science fiction notwithstanding, a thing cannot give itself purpose.
>>You don't suppose they have a sacred cow they're trying to protect<<
Virtually every site has a sacred cow to protect. Sometimes you gotta get past it. I thought this was a good site as well: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol25/9035_nonmineralized_tissues_in_fos_12_30_1899.asp
Although it takes the evolution side, (it does state its purpose as "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools"), it is also very level headed and frank in it's statements and conclusions, although it gets a little too enmeshed in definitions.
I love this honest frankness within the conclusion:
"The creationists have found a real weakness in the way scientists discuss fossils and hardly should be blamed for using this weakness to their advantage. The creationist challenge provides us with a good opportunity to clarify our thinking, and with object lessons in the dangers of using poorly defined terms when clarity is needed, and substituting time-honored narrative for real knowledge."
I really do welcome ANY real discoveries made from the T-rex soft tissue. The analysis of the tissue itself is still in it's infancy. There is much to be learned.
"Quote mining statements dated no later than 1977 does not show that the theory of evolution is false."
=======
I hold similar thoughts about men who claim the Word of God to be false (even unto this day) in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.
I'm saying that the inspired Word of God stands the test of time for infallibility, no matter what men throughout the ages have tried to do to it.
The foundation of the argument of proof is origin. You seem to be saying that quotes from your fellow evolutionalists do NOT stand the test of time, which indicates to me that there are more than a few cracks in the foundation of that argument.
No matter what man is allowed, or blessed, to discover - even if he were to be able to unlock all of the mysteries of creation - he would find himself at the feet of God at the end of his journey, with the certain knowledge that God is Creator, and we are what we are by the grace of God.
It that absolutely true, or just relatively true?
The tissue was partially mineralized and had to be treated to achieve a level of flexibility. Because the dating of the surrounding strata was determined independently from the state of the fossil, we require adjustment in our understanding of the process of fossilization. This in no way affects the age of the fossil.
You don't strengthen your argument by trying to excuse the ignorance of the created when compared to the Word of the Omniscient Creator.
Btw, it isn't an assumption. Proof has to be proven by truth. The origin is laid out in the inspired Scriptures. It has not been proven wrong. God has said that man will be judged by the words contained in His inspired Word, and everything necessary for man to pass that test is provided and recorded from the beginning. There have been men who defied and rejected what He has told them from the beginning of time. Nothing has changed. Men still are trying to gather evidence with which to prove Him wrong, and with all of their "acquisition of knowledge", they are no closer now than then to doing so.
Even the Christ, the Son of God, bowed to the Will of God the Father in Heaven. He came to earth, and fulfilled the Father's Will. Who is man whom He created in His image that he should reject Him and call Him a liar?!
Well, sure. Hitler's philosophy obviously goes counter to what is consensually considered to be the broad spirit of Christianity. Needless to say. Yet he accepts Jesus as Savior, and that's generally the demarcation of Christian versus non-Christian.
So you can say he was a twisted and perverse Christian who failed to grasp the full implications of the faith, and I'll agree with you readily. You can say he was a bad Christian, but he was a Christian nevertheless. Unless you want to play the same game as Muslims who wash their hands of Islamists by claiming they aren't Muslims.
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.