Posted on 01/07/2009 6:00:18 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
Most people know little or nothing about biology.
The first cell may or may not have been a unique event. The first three billion years of life are erased.
Oh. The Lutherans. How could I forget the Lutherans, and their participation in the great revival movements of Colonial and Revolutionary America. My apologies to any Lutherans who frequent this forum.
What do you know about science or biology? What field is your degree in?
John seemed to "get" the metaphorical tone and intent of Jesus.. Could be not all apostles "got it"(fully).. Surely Saul(Paul) got it..
I know many christians that don't seem to get the metaphorical nature of most of scripture.. I call them "literal" christians.. Don't mean they are not christians just "thicker" ones.. Surely non believers are gobsmacked by scriptural metaphors.. which was the main intent I suppose..
Well then, if my example is a strawman, why don’t you show me what a science that incorporated God would sound like?
See post #226 for an understanding.
Being a Christian yourself it shoudn’t be that threatening!
Well then, if my example is a strawman, why don’t you show me what a science that incorporated God would sound like?
See post #226.
It shouldn’t even be that threatening to a Christian!
I don't have to look it up becaue I already understand it's not an answer...the first asexual organism sprang to life all by itself...
HOW AGAIN?
Scientists argue amongst themselves all the time and we all benefit from it. Ditto for politicians, philosophers, mathematicians, Joe-six-packs, etc.
Scientists calling an argument from a non-scientist (e.g. mathematician, philosopher, theologian, etc.) ipso facto "anti-science" is unseemly in a country founded on freedom of speech.
Besides, if we were to build a tree of inquiry like the tree of life - it would become obvious science branched from philosophy and that mathematics is closer to its philosophical roots.
Biology is the study of life. And yet if you ask "what is life v. non-life/death in nature?" the answers from biologists will be mostly descriptive, e.g. properties of living organisms.
The ones focused on what life and non-life/death "is" not just what it looks like will be mostly theologians, philosophers, mathematicians and physicists.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what your point is. I just meant that it's no big deal to me whether we call your statement "anti-science" or not. As for the rest, I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of philosophy and free speech. All I'm saying is that the reclassification of Pluto is not a case of science being "wrong."
“...Could be not all apostles “got it”(fully)..”
With all due respect, I believe you might be misinterpreting the four different aspects of the life of Christ recorded in the four gospels.
John did not “get it” more clearly than did Matthew, Mark and Luke. While the gospels have many similarities and record some of the same events, each is geared to a specific aspect of His life. All four generally cover the four great points of the gospels - the presentation of the King, the declaration of His Kingdom, the rejection of the King and the rejection of His Kingdom - but from different perspectives.
Matthew emphasizes the presentation of Christ as Jehovah’s King which is why his gospel starts with “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ...” and continues with the royal genealogy from Abraham thru David and on down the line to Christ. Many sections peculiar to this gospel are mostly related to the King and the Kingdom.
Mark emphasizes Christ as Jehovah’s Servant as noted, for example, by the fact that in the other gospels Christ is addressed by individuals as “Lord” many times yet only twice (both mistranslations in KJ) in Mark.
Luke emphasizes Christ as Jehovah’s perfect Man which is why, for example, it details the pre-natal section of Christ’s life. This includes the best biblical account of why a person is considered by God to be alive in the womb (when the fetus now known as John the Baptist acknowledges the recently conceived Christ as pregnant Mary visits her preggo cousion Elisabeth) rather than a simple ‘non-viable tissue mass’ as liberal abortion-lovers would claim. It is also why Luke is the one to present the human genealogy from Christ back to Adam.
John emphasizes Christ as Jehovah Himself, Divine. To finish your quote of John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Christ is the living Word (Logos in the ancient Greek) which is why it is capped. Also, speaking of metaphors, I can’t help but think of some of the hardcore EVOs when I continue a few verses down to read “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
Obviously, the bible is full of metaphor, figures of speech, types, analogies, symbolism, etc. But detailed knowledge of the OT and various prophesies referencing the different aspects of “The Branch” (Christ) are required to fully understand the uniqueness of the four gospels and their overall harmony.
Also, Paul, as I’m sure you know was not an apostle or even a disciple while Christ walked the Earth in the flesh. He was rather violently chosen later by the risen and ascended Christ to perform a three-fold ministry - to the Jew, to the Gentile and to the authorities of his time. Before that, while the other apostles were personally witnessing the life of Christ, Paul was a zealous Jew and a sworn and effective enemy of the Lord Jesus.
The "apostles" CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas.. which was a mistake.. The Holy Spirit chose Saul to be an Apostle.. as Paul said he did.. For it was the Holy Spirits authority to choose an apostle.. not man.. A tree is known by its fruit..
“The “apostles” CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas.. which was a mistake.. The Holy Spirit chose Saul to be an Apostle..”
I’m not sure what your point could be. Certainly you don’t believe they should have chosen their (at the time) enemy Paul instead of Mattias.
... or could have been several independent complex self-replicating protein systems that increased its chain complexity, in stages, and some of them clashing with others to exchange parts of their molecular structure. Prions, which are essentially complex proteins, behave this way.
“The “apostles” CHOSE Mattias to replace Judas...”
I neglected to mention that I don’t think you understand the selection process which occurred in Acts 1. It was not the apostles that “CHOSE” Matthias.
And what the heck are you implying by saying “a tree is known by its fruit..”?
Mattias did little or nothing, Saul(Paul) did very much..
“Mattias did little or nothing, Saul(Paul) did very much..”
To be sure, Paul was quite prolific.
But I’m sorry you find the Lord’s choice of Matthias a disappointment.
Mattias was chosen by men.. as scripture(NT) suggests..
When men take the Holy Spirit out of the loop.. the loop becomes a renegade church.. or Sheep Pen(John ch 10).. that the Shepard must call the Sheep "out of".. and has been doing for almost 2 thousand years..
I agree with what you said, but I would apply your statements about not trying to prove that God exists equally to not trying to prove he does not exist. Darwins theory in its original form attempts to do so by assuming life springs forth on its own from the elements. He was unaware of the “intelligent machinery” of DNA, RNA, etc. We now know more the Darwin did, yet continue to have scientists try to prove his theory when its is all but disproved, almost entirely as a means of rejecting creationism.
When the theory breaks down, its time to find a better theory, not mislead to continue the politically correct one. If scientist want to continue to search for the missing fossil links, fine. But to not point out the holes in Darwin is disengenous.
The discoveries of DNA/RNA mechanisms seem more in line with an intelligent design theory. The remaining question is: does one believe that some extraterrestrial life that spring forth all on its own from the early elements could evolve on its own to create “intelligent life” for us here on Earth, or was intelligent life here on Earth created by God? Here is where my faith guides my common sense on this issue.
But again, I am an engineer, not an evolutionary theory scientist.
I agree with what you said, but I would apply your statements about not trying to prove that God exists equally to not trying to prove he does not exist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I completely agree.
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.