Posted on 12/04/2009 8:07:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In May 2009, a remarkably well-preserved extinct primate, nicknamed “Ida,” was hailed as one of the most important fossil finds ever. It had features that some interpreted as a link between two primate body forms. At the time, ICR News suggested that its evolutionary significance was far overblown, predicting that the scientific consensus would offer retractions. Those retractions came three months later, confirming that the fossil―called Darwinius―was really just an extinct lemur variety...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
You best lay of the sacrament wine... or in your case.. WHINE...
If you're simply here to tell me what's wrong with my religious beliefs, then I'm here to tell you what's wrong with yours. Fair enough?
Since it was obviously ignored, I’ll repost the following, and state again, that if folsk deny the word is the direct word of God spoken through men led by the Holy spirit of God as insdtructed by God, and to clai mthe bioble is just a good book written by fallible man, is to call God a liar, and htose who wrote the bible via inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit all liars as well- there’s no other way to ‘interpret’ this and the statements they made about the whole word of God being written by God through man. The bible wasn’t a ‘collection of thoughts of man about God- but the very word of God Himself and the Very Word of God recountign historical events, not imaginary ‘good metaphors meant to instruct but not to be taken literally’ excpet when it’s clear that the authors speakign for God or Christ Hismelf speaking were talking about metaphors and analogies pertinent to the lessons. The far left has tried to turn literal historical facts written by God to us in His word into mythical metaphors- calling into question every major historical fact of God’s word from creation to the life, death and ressurection of Christ- even calling htose who witnessed these events, and testified to these events, liars and storytellers of great imaginations’ and as such, one can not both beleive in God, and at the same time, doubt the very words of God (DESPITE the FACT that God said many times His word was written by Him through man). Again, fence straddling simply shows insecurity and noncommital in either direction
“To deny or question that the Bible writers spoke from God is to deny and reject the truthfulness of their own statements about themselves, their statements about one another, and Jesus’ statements about Scriptures.”
[[If you’re simply here to tell me what’s wrong with my religious beliefs, then I’m here to tell you what’s wrong with yours.]]
OK- why don’t you begin telling me what’s wrong with mine then? Because so far- you’ve offered no coherent argument i nthat direction- prove to us all why God’s word can’t be trusted as His very word- show the evidence- show how thew word of God is suppsoedly so riddled with holes and errors that it can’t possibly be hte word of God (Warning- I’ve got a site bookmarked that lays to rest al l the silly claims, and false allegations of errancy of the bible skeptics- all the suppsoed popular ‘errors’ as put forth by skeptics, which supposedly call into question the innerancy of God’s word, aren’t infact errors. And just know that the ‘argument’ that ‘we can’t rightly know what is metaphor and what isn’t in the bible, therefore we can’t know what is mere legend and what isn’t’ has been refuted too-
“Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as “the absolute Word of God” (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that’s another issue) without reference to genre considerations.”
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
go.
“...spirit of God as insdtructed by God, and to clai mthe bioble is just a good book written by fallible man...”
What the hell are you trying to say? You’re “obviously ignored” because you “obviously ignore” the built-in spell checker!
You mistake the words of the scripture for the ideas they represent, and you mistake walking around with a pie-hole full of stinkbait looking to start a fight about it for evangelism.
To which Paine do you refer?
The Paine of 1776, who wrote passionately for colonial independence and liberty, and who eloquently buttressed his arguments with Scripture?
The Paine of 1793 whose Age Of Reason was nothing more than a merciless attack on that same Bible he had exalted in Common Sense?
What did Paine hope to conserve? Surely not his reputation, as he discovered when he returned to America from France to the universal condemnation by the same people who he had so inspired twenty years earlier as to be thought one of the prime movers of American Independence. In 1776 it can hardly be thought that Paine represented any great diversity of thought in the Americans. To the contrary he was a quintessential unifying American voice of the Revolution. It was his finest hour, and one he would never repeat.
Today, when we contemplate Common Sense, we admire how wonderfully Paine summed up the American Spirit of ‘76, and we forget how bitterly he subsequently betrayed that same Spirit. But the Americans of the Revolution never forgot, and never forgave.
What happened to bring about such a contrast between 1776 and 1793? In the final analysis, as many of his critics claimed, were Paine’s splendidly inspiring words of ’76 simply the empty rhetoric of a polemicist whose objectives had changed from unseating a tyrannical king to that of unseating corrupt bishops? Sadly, it seems likely the case.
The Thomas Paine of 1789.
That's it? Full stop? No relevance to the revolutionary act of 1776 and the religious spirit central to that time?
If that's all there is, what motive even impelled you to raise the issue with Cott?
You wanted to pin it down to the man at a point in time. I choose that point in time as the signing of the Constitution. What more relevant point in time than that, and why?
[[You mistake the words of the scripture for the ideas they represent, and you mistake walking around with a pie-hole full of stinkbait looking to start a fight about it for evangelism.]]
LOL- thatys’ your ‘argument?’ Wow! ‘piehole full of stinkbait’- Brilliant- ‘looking for a fight’? Nope sorry- just givign out some facts- but do keep one foot in each camp and complaining about peopel callign you out when you make claims that don’t mesh with scripture-
is that right natural law- ooops- I mean Buck- oops, I mean natural law- which personality are you tonight? & by the way- if you diodn’t understand my posts- then i dunno what to tell you- they were plenty clear neough for most peopel to get straight off- not goign to hold your hand explaining what shoudkl be obvious- BTW- making fun of people’s spelling usually stops around the 6’th grade- but I see you’re clinging to it liek it’s a badge of honor to hurl playground insults- whatever- buck- er natural law- er buck
“You mistake the words of the scripture for the ideas they represent, and you mistake walking around with a pie-hole full of stinkbait looking to start a fight about it for evangelism. “
That is the most succinct and dead-on accurate description that I have ever read of the FR creaion rationalizers. You know, it could even be a tag line...
That's not an argument, that's my assesment of what's wrong with your religion. You asked me for it, and I provided it.
This started over an an easily disproven generalization. Let's not compound it with another one.
“This started over an an easily disproven generalization. Let’s not compound it with another one.”
Fair enough in reference to creationists as a whole, but still quite applicable to FR’s core group without the need for generalization.
Be happy in your ignorance.
you didn’t assess anyhting- al lyou did was point ot scriptures that refute your claims, and falsely claim that they couldn;’t mean what they say because in your mind, they must refer to soem different intent than what the context claims- I asked you to begin tearing apart the bible, showing us why it can’t be trusted, and that’s all you’ve got? Infact TL- you once again falsely mistate me by claiming I am such a literalist that I can’t determien between words and intent when I’ve stated that it is you folks who take htigns out of context in order to change the itnent of the context- you and folks liek Buck W (who apparently htinks you’re brilliant for hypocritically accusing me of soemthign you folks indulge in all the time, as pointed out by the FACT that I listed a number of verses that show that the word of God is God inspired through man) and you turn around and claim I ‘don’t understand content and intent’? Cripes- Do you simply not see the hypocrisy in your claims?
Tell me TL- what is the ‘intent’ and ‘ideas’ that the following verses mean- let’s get htis out o nthe table so that peopel like Buck aren’t confused any longer abotu your position and the truth of hte matter- pelase explain to us all why God’s word isn’t infact God’s word through man, and why the bible is only a collection of ‘good suggestions’ by fallible man after reading God’s own words on His own Book:
Notice the subject as outlined for us in Revelation 19:9 - “These are true words of God.” [LINK]
A. Old Testament Writers Claimed Their Message Was from God
Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
Jonah 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Jonah.
Micah 1:1 - The word of the Lord that came to Micah.
Zech. 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Zechariah.
[See also Joel 1:2; Amos 1:3,6, etc; Obad. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Hab. 2:2; Deuteronomy 30:9,10; Numbers 12:6-8; 23:5,12,16,19; plus see references in other sections.]
B. New Testament Writers Claimed Their Message Was from God
1 Corinthians 14:37 - The things I write are commands of Lord.
Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been revealed by the Spirit to apostles & prophets.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.
1 Timothy 4:1 - The Spirit expressly says.
[2 Thessalonians 3:12; John 12:48-50; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5]
C. Inspired Men Claimed that What Other Writers Wrote Was from God.
Matthew 1:22 - A quotation was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.
Matthew 2:15 - Another passage was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.
Acts 1:16 - The Spirit spoke by the mouth of David.
Acts 28:25 - The Holy Spirit spoke by Isaiah ... prophet.
Hebrews 1:1,2 - God spoke in times past to the fathers by prophets. But now He has spoken to us by His Son.
Matthew 15:4 - Jesus Himself confirmed that Scriptures were from God. He quoted the Law revealed through Moses and said it was what God commanded.
Matthew 22:29-32 - He said the Scriptures were spoken by God.
Luke 10:16 - He also confirmed the inspiration of the New Testament for He told the apostles who wrote it: He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me and rejects Him who sent Me
John 16:13 - He promised the men who penned the New Testament that the Spirit would guide them into all truth
To deny or question that the Bible writers spoke from God is to deny and reject the truthfulness of their own statements about themselves, their statements about one another, and Jesus’ statements about Scriptures.
[Matthew 19:4-6; John 10:35; 2 Chronicles 34:14-19; Isaiah 2:1-3; Matthew 22:43; Romans 1:1,2; Hebrews 3:7; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20f; 3:15f; Acts 4:24f]
When you can show that God and htose whom God spoke through were not infact speaking for God, then you can claim I ‘don’t understand the ideas behind the the words of scriptures’ as you falsely claim. It seems that perhaps I don’t understand you particular twistings of meanings and intents in order to support positions you take that are inconsistant with hte scriptures themselves, but hte actual scriptures themselves are quite easy enough to understand
After you’re done with that- explain to us all how evolution could have happened when God said several times in His word that spirit death did NOT occure before the fall of man? Tell us how species managed to live for millions of years while they were evolving, until one day man sinned, and spirit death began? And tell us how it is that God didn’t infact breath life into the nostrils of man after stating that htat is exactly what He did? The ONLY way you can claim any of htis is by refusing to cede that the bible is the word of God, as proclaimed by God Himself, and by those whom God spoke through time and time again, and doing so, you accuse al lthose folks, and God Hismelf, of lying- but try to justify your accusations by saying that I ‘don’t udnerstand ideas behind the words of scripture’? Wow! Just Wow!
Is my not holding the same religious beliefs as you interfering with your free exercise of religion in any way?
[[This started over an an easily disproven generalization.]]
Stil lwaitign for your ‘slapdown’ to begin TL- So far, all you’ve managed to do is say “You simply don’t understand scriptures’, yet you’ve offered absolutely no defense for your claims that scriptures can’t really be trusted because 1: they were nothign but the words of man’ 2: There are many ways to interpret scriptures’
Easily disporven? Mmmmm Hmmmm - stil lawaiting the brilliant ‘slapdown’- guess I’ll be wating for quite sometime- Guess al lI’m goign to get is ‘you simply don’t understand scriptures’- ouchie! you big bully- have ya gotta be so rough? lol Let’s see why God’s word isn’t infact His word- Let’s see why nothign in God’s word can be taken literally, and let’s see the evidence that shows the key concepts in God’s message are nothign more than local cultural myths weaved into a ‘good book’- after all, isn’t that what you beleive i nthe end?
I understand scriptues just fine- it seems that you aren’t even willign to accept them as the Scriptures of God, and you’re acusing me of not undersytanding scriptures? lol- whatever- again- you appear to want the approval from the two camps- the beleiver’s camp, and the atheist’s camp- you can’t serve two masters- choose which it will be- at least have the strength of character to commit to one or the other camp (I can assure you that you won’t be dissappointed if you ever commit to God’s camp- He’ll enlighten you to the truths of His word, if you’ll only allow Him to instead of continually insisting, without expoeriential knowledge I mgiht add, that the bible isn’t His word- He’ll show you Hismelf that it infact is, if you’ll simpyl invite Him to)
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.