Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[bernee51]

The term I have heard used most often is progressive revelation. Some things that God planned on revealing to man later were first hinted at in the beginning. Then as time passed he would reveal more and more until the whole plan was unfolded. Salvation has always been by faith but the means of how God would justify us by faith was revealed slowly. The verse I showed from Genesis is a hint at the conflict between Jesus Christ and Satan. You believe that the next writer to the Bible would just add things as he saw fit. So if all these hints in earlier texts later get revealed how could the original author count on anyone making sense of his prophecies? Or was he willing to risk looking like a fool?

Imagine I am the later writer. I read what the earlier one has written. I think to myself...what would fit with what the earlier one has said? You claim that the Gen 1 passage you quoted is a prophecy of the Jesus/Satan conflict. I say the Jesus vs satan conflict could have been manufactured to fit the earlier passage. If the passage had been different, the later passage would also have been different. You are assuming that, because you believe the Jesus story (i.e. it is true) therefore all that came before it that 'prophecied' it must also be true.

Please do not put words in my mouth. You used the term void - not I.

I'm just saying that the word I used fit.

It may fit for you but it does not fit for me...at least not in the sense that you seem to be using it. What I said was that mankind had a sense of the divine.

And where have I said I believe it to be arbitrary?

I assumed you believed it's from a natural cause instead of divine.

Natural causes are not necessarily arbitarary.

Sure, they are all theories of man that are 90% speculation.

What I opined was not speculation. The development of consciousness throught the various stages I mentioned his hard scientific knowledge. Ever heard of Piaget? The same can be said of the stages of cultural evolution - archeology and history prove that point. Religious or spiritual can be traced throught the stages I mentioned by studying the history of the very many 'sacred scriptures', the bible included.

The religions (and spirituality) of today have evolved from earlier beliefs. That is not speculation, it is fact. And they are continuing to do so.

Not to go down a rabbit trail, but the theory of molecules to man evolution was not developed out of real evidence it was developed out of necessity to justify atheistic philosophies.

Can you provide some evidence to support that opinion. To do so would require an understanding of both the theory of evolution and atheism.

You have demonstrated already that you do not undestand the latter. Attributing 'philosophies' to atheism is nonsensical. Atheism is simply a disbelief in god(s). There is no atheist philosophy.

So I guess you assertion above must be wrong. No need to provide evidence, there isn't any.

Aside from my own personal revelation which confirms it, it makes sense where others don't.

Personal revelation is not evidence. And because it makes sense to you does not mean it is a fact.

In some ways yes and others no. My core foundational belief is secure, which I'm not sure if you would make the same statement.

Like you my core belief is 'secure'. Just as I guess you would claim to know 'in you heart' that what you believe is 'true' - I can make the same claim.

What may change are smaller aspects of that and my ability to conform to God's destiny for me.

What changes for me is a deeper and deeper realization of the nature of the Self

I mean number two. You believe there is {no}divine creator and no afterlife and therefore no risk in what you believe during this life. I believe that is faith on your part sense that can not be proven.

I thik you left out a word...

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

There is no logical proof of the existence of the biblical god and no material evidence. My disbelief does not rest on faith it rests on logic and on the lack of evidence. No faith involved.

So you're closed minded to the possibility that Christianity could be true, yet you come here and insist Christians justify their beliefs to you?

I am closed minded about the 'truth' of ANY religion - so don't take it personally. I do not (cannot) insist that you or anybody else justify your beliefs - I merely ask? You can choose to respond or not. SO far you have chosen to. For this I am appreciative and I thank you.

As to why? I have an interest in mysticism. Christianity has a rich history in that regard - one that seems to have been discarded in the 'dumbed down' version of the religion that is the fundamentalist or evangelical christianity that is pervading society. But I'll save that for another thread.

Creationist do a great job of pointing out the fallacies with evolution theory yet some people still object to creationism because they just can't accept it.

I have never yet met or communicated with a creationist who actually understands the theory of evolution.

if you think you are one why not give it a thrash here. Thre are plenty of threads to chose from. I'm sure you input would be welcomed.

They say "you can't win by default". What if we took a detective's approach to the issue? Sherlock Holmes said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." There's two possibilities on how our universe became, either it was created by an outside force or it came about naturally. Sense man can't prove it came naturally then they should be willing to accept the only logical explanation.

This is a logical fallacy and I'm surprised that you have actually used it. I had given you more credit.

You cannot prove that god exists, let alone created the phenomenal universe.

What makes you think God doesn't continue to have interest in his creation? His gospel message has been continued since Christ's death and his chosen nation the Jews have even been preserved throughout history. I think this shows his continued hand where he places it.

Another logical fallacy. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

The word of God, the Bible.

So you believe everything in the bible is true - without exception?

If he makes a claim, consider his justification for it. If it makes sense go with it. The only position I have been exposed to that makes sense is Christianity.

You should get out more

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
The term I have heard used most often is progressive revelation. Some things that God planned on revealing to man later were first hinted at in the beginning. Then as time passed he would reveal more and more until the whole plan was unfolded. Salvation has always been by faith but the means of how God would justify us by faith was revealed slowly. The verse I showed from Genesis is a hint at the conflict between Jesus Christ and Satan. You believe that the next writer to the Bible would just add things as he saw fit. So if all these hints in earlier texts later get revealed how could the original author count on anyone making sense of his prophecies? Or was he willing to risk looking like a fool?


Imagine I am the later writer. I read what the earlier one has written. I think to myself...what would fit with what the earlier one has said? You claim that the Gen 1 passage you quoted is a prophecy of the Jesus/Satan conflict. I say the Jesus vs satan conflict could have been manufactured to fit the earlier passage. If the passage had been different, the later passage would also have been different. You are assuming that, because you believe the Jesus story (i.e. it is true) therefore all that came before it that 'prophecied' it must also be true.

I can see how you could reason that but I don't think it really accounts for the Bible. If the early writers were just arbitrarily leaving tid bit texts for the later writers to build upon then the later writers are limited to that initial framework. Which you could argue to a certain extend that they could work around it, but ultimately it would leave all kinds of errors and mistakes in the final version of the Bible that no one could make sense of the whole book, especially when you consider the Bible had 40 writers. All the man made religions of the world do not attempt this kind of construction method, instead they are all developed by one man in order to guarantee the same message.

Sure, they are all theories of man that are 90% speculation.

What I opined was not speculation. The development of consciousness throught the various stages I mentioned is hard scientific knowledge. Ever heard of Piaget? The same can be said of the stages of cultural evolution - archeology and history prove that point. Religious or spiritual can be traced throught the stages I mentioned by studying the history of the very many 'sacred scriptures', the bible included.

Sense you believe in molecules to man evolution you are forced to correlate individual development with species development. Applying evolutionary concepts to religions is theoretical and a product of your world view not necessarily science. You are able to rationalize it to fit your model so you consider it hard evidence. I've read many articles from people who attempt to show spiritual evolution in the Bible and I haven't seen any that didn't make bad mistakes. For example one person tried to say that the original Bible writers believed in many gods using verses like Gen 35:2 when those verses are obviously just secular acknowledgements of other religions and not endorsements of their beliefs.

The religions (and spirituality) of today have evolved from earlier beliefs. That is not speculation, it is fact. And they are continuing to do so.

How it is not speculation when oral traditions can not be dated to prove the origin of the faith?

redstang281 wrote:
Not to go down a rabbit trail, but the theory of molecules to man evolution was not developed out of real evidence it was developed out of necessity to justify atheistic philosophies.

Can you provide some evidence to support that opinion. To do so would require an understanding of both the theory of evolution and atheism.

Maybe you feel that if someone doesn't believe in molecules to man evolution that they don't understand it, so in that case I'll let you read the words of someone who does believe in molecules to man evolution.

Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).

Attributing 'philosophies' to atheism is nonsensical. Atheism is simply a disbelief in god(s). There is no atheist philosophy.

Believing chance accounts for the world we have, space, and time not to mention natural laws that govern them and supporting the logical inevitabilities that follow those views is a philosophy in my mind.

redstang281 wrote:
Aside from my own personal revelation which confirms it, it makes sense where others don't.

Personal revelation is not evidence.

It is to me.

And because it makes sense to you does not mean it is a fact.

So when we evaluate all the world has to offer in terms of answers should we go with the one that makes the least sense or the most?

There is no logical proof of the existence of the biblical god and no material evidence. My disbelief does not rest on faith it rests on logic and on the lack of evidence. No faith involved.

Proof is contingent on willingness to believe. In some ways I think an Atheist seeking God is like a crook looking for a cop.

redstang281 wrote:
Creationist do a great job of pointing out the fallacies with evolution theory yet some people still object to creationism because they just can't accept it.

I have never yet met or communicated with a creationist who actually understands the theory of evolution.

I've never understood why so many evolutionists make that claim. Everyone learns evolution, it's taught through grade school and college and is promoted by the media and society everywhere. I don't know how someone could not be familiar with it. Creation on the other hand does not get an equal share so anything the average person knows about the creation model is from what the evolutionists say about.

if you think you are one why not give it a thrash here. Thre are plenty of threads to chose from. I'm sure you input would be welcomed.

I've been debating it for years, so I kind of moved into another aspect just to take on something new.

redstang281 wrote:
They say "you can't win by default". What if we took a detective's approach to the issue? Sherlock Holmes said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." There's two possibilities on how our universe became, either it was created by an outside force or it came about naturally. Sense man can't prove it came naturally then they should be willing to accept the only logical explanation.

This is a logical fallacy and I'm surprised that you have actually used it. I had given you more credit.

You cannot prove that god exists, let alone created the phenomenal universe.

If you prove that it could not have happened naturally, how does that not prove that a super naturally origin is necessary?

So you believe everything in the bible is true - without exception?

I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God. Everything is true in it's intended application. Some things are metaphors or allegories but not things that obviously are not.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
Fundamentalism does indeed lead to totalitarianism. Proof of which can be seen in the atheist/evolutionist (as they are oneness now) movement.

And it was seen in the Taliban, in Nazi German, in the christian empires of old, in the ancient monarchies that believed they had a 'divine' right to rule.

And we would go the same way if the fundamentalism you propose was ever again allowed to hold sway.

Evolution relativism. Chaos origins, chaos destination. The world today. Even human life is now a product.

AlAyeti wrote:

Nothing is allowed in of all places, our centers of education, except, the atheist paradigm.

This is absolutely incorrect. Time to put up or shut up. Either poo or get off the potty.

1. Define the atheist paradigm.

God is a myth and any fact-based opinion is to be expunged from all education. Please refer to Bernee51 in his posts at debatingchristianty.com, or, visit any school in western societies. (Islamic countries don't count.)

2. Show that it prevents diversity in all places. All places means not just your back yard. All places means the entire planet Al.

Bernee, you have shown me (i believe) only twice, where I exeggerated. But I still present facts. Yes there are a few places on earth where Christians are free to not be denigrated for being Christians. I'm happy to nod to that fact. But there are also many places where they are murdered as well. Usually by Muslims and atheists or pedophiles.

You yourself demand that Christian missionaries be run out of India. In no uncertain terms you have demanded that. Certainly no diversity in your atheism. As is also seen in western society today. I'll take back all places. Although Islam shares your opinion on only one kind of "diversity."

AlAyeti wrote:

No dissent, no retreats, no diversity, no tolerance allowed.

Last weekend, I went to a diwali concert - my friend Yusuf would have come as well but he was at another function celebrating the end of Ramadan. Next weekend I am going to a buddhist monastry for a meditaton retreat. In a couple of weeks I am going to carols in the town square by the christmas tree.

Gee I guess you must be wrong. Again and still.

It takes time to wipe away traditions huh Bernee? Now even retailers in America are scared sh--less to say Merry christmas and in fact the term is literally being wiped away as we write. Paint can remain over rust, but the destruction is still taking place. You would have it no other way for "religions." Unless of course they line up with only your beliefs.

AlAyeti wrote:

Fundamentalism does indeed need to be fought most unceasingly.

So why do you do the exact opposite?

I oppose the hatred meted out to Christians nothing more nothing less. I enjoy the reactions of egotists to the charges I level against their lies about "dviersity." It also helps Christians know they are not lambs alone.

AlAyeti wrote:

Starting with the view that Darwin was absolutely right.

He wasn't. Who believes he was?

No rhetoric - names and dates would be helpful.

Richard Dawkins. Infidels.org. The education system. The ACLU. That would be today's date 11-25-2005.

You can even put Hindu, Hebrew or Islamic dates if it makes you feel better. I know how you feel about the Christian dating sytem.

Butler Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of any evolutionary theory which indicated that man descended from lower orders of animals in public schools.

The law, "AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof" (Tenn. HB 185, 1925) specifically provided:

"That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."[1]

By the terms of the statute, it could be argued, it was not illegal to teach that apes descended from protozoa, to teach the mechanisms of variation and natural selection, or to teach the prevailing scientific theories of geology or the age of the Earth. It did not even require that the Genesis story be taught. It prohibited only the teaching that man had descended from a lower order of animals, or any other theory denying that Man was created by God as reported in Genesis. However the author of the law, a Tennessee farmer named John Washington Butler, specifically intended that it would prohibit the teaching of evolution. He later was reported to have said, "No, I didn't know anything about evolution when I introduced it. I'd read in the papers that boys and girls were coming home from school and telling their fathers and mother that the Bible was all nonsense." After reading copies of William Jennings Bryan's lecture "Is the Bible True?" as well as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man, Butler decided evolution was dangerous.

///

On July 21, 1925, after Judge Raulston adjourns the Scopes trial for the last time, John Butler writes a final dispatch in his role as correspondent. “I am not afraid of investigation,” the legislator pens, adopting the words of defense attorney Malone. “The Truth is mighty and will prevail.” The evolution debate, Butler declares, is “the controversy of the age” and the “Dayton trial is the beginning of a great battle between infidelity and Christianity.”[/quote]

[bernee51]

I can see how you could reason that but I don't think it really accounts for the Bible.

Your opinion is noted. Obviously mine differs.

If the early writers were just arbitrarily leaving tid bit texts for the later writers to build upon then the later writers are limited to that initial framework. Which you could argue to a certain extend that they could work around it, but ultimately it would leave all kinds of errors and mistakes in the final version of the Bible that no one could make sense of the whole book, especially when you consider the Bible had 40 writers.

The bible has errors and mistakes...usually rationalized away by hermeneutics. If it was 'inspired by god' interpretations to cover up inconsistencies would not be needed.

All the man made religions of the world do not attempt this kind of construction method, instead they are all developed by one man in order to guarantee the same message.

The Vedas were written by many over many years. I guess that Vedanta musn't be a man-made rphilosophy either.

Sense you believe in molecules to man evolution you are forced to correlate individual development with species development. Applying evolutionary concepts to religions is theoretical and a product of your world view not necessarily science. You are able to rationalize it to fit your model so you consider it hard evidence. I've read many articles from people who attempt to show spiritual evolution in the Bible and I haven't seen any that didn't make bad mistakes. For example one person tried to say that the original Bible writers believed in many gods using verses like Gen 35:2 when those verses are obviously just secular acknowledgements of other religions and not endorsements of their beliefs.

Reading only within the bible does not give a full picture of the evolutionary nature of belief. The bible is only a very small, albeit important, document in the cornucopia of 'sacred scriptures'. As I said archeology and history have shown animist beliefs - usually amonsgst hunter/gather societies. With the coming of horticulture the main deities were power gods, often female, who required sacrifices, often virile young men, in order to ensure the next crop. As the society became agricultural the gods changed to the masculine/mythic. The god of the bible, based as it is on the Zorasterian god Athura Mazda, is the product of the rise of an agricultural society.

This is not theory - it is fact that is there for any to research.

Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).

Special creation is not only unthinkable it is illogical and unprovable.

Believing chance accounts for the world we have, space, and time not to mention natural laws that govern them and supporting the logical inevitabilities that follow those views is a philosophy in my mind.

It may very well be - but it is not atheism.

It is to me.

Fine. But only to you.

I'll reword - it is not objective evidence.

So when we evaluate all the world has to offer in terms of answers should we go with the one that makes the least sense or the most?

Personally i go with the rational and the logical.

There is no logical proof of the existence of the biblical god and no material evidence. My disbelief does not rest on faith it rests on logic and on the lack of evidence. No faith involved.

Proof is contingent on willingness to believe. In some ways I think an Atheist seeking God is like a crook looking for a cop.

Proof is contingent on evidence. A willingness to believe is a contaminant - it leads to wishful thinking ruling over logic.

This is a logical fallacy and I'm surprised that you have actually used it. I had given you more credit.

You cannot prove that god exists, let alone created the phenomenal universe.

If you prove that it could not have happened naturally, how does that not prove that a super naturally origin is necessary?

So, go ahead, prove that it could not have happened naturally.

So you believe everything in the bible is true - without exception?

I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God. Everything is true in it's intended application. Some things are metaphors or allegories but not things that obviously are not.

And deciding which is which...hermeneutics (with a dose of wishful thinking)

[bernee51]

AlAyeti wrote:
Fundamentalism does indeed lead to totalitarianism. Proof of which can be seen in the atheist/evolutionist (as they are oneness now) movement.

And it was seen in the Taliban, in Nazi German, in the christian empires of old, in the ancient monarchies that believed they had a 'divine' right to rule.

And we would go the same way if the fundamentalism you propose was ever again allowed to hold sway.

Evolution relativism. Chaos origins, chaos destination. The world today. Even human life is now a product.

your babbling again.

1. Define the atheist paradigm.

God is a myth...

Well done..at last you are coming to understand what atheism is.

But there are also many places where they are murdered as well. Usually by Muslims and atheists or pedophiles.

I would guess that most of the christians who are murdered in the USofA are murdered by christians. Poor Al proven wrong - yet agian.

You yourself demand that Christian missionaries be run out of India.

Show me where I demanded they be run out of India. I did not. That is a lie. You are bearing false witness. That make's the baby Jesus cry and puts you at risk of eternal damnation. Repent.

In fact I acknowledged the good work many christians do. I also pointed out some of the doen side of prosletizing.

Certainly no diversity in your atheism.

I have demonsatrated otherwise. Another lie. They are mounting up. Repent.

I oppose the hatred meted out to Christians nothing more nothing less.

Would that include be the hatred some christians mete out to their fellow christians?

[Cathar1950]

bernee51 wrote:

Show me where I demanded they be run out of India. I did not. That is a lie. You are bearing false witness. That make's the baby Jesus cry and puts you at risk of eternal damnation. Repent.

That is way to funny.

Would that include be the hatred some christians mete out to their fellow christians?

I see a lot of that.
AlAyeti wrote:

But there are also many places where they are murdered as well. Usually by Muslims and atheists or pedophiles.

Now even retailers in America are scared sh--less to say Merry christmas and in fact the term is literally being wiped away as we write.

I didn't know pedophiles were joining the Muslims and Atheist.
Except for a few nuts most pedophiles like to remain hidden and don't usually join groups as open pedophiles. Some laws or something and social pressure usually keeps them in check. Why would you lump these 3 together? That is so gay. I do not mean the Homo sexual kind either.

Most retailer are just afraid of sales loss.

We have a nativity scene in town
and it plays Christmas carols If some one did complain and wanted it to be removed they most would shake their heads and then put it in front of a church. Most of the two atheist I know say merry Xmas to me.

[redstang281]

The bible has errors and mistakes...usually rationalized away by hermeneutics. If it was 'inspired by god' interpretations to cover up inconsistencies would not be needed.

Not really, God gives people an escape to hide in if they choose to. Our english Bible is interpretated from the much more explicit hebrew and greek. So context is the key to interpretation. Skeptics prefer word X to mean whatever fits their agenda. Christians goal is to use context to find the meaning of word X even if that causes ones theology to be reconsidered. That's happened to me before.

redstang281 wrote:
All the man made religions of the world do not attempt this kind of construction method, instead they are all developed by one man in order
to guarantee the same message.

The Vedas were written by many over many years. I guess that Vedanta
musn't be a man-made philosophy either.

How many people wrote the Vedas scriptures and what is the proven length of time from start to finish? Do the Vedas scriptures flow like one smooth book or are there theological conflicts?

redstang281 wrote:
Sense you believe in molecules to man evolution you are forced to
correlate individual development with species development. Applying
evolutionary concepts to religions is theoretical and a product of your world view not necessarily science. You are able to rationalize it to fit your model so you consider it hard evidence. I've read many articles from people who attempt to show spiritual evolution in the Bible and I haven't seen any that didn't make bad mistakes. For example one person tried to say that the original Bible writers believed in many gods using verses like Gen 35:2 when those verses are obviously just secular acknowledgements of other religions and not endorsements of their beliefs.

Reading only within the bible does not give a full picture of the evolutionary nature of belief. The bible is only a very small, albeit important, document in the cornucopia of 'sacred scriptures'. As I said
archeology and history have shown animist beliefs - usually amonsgst
hunter/gather societies. With the coming of horticulture the main deities were power gods, often female, who required sacrifices, often virile young men, in order to ensure the next crop. As the society became agricultural the gods changed to the masculine/mythic.

Were you there to witness this? This is just the opinions of atheist who first decided God was a man made concept then they had to come up with a model to support their view.

The god of the bible, based as it is on the Zorasterian god Athura Mazda, is the product of the rise of an agricultural society.

Wrong, Zoroastrian writings were even after the New Testament was finished. "The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. .... The Avesta was composed orally, and learned from memory for centuries until it was finally written down in Sassanian Times (during the era of the second Persian Empire, from 224 until 651)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

redstang281 wrote:
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).

Special creation is not only unthinkable it is illogical and unprovable.

That's because it's a miracle and mankind can not perform miracles only God can. Mankind often has trouble believing things that we can not do ourselves.

redstang281 wrote:
So when we evaluate all the world has to offer in terms of answers should we go with the one that makes the least sense or the most? Personally i go with the rational and the logical.

Me too. But there are limits to man's logic somethings our beyond us and require faith.

redstang281 wrote:
There is no logical proof of the existence of the biblical god and no material evidence. My disbelief does not rest on faith it rests on logic and on the lack of evidence. No faith involved.

Proof is contingent on willingness to believe. In some ways I think an Atheist seeking God is like a crook looking for a cop.

Proof is contingent on evidence. A willingness to believe is a contaminant - it leads to wishful thinking ruling over logic.

Everyone is subject to wishful thinking especially evolutionists.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

If you prove that it could not have happened naturally, how does that not prove that a super naturally origin is necessary?

So, go ahead, prove that it could not have happened naturally.

My proof is that scientists are unable to prove abiogenesis. It's an atheist theory and the burden of proof is on them. Sense it can't be proven the only logical conclusion is that life didn't arise without an outside force.

So you believe everything in the bible is true - without exception?

I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God. Everything is true in it's intended application. Some things are metaphors or allegories but not things that obviously are not.

And deciding which is which...hermeneutics (with a dose of wishful thinking)

You wrote the word dose, does that mean I'm supposed to eat a pill that's called "wishful thinking" or was dose a metaphor? Context is the key, it's common sense.

[MagusYanam]

Wrong, Zoroastrian writings were even after the New Testament was finished. "The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. .... The Avesta was composed orally, and learned from memory for centuries until it was finally written down in Sassanian Times (during the era of the second Persian Empire, from 224 until 651)."

You may want to read that article you posted again. The Zend-Avesta may have been writ down during the Sasanid Empire, but belief in Ahura Mazda was present far earlier in Iran. In fact, it's likely that when Cyrus the Great liberated Jerusalem, most Iranians were Mazdaists. And it is almost certain, even though bernee's assertions that belief in Yahweh is the direct result of imported Mazdaism is somewhat absurd, that there was a great deal of syncretism going on between the two religions. In fact, the Judaist belief in an afterlife besides Sheol is almost certainly a borrowing from Mazdaism.

That's because it's a miracle and mankind can not perform miracles only God can. Mankind often has trouble believing things that we can not do ourselves.

When there is a choice between the miraculous and the explanatory, I (good post-Ritschlian Christian that I am) will choose the explanatory every time. Here there is a clear choice - evolution can explain so much that is, creationism does not, and is therefore useless.

Me too. But there are limits to man's logic somethings our beyond us and require faith.

I agree, but where do you draw the line? To draw upon an old example from philosophy, we could take it on faith that the entire world is ten minutes old. Does reason extend that far or not?

Everyone is subject to wishful thinking especially evolutionists.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

...

My proof is that scientists are unable to prove abiogenesis. It's an atheist theory and the burden of proof is on them. Sense it can't be proven the only logical conclusion is that life didn't arise without an outside force.

This Matthews person obviously wasn't too bright. Also, I swear I'll drill this point into everyone's head if it takes the Clue-By-Four to do it: theory does not equal hypothesis, and it does not mean conjecture. Science cannot prove anything - science always seeks the most perfect explanation by questioning its own precepts with the scientific method. The fact that evolution has not yet been disproven by the greatest scientific minds of the past one hundred and fifty years says something about it - the reason it is a theory is that it has withstood all this barrage of questioning and emerged all the better for it. It stands with gravity and the atom as one of the Big Ideas of Modernity, as it explains genetics, medicine and aspects of physiology without which the world as it is today would not exist.

That last bit, by the way, was logically fallacious. It asserted burden-of-proof where burden of proof is inapplicable (God cannot be proven, we must rely on faith and our best explanations for his existence) and it presented an argumentum ad ignorantiam - arguing that because it hasn't been proven true that it must be false (a common fallacy).

You wrote the word dose, does that mean I'm supposed to eat a pill that's called "wishful thinking" or was dose a metaphor? Context is the key, it's common sense.

Right, and the common-sense rabbis of the 11th and 12th centuries determined that Genesis 1 and 2 - of their religion's own texts - were metaphorical, and this has been the tradition ever since (far before LaMarck and Darwin). Why should we think that some wacko American Protestant rightists have a better interpretation of the Pentateuch than generations upon generations of our ancestors who held it in the highest esteem? Especially since, credibility-wise, these rightists seem not to have much ground on which to stand (first they rejected lower criticism, now they accept it - same with microevolution and genetics).

[Cathar1950]

redstang281 wrote:

Wrong, Zoroastrian writings were even after the New Testament was finished. "The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. .... The Avesta was composed orally, and learned from memory for centuries until it was finally written down in Sassanian Times (during the era of the second Persian Empire, from 224 until 651)."

I think you might mean 224 to 651 BCE would be closer. That would be 600 years before Christ.
The Persians and Zoroastrian influence can be seen in dualism and the devil, good vs evil, and had a large influence on the Essenes as well as much of Jewish thought and consequently Christian. Even some of the myth are very much alike.
One of the strengths of Jewish thinking has been their ability to change holding on to their traditions and working new material an meaning into old material. The NT has some of that tradition as well as Greek epics and the mystery cults.
As you look at Bible development and history we can see the influences. The Jews also had a writing tradition of the argument and interpretation often more interesting deeper the the OT. I am referring to the Midrash and the talmud also Daniel, Enoch Jubilees and other such work.
All also influenced by the Persians.
What I see happening is writings some day added to the list as they do . Lutherans read about Luther. Calvinist read Calvin and the Fundamentalist read each other. I would think maybe the UB and the book of Mormon may also fall in that category despite my reluctance to take them seriously.
They always tried to tie new things to old scripture while changing some times it's meaning. The NT is such a creation. Each Gospel writer was writing for there times and situations. They were to meet the needs of the community usually against either stress from within and without. We see difference even if they all used Mark because they thought nothing of changing it or adding to make a point or to change a point.
Some of Christianity will respond by ajusting and some will not.

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
Wrong, Zoroastrian writings were even after the New Testament was finished. "The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. .... The Avesta was composed orally, and learned from memory for centuries until it was finally written down in Sassanian Times (during the era of the second Persian Empire, from 224 until 651)."

You may want to read that article you posted again. The Zend-Avesta may have been writ down during the Sasanid Empire, but belief in Ahura Mazda was present far earlier in Iran. In fact, it's likely that when Cyrus the Great liberated Jerusalem, most Iranians were Mazdaists. And it is almost certain, even though bernee's assertions that belief in Yahweh is the direct result of imported Mazdaism is somewhat absurd, that there was a great deal of syncretism going on between the two religions. In fact, the Judaist belief in an afterlife besides Sheol is almost certainly a borrowing from Mazdaism.

I read the article including the bit regarding the faith being transferred orally prior to the recorded date. However that doesn't do much to prove who borrow from who sense we can't prove the content of their oral recordings. I could just as easily claim they copied everything from the Jews and the Jews being a valid faith copied nothing from them.

redstang281 wrote:
That's because it's a miracle and mankind can not perform miracles only God can. Mankind often has trouble believing things that we can not do ourselves.

When there is a choice between the miraculous and the explanatory, I (good post-Ritschlian Christian that I am) will choose the explanatory every time. Here there is a clear choice - evolution can explain so much that is, creationism does not, and is therefore useless.

God "spoke" the world into existence. There is power in his voice and the universe responds to him. That's how he created. God doesn't need to act in ways that we exactly understand. Should I believe God or believe man when he slaps some plaster on an ape fossil to make it look more human like? Evolution is a safety net theory for atheist that some Christians have been intimidating into accepting.

redstang281 wrote:
Me too. But there are limits to man's logic somethings our beyond us and require faith.

I agree, but where do you draw the line? To draw upon an old example from philosophy, we could take it on faith that the entire world is ten minutes old. Does reason extend that far or not?

We have good evidence the world was not created 10 minutes ago. I do not believe we have good evidence that life came from non living material, or that the universe and it's laws could have just always existed, or that all life has a common ancestor especially with things like dogs and oranges. With good evidence I will draw the line.

redstang281 wrote:
Everyone is subject to wishful thinking especially evolutionists.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi. ...

My proof is that scientists are unable to prove abiogenesis. It's an atheist theory and the burden of proof is on them. Sense it can't be proven the only logical conclusion is that life didn't arise without an outside force.

This Matthews person obviously wasn't too bright. Also, I swear I'll drill this point into everyone's head if it takes the Clue-By-Four to do it: theory does not equal hypothesis, and it does not mean conjecture.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this and I have heard this many times. I think I can speak for most fundamentalist when I say it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I don't accept it. How evolutionist play their words around doesn't convince me that evolution is not a theory in the way that I regard a theory or any other layman regards the word theory. Word play is not a sufficient replacement for evidence.

Science cannot prove anything - science always seeks the most perfect explanation by questioning its own precepts with the scientific method.

Well that's the idea behind science, but not scientist advocating molecules to man evolution. If the facts don't fit with evolution they don't reconsider evolution they just conjure up a supporting band aid theory or they sweep it under the rug and don't report it. It's hard to promote a theory that is wrong, that's why there's so many forgeries involved with evolution theory such as nebraska man.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Richard Lewontin Professor. 'The New York Review', January 9, 1997, p. 31

The fact that evolution has not yet been disproven by the greatest scientific minds of the past one hundred and fifty years says something about it -

That's because it's a hypothetical theory that is not falsifiable.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

But here is a list of some scientists who disagree with Darwin.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... istsAd.pdf

the reason it is a theory is that it has withstood all this barrage of questioning and emerged all the better for it. It stands with gravity and the atom as one of the Big Ideas of Modernity, as it explains genetics, medicine and aspects of physiology without which the world as it is today would not exist.

You're only talking about micro evolution/adaptation here not molecules to man evolution.

That last bit, by the way, was logically fallacious. It asserted burden-of-proof where burden of proof is inapplicable (God cannot be proven, we must rely on faith and our best explanations for his existence) and it presented an argumentum ad ignorantiam - arguing that because it hasn't been proven true that it must be false (a common fallacy).

Well if people have been trying and failing to prove something true for a long long time and yet have no reason to rationally believe it true to begin with, it's common sense it's false. To believe scientist will one day prove life can and did come from none living by natural causes is faith in atheism not science.

redstang281 wrote:
You wrote the word dose, does that mean I'm supposed to eat a pill that's called "wishful thinking" or was dose a metaphor? Context is the key, it's common sense.

Right, and the common-sense rabbis of the 11th and 12th centuries determined that Genesis 1 and 2 - of their religion's own texts - were metaphorical, and this has been the tradition ever since (far before LaMarck and Darwin). Why should we think that some wacko American Protestant rightists have a better interpretation of the Pentateuch than generations upon generations of our ancestors who held it in the highest esteem? Especially since, credibility-wise, these rightists seem not to have much ground on which to stand (first they rejected lower criticism, now they accept it - same with microevolution and genetics).

Well I'm not sure what reason your rabbis would have had to compromise the scripture. Maybe some political pressures of their time similar to the ones in our day. It's not the clear reading of the Bible and the Bible does not hint that it is an allegory. Jesus himself even affirms his belief in a literal Genesis (Mark 10:6). Throughout history people have attempted to
compromise the scriptures for various reasons. During the early days of Christianity in rome the prophecies in Revelation were made into allegories because the romans didn't like the idea of Jesus ruling on earth with a kingdom above theirs. I'm sorry but I don't believe our Christian fore fathers were convinced Genesis was an allegory by anything other than political pressures. Basil (AD 329-379) said the following in regards to his belief of Genesis.

‘I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of
dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” [Rom. 1:16].’ (Homily IX:1)

‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)