Posted on 11/18/2012 6:18:07 AM PST by GonzoII
Not "technically": if he believed it, then it wasn't a lie, period.
Further, regardless of how we look at it, there is still great Truth in his words.
But why do you wish to argue over the mere technicality of what, precisely, does "at the beginning" mean, when that is irrelevant to Christ's clear point here, which is:
I've found no place in the Bible, outside of Paul's unique exegeses, which expressly says: "no death before Adam".
Sure, Genesis makes no mention of death before Adam, but why would anyone suppose plants and animals did not then live & die, just as they do today?
More to the point: why would anyone suppose that God is especially concerned about the natural lives & deaths of non-soul bearing individuals?
CofA: "...what about the evolutionary timetable?
It says man evolved over millions of years and is a recent arrival."
According to science, male and female have been present from the beginning of DNA based life on earth, some two billion years ago.
At no point does the Bible contradict "male and female" from the beginning.
Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations.
On those points, at least, there is good agreement between Bible and science.
CofA: "This is one of the inherent dangers of theistic evolution.
It waters down the truth of the Bible and plants ideas that Jesus Christ is something less than omnipotent God and co-Creator in the flesh. "
First, that's a curious argument, since the Bible nowhere directly says that Jesus is "omnipotent God and co-Creator in the flesh."
All that kind of language came later, was first codified in law at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.
Second, I don't know of a way to protect ancient biblical understandings from modern perspectives, except by remaining focused on those higher truths which every biblical episode -- however historically accurate it might or might not be -- points to.
Third, and bottom line for this whole discussion is: you are absolutely entitled to believe whatsoever you wish about the Bible versus science, so long as you don't claim that your religion is scientific, or that science is just another religion.
Neither is truthful.
CofA: "Are we really going to descend into silliness like this?
Really? I just had a thought...what if I'm really a washing machine?"
Of course we are washing "machines"!
We wash dishes, clothes, ourselves and anything else within our responsibilities.
Yes, we are only talking definitions of words here -- those we use every day, those in the Bible and those of science.
Of course, if you wish to use words to make war between your religion and science, that's your choice.
I'm only trying to demonstrate how such wars are unnecessary.
;-)
Agree with the first, but not the second.
At its best our religion, more than any other idea or belief, expresses the best that we are, and hope for.
It is a powerful motivator, protector, prioritizer and "users' manual" for the human soul.
In good times it guides toward a full life, in terrible times it comforts our afflictions.
Indeed, most people easily recognize that the very best among us are those who do not leave their religion in church, but take their faith whereever they go.
Happy Thanksgiving, FRiend!
>> “Science is about physical matters and facts” <<
.
Yes, but evolution and global warming are in no way related to science. They are religion, and politics masquerading as science for the less aware.
Organic chemicals require organs to create them. Organs require a creator to design and then create them (intelligence)
I only believe in one truth: That which exists. I don’t believe in a higher level truth or a material world and a spiritual world. There is only one existence. Science is the study of that which exists. So when you say to me there is no such thing as scientific truth I say what in the world do you think a fact is? Science deals with objective reality. What other means does man have of learning about reality other than observation?
I can totally understand your seeing a dichotomy between facts and truth since you are a subjectivist. I can also understand you not wanting me to get caught up in definitions since you are a subjectivist. The fact that you put the word truth in quotation marks is very telling and proves that you are a subjectivist. All truth is an objective absolute. There is no difference between the fact that 2 and 2 equals 4 and other “higher truths” whatever that means.
That simply is not true. Organic simply means compounds whose molecules contain carbon. They can be produced in many ways other than by organs or organisms.
I do not, in any way, want to assert that there is no divine Creator or that carbon and its compounds are not products of creation. I just don't want your argument to be made ineffective because of a simple mistake.
Peace be with you.
To imply that the chemicals of life were available on Earth to enable evolution is simply false.
>> “I don’t believe in a higher level truth or a material world and a spiritual world” <<
.
While I agree that all truth is an objective absolute, that there is a spirit world that is not visible is one of those objective absolutes to all those that are fully aware of all things. Those that are unaware are truncated from reality.
This is what the evolutionists would have us believe and would like for us to talk because, if that is true, it is only a small step to believe that there is no God and we all just evolved from single cell bacteria.
In its original intent, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of the species, apart from God being the Creator. But, in recent years, as the theory of evolution has been progressively disproven, evolutionists have begun to describe adaptation as evolution. The two are different! God's creation adapts to changes because it was designed that way. But to call that evolution, and then conclude that creation's ability to adapt proves that we all evolved from a single cell, without God, is how they would like to shape the discourse, but that argument is totally without objective, scientific validity.
Evolution, adaption and change/innovation are all different. Don't be victim to the evolutionists' rhetoric and attempts to blur the differences.
By what means are those “who are fully aware of all things” aware of this supernatural world and how do they validate that knowledge?
To be fully aware of all things is to be omniscient. Who are these omniscient beings you are speaking of?
I suggest you think again sir. Since the supernatural world can not be seen as you say or measured as I would add, then any knowledge about it would have to be taken on faith. To accept any knowledge on the basis of faith destroys the concept of certainty and therefore the concept of an objective reality. So that would make truth subjective. If truth is subjective then there is no truth.
Let me suggest a couple of additional ways we see the evidence of God:
1) Eclipses: Our solar and lunar eclipses are truly unique in the universe and suggest a special creation. The angularity between the sun, earth and moon (e.g., the size and distance relationships) means that the moon almost exactly covers the sun during a solar eclipse and the earth almost exactly covers the moon during a lunar eclipse.
2) Factors allowing life on earth: The improbability of the factors that allow life to exist on earth occurring anywhere else in the universe is astronomical, also suggesting a special creation.
There are numerous others, but these, to me, are quite remarkable.
I think you're right about global warming, but wrong about evolution.
Modern science has come a long way since the dark ages when scientists like Galileo and Copernicus were mistreated (to put it mildly) by the church.
Recommended reading: "Origin of the Species" by Darwin and "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones.
Both books end with the words ... "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one, and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
I think going with Darwin is going with God.
"I've found no place in the Bible, outside of Paul's unique exegeses, which expressly says: "no death before Adam".
"Sure, Genesis makes no mention of death before Adam, but why would anyone suppose plants and animals did not then live & die, just as they do today?"
I would suggest you look up the word "beginning" to get its definition.
"More to the point: why would anyone suppose that God is especially concerned about the natural lives & deaths of non-soul bearing individuals?"
Joe. :( Is that the view you have of God---really? I say this sincerely: it saddens me.
Scripture has quite a few examples of His love and caring for the animals He created, and admonitions on treating them well. Of course He loves his little creatures, His creations; when He was done with them, He looked at them and pronounced them good.
"According to science, male and female have been present from the beginning of DNA based life on earth, some two billion years ago. At no point does the Bible contradict "male and female" from the beginning."
Now, now. Don't be so deliberately obtuse.
" Nor does the Bible contradict the findings of science that mankind, in our present form, is the most recent of God's creations".
Of course it does. The two are completely contradictory, as has been illustrated repeatedly.
Just curious. Is this what you usually do? Once the discussion gets to a certain point, you put your hands over your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you missed everything that was said, LOL?
"Second, I don't know of a way to protect ancient biblical understandings from modern perspectives, except by remaining focused on those higher truths which every biblical episode -- however historically accurate it might or might not be -- points to."
Mm-hmm. I'd say that's a big part of your problem.
"Third, and bottom line for this whole discussion is: you are absolutely entitled to believe whatsoever you wish about the Bible versus science,"
That's big of you.
"so long as you don't claim that your religion is scientific, or that science is just another religion. Neither is truthful."
Well, listen up, Joe. It's like this: science IS a religion to some of the atheistic scientists who believe in nothing else, and who have to make evolution "fit" somehow. The truth of Jesus Christ is not a "science", but He did create the principles we recognize as "science.",along with the heavens, the earth, and everything else. He is the Lord of creation, the Son of God, and our Holy Redeemer. He is God in flesh, and His Scriptures, which are God-breathed, are infallible and inerrant. He has given us freedom to believe or not believe, as we wish, but when we try to twist and shoehorn His word to fit into other dogma, we make a grave mistake. You can trust the authority of Scripture. Everything else is a product of our weak, limited human minds----and yes, I know there are some folks who absolutely hate to think of themselves that way. We are chock full of towering intellects who never hesitate to remind us of it. ;)
"Of course, if you wish to use words to make war between your religion and science, that's your choice. I'm only trying to demonstrate how such wars are unnecessary."
Too late. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity; theistic evolution is nonsense. :)
Enough for me.....I'm going to have HTML nightmares.
Evolution is nothing!
There is not a single shred of evidence to support evolution. All of the geological and fossil evidence is strongly in support of the Genesis judgment, and the 6000 year old Earth.
Just go through all of their propaganda, Cromagnon man, Nebraska man, Lucy, etc. Its all fragments of bones, or teeth of animals mistakenly identified as men.
God’s word states specifically in over 100 places that evolution didn’t happen.
Evolution is going with humanism and creature worship.
Science has completely demolished the fairy tale of evolution, but the MSM won’t let it die.
>> “I’m going to have HTML nightmares.” <<
.
There is an easier way.
Type it all in plain text, then hit “spell,” then “apply” and all the lines you typed will be setup in html spacing, then all you have to do is add in the HTML tags for italic or bold, etc. then hit “preview” to check it.
Being fully aware fo both worlds is not in any way being omniscient.
You’re just full of meaningless jabber!
You need not see the spirits; they do affect you constantly. They can destroy your health in less than an hour, and one that is fully aware spiritually can order them away and your health will be restored immediately.
You can open your self to the Holy Spirit, and he puts thoughts in your mind to guide you constantly, and puts signs up to show you that he is there when you least expect it.
If you don’t want it, that’s OK, it just might not be for you. Not everyone can appreciate, or even enjoy eternal life; it’s just for the few, his elect.
I am not full of meaningless jabber sir. I gave you sound logic which you have answered with meaningless jabber.
I am aware of one world which consists of matter and consciousness. There is no justification for separating the two. There is no justification whatsoever for believing that I am affected by invisible spirits. I don’t want anyone putting thoughts into my head. I am the most spiritual person you will likely meet in that I take the spiritual part of me, my consciousness, extremely seriously.
So you are an atheist?
Why not just say so?
albionin: "Science is the study of that which exists.
So when you say to me there is no such thing as scientific truth I say what in the world do you think a fact is?
Science deals with objective reality.
What other means does man have of learning about reality other than observation?"
You're missing the point here.
Sure, informally you can use the word "truth" all day long, like a witness in court who promises to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Those words simply mean the witness will say what he knows to be facts.
But in formal scientific terms, there are no "scientific truths".
Instead, there are facts, laws, hypotheses and theories, any of which you may consider, in your own opinion, to be "the truth", but science itself makes no such claim.
albionin: "I can totally understand your seeing a dichotomy between facts and truth since you are a subjectivist... you are a subjectivist... you are a subjectivist. "
No matter how often you repeat your charge, it's still not true, nor is there evidence here to support such a false claim.
Instead: objectively confirmed facts are facts, and your intense desire to call them "the truth" is understandable, it's just not normal scientific usage.
If I understand correctly, you claim there is only one existence, the natural or material world, with no "spiritual world" or "higher truth" beyond that, right?
And you have evidence to prove this?
I think not, rather you've rejected a higher spiritual world as a matter of assumption -- essentially, what you've done is take the methodological naturalism assumption of working scientists, and expanded it into the philosophical naturalism of the atheists' religion.
Was that too much for one sentence?
I'll try again: Christians can be scientists so long as they understand that the basic scientific assumption of methodological naturalism is necessary for their work.
But if they make the intellectual leap from methodological to philosophical naturalism -- which denies the possible existence of a spiritual realm above or beyond the natural world -- then they are no longer Christians, or even deists.
Finally, there is no law anywhere which says that belief in God makes one a subjectivist.
So your intense desire to make that accusation probably says more about you than it does me.
Thank you for that tip! It might save my sanity at some point in the future. :)
Happy Thanksgiving to you.
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.