Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I try to be civil on these threads. And pretty much always it's the Christian who begins the vicious personal attacks. It is acceptable for me to say that is not very Christian behavior?
BTW, I stay away from the "good" or "bad" Christian thing. With so many variants of the religion over the years and even today it would be difficult to peg exactly what that would be. How literal do you go? A woman not covering her head when praying? Literally in the NT that's a no-no. But I know most Christians take it more figuratively, as in follow the normal customs. Then translation gets to be a bitch, as in should I call a person a bad Christian because he doesn't kill any witches (Wiccans) he may meet? I know the translation issue on this, but all modern Bibles say witch or sorceress.
All I can do is recognize behavior that, in the Christian upbringing I had, I recognize as not being in the spirit or the letter of the religion.
And speaking of being on the fringe, when it comes to the origins debate, the Evos have zero explanation for the origin of the genetic code, whereas both Creationist and ID scientists point to the fact that the only known empirically verified source of complex, specified digital codes is intelligent design. As such, ID is currently THE BEST explanation for the genetic code, as the Evos have absolutely nothing except failed origin of life experiments to bolster their unscientific evo-religion.
I have stated before that am a Christian; I have been baptized and made a public profession of faith
As a Christian it is my duty to call out my brothers and sisters in Christ who are causing harm to the body of Christ.
And GGG anti-science rhetoric, and childish insults are doing that. I am not the only Christian in this thread to have pointed that out.
LOL! I’ll tell you what, let’s see where the demeaning and personal attack began on this thread, shall we?
Nothing to do with this thread per se, but do you know where the term "Blowing smoke up someones a**" originated? There was a tool, looked like a small bellows, that doctors used to use to blow cigarette smoke up a patients rectum, this was supposed to help the patients respiration(where they got that idea I will never know), eventually it was decided it didn't work so they discontinued it, hence the expression, blowing smoke, usually means something is being advocated that simply isn't true.
Just a little trivia.
But notice he refuses to answer my question about how he defines what being a Christian means. I have noticed this over and over with the evo-atheists. If the evo-atheist claims to be a Christian, they almost always define it in the past tense, such as when they were supposedly baptised as a child, but refuse to say they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and Savior in the present. They will not say that Jesus Christ physically died for three days and then supernaturally rose from the grave. Etc, etc, etc...
Yes I believe all of those things, however that is a matter of faith not science.
I'm talking about the science, not the politics.
The vast majority of Americans (from both political parties) believe both side of the origins debate should be taught
If true, that means your wedge strategy is working. It was their goal to get people behind the idea even before ID is scientifically accepted. Politics and religion first, science later. While okay in a philosophy, theology or debate course, it is absolutely not applicable in a science course.
ID scientists
That phrase still makes me laugh.
And GGG made a “rash, censorious, and unjust judgment.”
So then how it is not biblical?
What do you know, Ira has finally decided to answer some questions. I’m not sure what you mean by “I believe all those things.” Could you answer each of my questions individually and in some detail? Thank you.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God? Do you believe that Jesus Christ was literally born of a virgin? Do you believe Jesus Christ literally died and supernaturally rose from the grave? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the triune God? Do you believe the Jesus Christ supernaturally healed the sick and raised the dead? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is coming back to judge the living and the dead? Do you believe that Jesus Christ created the entire Universe and everything in it, and is currently holding it all together with the power of His Word? Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Do you believe there is no way to the Father and Heaven except by Him?
I beg to differ. Many of GGG's threads don't even have any creationists show up yet before they are spammed with evos making derogatory remarks.
And I've seen other evos themselves state differently.
BTW, I stay away from the "good" or "bad" Christian thing.
It's pretty much a waste of time, and as I said before, it's virtually always in the context of manipulating Christians. I've seen it done enough when it's simply a matter of the non-Christian not liking something the Christian said or did.
There were some people I used to work with who did that thing constantly. They'd object to something, throw out the bad Christian accusation, and walk out of the room. It's never done in a exhorting, correcting way, as in correcting a brother who was wrong.
It makes you laugh because the evo-religion you have adopted is anti-science.
I was referring to your general statement that Christians are not to judge- this is false- We ARE supposed to judge, and to expose, and to call out when error is evident- it is unbiblical to insinuate that Christians are being ‘unChristian IF they judge’ and As metmom correctly pointed out, it’s a deceitful attempt to finnagle Christians into false guilt by misrepresetnign what God’s word was actually speaking about.
Creation was taught in schools for a couple hundred years before the ACLU and it's atheistic compatriots forced it out.
It's not part of any conspiratorial *wedge strategy*. The majority of people have always wanted creation addressed in public schools. Poll after poll has demonstrated it.
The will of the people is that it's not evolution only. The actual situation is that through litigation, evolution only has been forced on the unwilling majority of the general public.
Okay. It got a little personal at #7, then you made it very personal and demeaning at #12. Here's a sample of you. I of course don't count the Army/Marine rivalry posts (they were relatively tame compared to what I've seen in the service).
See what I mean about the personal attacks?
After a stream of pseudo-science and bad science it gets hard to even take it seriously. I've heard of this guy Humphreys before, and his stuff was shot down long ago, yet the ICR keeps perpetuating it, and so do their followers.
It's never done in a exhorting, correcting way, as in correcting a brother who was wrong.
That is a cheap debate tactic. I could only see it being applicable where the Christian has already claimed high moral ground by virtue of being Christian; otherwise, it's a person who has run out of defense for his position and takes a dishonorable way out.
Every reply from #2 on was either comprised of ridicule or personal attack. One thing is for sure, honest Evos are few and faaaarrrrr betweeen.
You show your total ignorance on geology and just facts in general. The river's elevation is about 2000 ft while the South Rim is at 7000 feet, almost a mile higher. It is known that the area of the canyon is or has been rising (didn't have time to find out which). The massive amounts of debris that used to go through the canyon every spring (before man built dams) would carve the the canyon as the land rose.
A smaller example is evident where I live. I live east of SF bay about 10 miles inland. The land is about 350 ft in altitude, while at the Bay it is about sea level. In between are a range of hills about 1000 feet high, formed between the Calavaras and Hayward faults. There is a creek, Alameda Creek, that drains the whole area where I live into the Bay. How did it get over the hills? The easiest and most sensible explanation was that the creek existed when the land was relatively flat. The paralell faults have squeezed the land between them to produce the hills. In Niles Canyon, where the creek flows, the hills are hundreds of feet high with almost vertical sides. You drive through it next to the creek. How else could the creek have gotten over the hills? Using GPS stations, they have shown that the land is rising. Day by day, the canyon is getting imperceptably deeper, based on the hills rising and the creek eroding.
This is happening on a much larger scale at the Grand Canyon.
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.