PDA

View Full Version : Baptist minister kicks Democrats out of his church



savafan
05-06-2005, 11:33 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/church_politics

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A pastor of a small Baptist church led an effort to kick out church members because they didn't support President Bush, members said.

The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest.

"It's all over politics," said Selma Morris, the church's treasurer. "We've never had a pastor like that before."

Pastor Chan Chandler had told the congregation before last year's presidential election that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said Lorene Sutton, who said she and her husband were voted out of the church this week.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."

Morris said some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October.

Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS that the actions were not politically motivated.

North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Meek said.

KronoRed
05-06-2005, 11:59 PM
Stuff like this is not what God is about :(

smith288
05-07-2005, 12:06 AM
Can I get a pass on calling this pastor a moron? Im about as right wing Christian fundie as they come and I would NEVER EVER welcome a decision like this.

If the pastor has a problem with them, it should be done personally and lovingly like Christ would do.

RedsBaron
05-07-2005, 07:11 AM
Stupid and flat out wrong is the kindest thing I can say about what that pastor reportedly did. If I was less kind, I could say much more.

RFS62
05-07-2005, 07:17 AM
This one isn't very complicated. He's an idiot

macro
05-07-2005, 08:50 AM
I seldom get into political discussions, but I have two cents...

Too many churches are mixing the most sacred institution Christians have (the church) with the most corrupt institution we have (politics), and it's only a matter of time until a price is paid for that. I disagree with any type of political activism in the church, even that that is much tamer than what this guy did. If more churches spent as much time doing what they should be, and less time trying to get their party's candidate elected, we'd all be much better off.

ws1990reds
05-07-2005, 01:51 PM
He's obviously not a follower of God, or a teacher of one. Maybe the state of North Carolina needs to vote HIM out. :thumbdown

GAC
05-07-2005, 03:13 PM
"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," she said. "He's real negative all the time."

Who then selected, or voted him in, to be your pastor?

GAC
05-07-2005, 03:15 PM
I seldom get into political discussions, but I have two cents...

Too many churches are mixing the most sacred institution Christians have (the church) with the most corrupt institution we have (politics), and it's only a matter of time until a price is paid for that. I disagree with any type of political activism in the church, even that that is much tamer than what this guy did. If more churches spent as much time doing what they should be, and less time trying to get their party's candidate elected, we'd all be much better off.

I agree. And both political parties are guilty of this pandering. Organizations like the Christian Coalition did alot to get believers mobilized, which I have no problem with; but you don't politicize the church.

WVRed
05-07-2005, 10:40 PM
If I was less kind, I could say much more.

Im a Christian, but that guy is a religious wacko(to coin Rush Limbaugh)

And yes, there is a difference.

RBA
05-07-2005, 10:51 PM
The nine members were voted out at a Monday meeting of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. WLOS-TV in Asheville reported that 40 other members resigned in protest

It's more than just this one pastor. Bravo to the Americans that resigned in protest. But I'm confused, who is able to vote? Is it a board, or is it the whole congregation?

MrCinatit
05-08-2005, 12:59 AM
and they say religion and politics don't mix

GAC
05-08-2005, 05:57 AM
It's more than just this one pastor. Bravo to the Americans that resigned in protest. But I'm confused, who is able to vote? Is it a board, or is it the whole congregation?

It depends on the type of church "government" that that particlaur Baptist church had. If it was congregational in form, then the final vote would be determined by the congregation. But some churches elect elders to oversee/determine such matters.

RedsBaron
05-08-2005, 07:46 AM
Most Baptist churches are congregational in organization. The final vote is usually determined by the congregation itself. As long as a congregational church follows its own established policies, the vote of the congregation is final and not subject to being overturned by a secular court.

registerthis
05-09-2005, 02:12 PM
The North Carolina AG is looking into the matter to see if the church's tax-exempt status has been violated. Religious institutions are eligible to receive tax-exempt status provided they are not affiliated politically. The views of the leadership and/or congregation may be skewed heavily in a particular direction, but the church is forbidden from having a formal policy restricting or barring membership based on political affiliation.

this is the kind of church that would kick Jesus out if he came back today.

GAC
05-10-2005, 08:45 AM
The North Carolina AG is looking into the matter to see if the church's tax-exempt status has been violated. Religious institutions are eligible to receive tax-exempt status provided they are not affiliated politically.

Church is a place of fellowship and worship -nothing more should be added. But sadly enough, both sides of the political spectrum (Jackson, Sharpton, and Clinton come to mind) see people of faith as a valuable voting block that must be pandered to and won over.


this is the kind of church that would kick Jesus out if he came back today.

Not before he overturned their collection plate. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
05-10-2005, 09:08 AM
But sadly enough, both sides of the political spectrum (Jackson, Sharpton, and Clinton come to mind) see people of faith as a valuable voting block that must be pandered to and won over.

Jackson & Sharpton should... they are Reverends!! :p:

Rychian
05-10-2005, 09:40 AM
Hey All,
Im a lurker. Look pretty much every other day and dont post much. That being said, I am a pastor, Graduate Seminary in a month, and this drives me nuts. Admittedly the church in general is having a hard time staying somewhat relevant in our culture. Now we have a guy here who is throwing people out who dont agree with him. In that form of church government he has every right to do that, but YEESH. The church should never be about politics, but about Christ. We need to be wary of making broad statements (IE - Democrats Evil, Republicans Holy).

What is funny, I bet I would get kicked out of that church in a week. I have all these crazy wacked out beliefs like loving people, and caring for their souls ( not their political affiliation) --> Sarcasm

Those are my 2 cents.

Peace.
Tom

Johnny Footstool
05-10-2005, 09:55 AM
I have all these crazy wacked out beliefs like loving people, and caring for their souls ( not their political affiliation)

Heretic! :)

savafan
05-10-2005, 10:39 AM
Wow, Rychian re-emerges. That alone makes the new Redzone system worthwhile!

Rychian
05-10-2005, 10:42 AM
Sava,
Oh ive been here. And if your not careful ill kick you out of here if you dont agree with me. This pastor taught me something.

RedFanAlways1966
05-10-2005, 11:06 AM
This reminds me of the nutty Father in Dayton who decided he was going to start having a dress code. He started kicking people out who wore jeans. I think you should dress a certain way when at church. It is called tact. But a church IMO should never eject someone for their clothing. Totally opposite of what Jesus would do. Oh... this Father's church was right in the middle of the Univ. of Dayton campus. So you can guess that he had students coming into his church. Younger people tend to wear jeans. He didn't like that and started asking (telling actually) people to leave.

Needless to say... the church decided it was time for grumpy-old-Father to retire. Once the Dayton Daily News started telling the public about it, he was gone.

flyer85
05-10-2005, 11:10 AM
why would they want to stay anyway? I'd say if my pastor made an admonition like that it would be a sure sign it is time to find a different church.

GAC
05-10-2005, 08:57 PM
Hey All,
Im a lurker. Look pretty much every other day and dont post much. That being said, I am a pastor, Graduate Seminary in a month, and this drives me nuts. Admittedly the church in general is having a hard time staying somewhat relevant in our culture. Now we have a guy here who is throwing people out who dont agree with him. In that form of church government he has every right to do that, but YEESH. The church should never be about politics, but about Christ. We need to be wary of making broad statements (IE - Democrats Evil, Republicans Holy).

What is funny, I bet I would get kicked out of that church in a week. I have all these crazy wacked out beliefs like loving people, and caring for their souls ( not their political affiliation) --> Sarcasm

Those are my 2 cents.

Peace.
Tom

You're absolutely right. As an elder in my church I've witnessed more then enough turmoil in various churches. But politics should not be one of them. This man, from what I have read, has no business being a pastor (the shepherd) of any congregation with the views he espouses.

What I don't like seeing, and I feel that was the intent of this thread, is to try and make another generalized "label" and attack on evangelicals (conservatives) because of the isolated actions of one. It's like someone trying to say "See this article! We told you these conservative evangelicals are all fringe nutcases. And this article proves it."

It proves nothing IMO.

The Republican Party is not the "party of God", and the Democratic Party is not the anti-Christ. But the Democratic Party has allowed various ideological elements to influence it over the last 20 years that has alienated alot of evangelicals due to the hostility/ridicule they have shown towards religion. Religion has been, and shall continue to always be, a relevant aspect in millions of people's lives in this country. And this recent Presidential election loss has seemed to have been a wakeup call to various Dems. Now we're seeing Hillary and even Dean saying they need to revamp their image when it comes to their approach towards religion, and try and reach out to people of faith instead of alienating them.

registerthis
05-11-2005, 09:33 AM
Now we're seeing Hillary and even Dean saying they need to revamp their image when it comes to their approach towards religion, and try and reach out to people of faith instead of alienating them.
I agree that the Democrats, and the left in general, could do a better job of reaching out, rather than alienating, the religious groups in the U.S. However, not at the expense of their core platform of ideals. You say that the Democrats have allowed certain ideaologies to "influence" it over the past 20 years. I'm assuming you are referring to abortion and gay rights, among others. Democrats should not compromise their political or moral integrity on issues such as these simply to pull in a greater number of "people of faith." I believe there is room for people who adhere to the values democrats profess to also maintain a strong faith. There should not be, however, a shift in the core ideaologies of the party--that is merely pandering.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2005, 09:56 AM
There should not be, however, a shift in the core ideaologies of the party--that is merely pandering.

Exactly.

savafan
05-11-2005, 10:20 AM
What I don't like seeing, and I feel that was the intent of this thread, is to try and make another generalized "label" and attack on evangelicals (conservatives) because of the isolated actions of one.

Hang on there GAC. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah sent to save the world. I have served on my church board and spent five years as a youth group leader. My intent in starting the thread wasn't to attack evangelicals, because I am one. My intent was simply because I couldn't believe that this guy was doing this to his congregation.

savafan
05-11-2005, 10:50 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/church_politics



By TIM WHITMIRE, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 55 minutes ago

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. - A Baptist pastor accused of threatening to banish from his church anyone who didn't vote for President Bush has himself chosen to depart, leaving in his wake a divided community and a cultural chasm.

The Rev. Chan Chandler, 33, walked out of the church he had led for three years Tuesday night after delivering a brief statement of resignation. With him went many of the young congregants he had attracted to the modest brick church on the outskirts of this small mountain town in western North Carolina.

In leaving, Chandler did not apologize for the controversy that made him a national lightning rod — the claims by some church members that they were told to leave if they voted for Democratic nominee
John Kerry.

"For me to remain now would only cause more hurt for me and my family," Chandler said. "I am resigning with gratitude in my heart for all of you, particularly those of you who love me and my family."

The dispute that engulfed East Waynesville Baptist Church in recent months would have sounded familiar to many an American congregation: Aging congregation brings in dynamic young preacher to turn things around. New pastor attracts young members who push for change in traditional ways of doing things. Battle ensues.

As Chandler and his wife drove out of the church's parking lot followed by a police escort, about 40 of his supporters walked out as well, with many saying they were resigning their memberships.

"I'm not going to serve with the ungodly," an angry Misty Turner declared.

But Maxine Osborne, 70, and among those who stayed behind, had a different view of what had transpired.

"A lot of these young people had not been in the church more than a year," she said. The Chandlers "brought in a lot of young people, but they also brainwashed them."

Members said the troubles had been simmering since last fall, when Chandler endorsed Bush and denounced Kerry from the pulpit — saying those who planned to vote for the Democrat should "repent or resign."

Tensions escalated last week, when several members said Chandler called a meeting of the church's board of deacons and declared his intention for East Waynesville to become a politically active church.

Anyone who did not like that direction was free to leave, Chandler said — a statement that caused nine members to walk out.

Many of those who opposed Chandler's leadership said they agreed with the pastor's positions on abortion and other hot-button religious topics, but disliked linking those beliefs to specific political positions and candidates.

"If we wanted politics, we would stay home and watch it 24 hours a day on TV," said Charles Gaddy, 70. "I like Chan. He can preach a good sermon. I just wish he would keep some things out of the church."

Frank Lowe, 73, a leader of the members who left the church in opposition to Chandler's leadership, said, "I think his duty was to preach God's word and let the people sort out what they want to do."

Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.

Norman Jameson of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said the convention — which generally allows its congregations free rein to conduct their business — will try to help Chandler find a new church position if he so desires.

"There was evidently a politicization of pulpit in that the pastor is passionate and he interprets that one political party had a stronger stance on abortion than the other," Jameson said. "Passion makes things happen. In a church leadership role, it can also divide people."

Speaking to those who remained after Chandler's departure, Lowe acknowledged the pain on both sides of the schism. "This is a sad hour in this group's life. This is a sad hour in the other group's life," he said.

But he was firm in his opposition to Chandler.

"A person that will take abuse and not stand up for what's right is not worth their salt," he declared.

Out in the parking lot, as she got into her truck, Trantham was equally adamant.

"God will always fix things in the end," she said.

registerthis
05-11-2005, 11:13 AM
Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.
Better get ready to stone your child if they are ever disrespectful to you.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2005, 11:44 AM
Chandler supporter Rhonda Trantham, 27, saw no problem with Chandler's approach. "If it's in the Bible, I believe it should be preached," she said.

I must have missed the part of the Bible that condemns those who vote for John Kerry. Chapter and verse, anyone?

Puffy
05-11-2005, 11:45 AM
I must have missed the part of the Bible that condemns those who vote for John Kerry. Chapter and verse, anyone?

John 3:16.

Johnny Footstool
05-11-2005, 12:28 PM
John 3:16

That explains why we see so many "John 3:16" signs at sporting events.

Puffy
05-11-2005, 12:30 PM
That explains why we see so many "John 3:16" signs at sporting events.

Exactly.

Chip R
05-11-2005, 01:40 PM
I must have missed the part of the Bible that condemns those who vote for John Kerry. Chapter and verse, anyone?"It's somewhere in the back" - Homer Simpson

registerthis
05-11-2005, 02:06 PM
"It's somewhere in the back" - Homer Simpson
"Marge, I suggest you read your Bible."

"Really? Which part?"

"Oh, it's all good."

WVRed
05-11-2005, 03:07 PM
"It's somewhere in the back" - Homer Simpson

"I think its in the Dudearonemy section"- Butthead

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-11-2005, 07:04 PM
I don't necessarily have a problem with this patorial decision. Wasn't it Cardinal Joseph Ratziner (now Pope Benedict XVI) who said last year that American Catholics could not, in good faith, vote for a candidate who was pro-choice.

And which high-ranking American Catholic bishop said he would deny John Kerry communion if he attempted to receive it in his church?

Now kicking them out of church? That's a bit harsh IMO, but it isn't my church. But I think this pastor would realize that the best way to "correct" these Democrats is by having them attend church. :evil:

dman
05-11-2005, 08:49 PM
At one point in time, if a ministry of any kind came out openly in support of a political candidate of any party, didn't that ministry lose their tax exempt status????

GAC
05-11-2005, 09:06 PM
Hang on there GAC. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah sent to save the world. I have served on my church board and spent five years as a youth group leader. My intent in starting the thread wasn't to attack evangelicals, because I am one. My intent was simply because I couldn't believe that this guy was doing this to his congregation.

What this pastor did was wrong. But in your signature you claim Jesus was a liberal. IMO, anyone who tries to assign a "label" , or place the Son Of God in a "box", does him a great disservice IMO. One needs to be careful when doing so.

registerthis
05-12-2005, 09:39 AM
What this pastor did was wrong. But in your signature you claim Jesus was a liberal. IMO, anyone who tries to assign a "label" , or place the Son Of God in a "box", does him a great disservice IMO. One needs to be careful when doing so.
OK, Jesus was a radical.

registerthis
05-12-2005, 09:45 AM
I don't necessarily have a problem with this patorial decision. Wasn't it Cardinal Joseph Ratziner (now Pope Benedict XVI) who said last year that American Catholics could not, in good faith, vote for a candidate who was pro-choice.
Well, American Catholics also should not, in good faith, vote for a candidate whose lies resulted in a war that led to the death of thousands of individuals, either. Or at least, you'd think not. :confused:


And which high-ranking American Catholic bishop said he would deny John Kerry communion if he attempted to receive it in his church?
Hopefully the same one who refused to give communion to every liar, cheater, coveter, adulterer, etc. Or are we saying that being pro-life is a worse sin than, say, being disrespectful to your parents?


Now kicking them out of church? That's a bit harsh IMO, but it isn't my church. But I think this pastor would realize that the best way to "correct" these Democrats is by having them attend church. :evil:
I would also think that the best way for this pastor to get tax-exempt status for his church lifted is by being so blatantly partisan.

savafan
05-12-2005, 10:38 AM
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.-

1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3) Tending to give freely; generous

That definately sounds like the Jesus I know. He came here seeking to change things, to change the hearts of the Jewish authoritatian attitudes. He gave his own life freely for all of us. That's what my signature means.

The word liberal shouldn't be a dirty word as so many conservatives try to make it. To be liberal can be a good thing. That is the point I'm trying to make with my signature.

westofyou
05-12-2005, 10:40 AM
The word liberal shouldn't be a dirty word as so many conservatives try to make it.

Sure it should, it makes it easier to shoot down their opinions. ;)

flyer85
05-12-2005, 10:45 AM
I suggest reading Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".

Puffy
05-12-2005, 10:58 AM
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.-

1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3) Tending to give freely; generous

That definately sounds like the Jesus I know. He came here seeking to change things, to change the hearts of the Jewish authoritatian attitudes. He gave his own life freely for all of us. That's what my signature means.

The word liberal shouldn't be a dirty word as so many conservatives try to make it. To be liberal can be a good thing. That is the point I'm trying to make with my signature.

:clap:

Unfortunately Newt and Rush successfully made liberal a bad word about 15 years ago, and now the negative connotation means more than the actual meaning.

Puffy
05-12-2005, 10:59 AM
I suggest reading Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".

Selma Hayek wrote a book? Are there pictures?

RedFanAlways1966
05-12-2005, 11:08 AM
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.-

1) ... free from bigotry.

The word liberal shouldn't be a dirty word as so many conservatives try to make it.

Does bigotry include not liking different political parties? Michael Moore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman and others like them may need to learn this.

I agree with the last sentence there, sava. And it should work both ways (conservative shouldn't be a dirty word as so many liberals try to make it). That is important to remember. There was a lot of hatred being tossed around from both sides during the 2004 campaign. Just want to be clear that conservatives are not the only ones being labeled in this regard. The arrest record of protestors for each respective party convention last year might shed some light on that.

If we could all just get along. :)

registerthis
05-12-2005, 11:24 AM
Does bigotry include not liking different political parties? Michael Moore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman and others like them may need to learn this.
"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" was one of the best books I have read in a long, long time...Michael Moore can let his goal of shutting up the right blind him to certain facts, which he distorts...but I basically support his message.

BTW, since we're recommending political books, I will suggest "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Perhaps the best commentary on the current political climate as I have read.

Rojo
05-12-2005, 12:50 PM
Does bigotry include not liking different political parties?

Frankly, no, it doesn't. By that definition, I'm a biggot if I hate Nazis.

What of this:

"Easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven."

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-12-2005, 01:18 PM
BTW, since we're recommending political books, I will suggest "What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank. Perhaps the best commentary on the current political climate as I have read.

Nothing is the matter with Kansas. Now, what's the matter with California?

RedFanAlways1966
05-12-2005, 01:23 PM
Frankly, no, it doesn't. By that definition, I'm a biggot if I hate Nazis.

I guess that is a matter of opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

bigot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-12-2005, 01:24 PM
Well, American Catholics also should not, in good faith, vote for a candidate whose lies resulted in a war that led to the death of thousands of individuals, either. Or at least, you'd think not. :confused:


Hmm...I don't recall any official mention of that. Could it be that, while the Vatican is inherently opposed to all war, the greater good is being served in Iraq?

registerthis
05-12-2005, 01:40 PM
Hmm...I don't recall any official mention of that. Could it be that, while the Vatican is inherently opposed to all war, the greater good is being served in Iraq?
Errr...how?

If by "greater good" you mean the removal of a despot, well, I've got a list a mile long the U.S. can get started on...

registerthis
05-12-2005, 01:40 PM
Nothing is the matter with Kansas. Now, what's the matter with California?
Ah, but you haven't read the book, or you wouldn't be asking that question.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-12-2005, 07:14 PM
Gee...I got negative rep points for saying nothing is the matter with Kansas, what's the matter with California? That's nice...we can't have any differing opinions I guess.

Johnny Footstool
05-12-2005, 09:00 PM
Nothing is the matter with Kansas.

Trust me. There is plenty wrong with Kansas.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-12-2005, 09:10 PM
Trust me. There is plenty wrong with Kansas.

Well, besides that annoying toll highway between KC and Topeka. I love western Kansas though. I may be the only one but I love the open plains.

RedsBaron
05-12-2005, 09:18 PM
Gee...I got negative rep points for saying nothing is the matter with Kansas, what's the matter with California? That's nice...we can't have any differing opinions I guess.
I just gave you some positive rep points. Of course, for admitting that someone will now probably give me some negative points. :)

RedsBaron
05-12-2005, 09:25 PM
I will say that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have limited value in most discussions. If you want to label a current American politician with one of those terms, it may have some use, as it perhaps lets you know how the politician would line up compared to George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy, someone such as that. The terms are much less useful IMO when used to compare foreign leaders-in the last quarter century I've seen leaders as diverse as Reagan, Thatcher, Breshnev, Castro nad Khomeini called "conservative."
The terms appear utterly useless in describing indivduals from centuries past, let alone the Son of God.

RedsBaron
05-12-2005, 10:28 PM
I just gave you some positive rep points. Of course, for admitting that someone will now probably give me some negative points. :)
Yep. I've dropped four points since that post. :rolleyes:

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-12-2005, 10:53 PM
I just gave you some positive rep points. Of course, for admitting that someone will now probably give me some negative points. :)

:cool:

And have I mentioned that West Virginia is a beautiful state. Especially Morgantown in the fall ;)

westofyou
05-13-2005, 12:06 AM
I may be the only one but I love the open plains.

I love the upper Plains myself, Dakotas etc... I saw my favorite sunset ever in Nebraska.

Johnny Footstool
05-13-2005, 12:52 AM
Well, besides that annoying toll highway between KC and Topeka. I love western Kansas though. I may be the only one but I love the open plains.

A British travel guide recently ranked the drive from KC to Denver as the best in the USA. So you're not the only one.

Scenery aside, there's plenty wrong with Kansas.

Reds/Flyers Fan
05-13-2005, 01:06 AM
I love the upper Plains myself, Dakotas etc... I saw my favorite sunset ever in Nebraska.

There's something about being so far from anything else that makes me feel free. I spent some time in tiny Gothenburg, Neb. a few years ago and felt right at home.

Jaycint
05-13-2005, 09:03 AM
Scenery aside, there's plenty wrong with Kansas.

Why? Because they voted based on social issues instead of economic ones? I'm assuming that's the premise of the book based on the reviews I read. If the citizens of Kansas wish to make their own economic deathbed because social issues are more important to them then I would think that's their constitutional right. Every person has their own personal reasons for voting whichever direction they decide to, I don't know that it's up to anyone else to tell them they shouldn't or that they are stupid for doing so.

Their 6 electoral votes wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. ;)

registerthis
05-13-2005, 10:19 AM
Gee...I got negative rep points for saying nothing is the matter with Kansas, what's the matter with California? That's nice...we can't have any differing opinions I guess.
Eh?

I didn't give you any negative rep points. Someone else must have done that.

registerthis
05-13-2005, 10:30 AM
Why? Because they voted based on social issues instead of economic ones? I'm assuming that's the premise of the book based on the reviews I read. If the citizens of Kansas wish to make their own economic deathbed because social issues are more important to them then I would think that's their constitutional right. Every person has their own personal reasons for voting whichever direction they decide to, I don't know that it's up to anyone else to tell them they shouldn't or that they are stupid for doing so.

Their 6 electoral votes wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. ;)
That's actually not the premise of the book.

He discusses how people in the midwest--and he uses Kansas as a specific example--vote values over their own economic self interests. And, he argues, if that's what you want to do, that's fine. His point, though, is that these people vote for people--namely, conservative Republicans--who claim to support their line of thinking on moral issues. They fight for the rights of the religious, the morally righteous, the supressed, etc. However, once they're in office, their policies consistently favor the wealthiest Americans and mega-corporations. In other words, vote for a ban on abortions, get mega tax cuts for corporate America. Vote against gay rights, get relaxed environmental standards, etc.

Again, great book, I can't recommend it enough.

Jaycint
05-13-2005, 11:10 AM
That's actually not the premise of the book.

He discusses how people in the midwest--and he uses Kansas as a specific example--vote values over their own economic self interests. And, he argues, if that's what you want to do, that's fine. His point, though, is that these people vote for people--namely, conservative Republicans--who claim to support their line of thinking on moral issues. They fight for the rights of the religious, the morally righteous, the supressed, etc. However, once they're in office, their policies consistently favor the wealthiest Americans and mega-corporations. In other words, vote for a ban on abortions, get mega tax cuts for corporate America. Vote against gay rights, get relaxed environmental standards, etc.

Again, great book, I can't recommend it enough.


Sounds like an interesting read Reg, I may pick it up sometime. Again I was just going on a couple of reviews of it that I saw on Amazon, etc.

registerthis
05-13-2005, 11:11 AM
Sounds like an interesting read Reg, I may pick it up sometime. Again I was just going on a couple of reviews of it that I saw on Amazon, etc.
I might be a bit biased because my father is from kansas, and in fact still have a number of relatives living there. As he was reading the book he would occasionally shout out "Hey, I've been on that street!" etc. Quite funny, really.

RedsBaron
05-14-2005, 06:31 PM
I just gave you some positive rep points. Of course, for admitting that someone will now probably give me some negative points. :)
I had never before checked on the comments part of my User CP. When I did, I saw the poster who gave me negative rep points included a comment: "Very bigoted of people to generalize Californians. You being from WV, how does it feel when people degrade your state?"
Had the poster sent me a PM, or even identified himself or herself in the post, I could have responded to him or her, but whoever it was apparently lacked the decency to do that.
I said nothing at all about Californians or any other group. As I read others posts, someone thought people were generalizing about Kansas, made a reference to California as a comparsion to how generalizations were unfair, and then noted he got negative rep points for that. I thought, geez, that was petty, so I just gave that poster some positive rep points without slamming Kansas, California or any place else.
I've yet to give any poster here any negative rep points. However, for someone to falsely accuse me of bigotry and not even have the courage to state his or her identity is about as shabby a deed as I've seen here.
There are great people in Kansas, California and every other state I've been in. There are also a few not-so-great people everywhere, including at least one poster here.
Bottom line for me-if you disagree with a post fine-anonymous attacks do not impress me.

GAC
05-15-2005, 06:02 AM
OK, Jesus was a radical.


=savafan] lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.-

1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3) Tending to give freely; generous

That definately sounds like the Jesus I know. He came here seeking to change things, to change the hearts of the Jewish authoritatian attitudes. He gave his own life freely for all of us. That's what my signature means.

No. Jesus was the Son of God (God incarnate) who was rejected and despised by men because he did something that mankind didn't like - he exposed them to the knowledge of their sin, their standing before God, and that he was their only path to salvation via repentance and faith. That deeply offended the ears/sensibilities of man THEN, and it does TODAY.

The Jews had him killed 3 thousand years ago for his message of truth. Today's society would have done the same, or labelled/ostracized him as a fringe religious fundamentalist nutcase whose message was bigoted, hateful, and intolerant.

Jesus did not favor proposals for reform, nor was he open to new ideas for progress, and his tolerance of the ideas and behavior of others had limitations. It wasn't like the goal of his earthly ministry was to sit down at a round table with man and together try to troubleshoot the ills of society, and take suggestions on how to improve them. And he firmly rebuked ideas and behaviors that he deemed sinful, immoral, and worthy of condemnation, because they were contrary to the will of the Father. That would easily be labelled narrow-mindedness and bigotted in today's society.

The Jesus you portray above would have never been crucified. How could he have been when he was so open-minded, tolerant, and accepting? The same goes for the apostles and early 1st century church. They were persecuted, tortured and killed because of who they followed (Jesus) and their continuation of preaching his message. The message has never changed.

The Bible says Jesus is the "same yesterday, today, and forever". He doesn't change or evolve with the times and attitudes of society. He didn't need to enter a new enlightenment or progressiveness of thought. He said that he was "the light of the world", and that man needed to come to him.

There is a huge problem in society today (and yes, also in alot of churches) to mold Jesus into an image that is more palatable to the masses. Instead of listening to Christ's call to conform to him, we want him to conform to us. Because it's all about getting people into church and increasing attendance. It's all about making Jesus more accepting in the eyes of today's society. So many emphasize certain qualities/characteristics of Jesus - his love, compassion, forgiveness - while deliberately ignoring the others - righteous anger, sin, repentance, commitment, and especially this talk of judgment/hell.

Look extensively at what happened to Jesus during his 3 1/2 year ministry. The masses followed him in throngs as long as he performed miracles, healed their sick, and spoke soothing words to their "itching ears". But those numbers started to dwindle radically when he spoke of sacrifice and total commitment to him. They rejected those "hard sayings" of Jesus, not because they were hard to understand, but because they didn't want to obey.

He went to the cross alone.

It's like we went through the Bible and tore out those pages/sections that offend our delicate sensibilites. Jesus/the Bible needs to get with the times.

Let me simply submit some of Jesus' words, and you tell me if they are words of tolerance, narrow-mindedness, etc....

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:6-7

"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." Luke 12:5

Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:23-25

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." John 5:21-23

Jesus' first mission to earth was as the "Suffering Servant", the Lamb of God to effect redemption for all mankind. He is not going to come the second times as such...

"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelations 19:11-16



The word liberal shouldn't be a dirty word as so many conservatives try to make it. To be liberal can be a good thing. That is the point I'm trying to make with my signature.

And the word conservative shouldn't be a dirty word as so many liberals try to make it. To be a conservative is a good thing. That is the point I am trying to make. You can't place peole in a "box" as so many on both sides try to do. It's just not that "balck and white". ;)

RBA
05-15-2005, 10:28 AM
The Jews had him killed 3 thousand years ago for his message of truth.

It should be reworded to say, "Some Jews".

Did all Jews kill Jesus? Did all wanted him killed? Did all Muslims attack the World Trade Cener? Did all christians participate in the crusades?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the term "The Jews" implicates all jews. Isn't "some jews" a more appropiate term?

Ravenlord
05-15-2005, 10:36 AM
Maybe I'm wrong here, but the term "The Jews" implicates all jews. Isn't "some jews" a more appropiate term?yes. it was the Pharisees more specifically (i really need to learn how to spell).

westofyou
05-15-2005, 10:38 AM
It should be reworded to say, "Some Jews".

Did all Jews kill Jesus? Did all wanted him killed? Did all Muslims attack the World Trade Cener? Did all christians participate in the crusades?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the term "The Jews" implicates all jews. Isn't "some jews" a more appropiate term?

My wife still cringes at the memory of her minister as a teen who would talk about his drives by the local synagogue and how each time he would look at the building and ponder... "How could all those people could kill our lord"

As for truth... is there a more ambivalent term out there?

I think not.

Ravenlord
05-15-2005, 10:39 AM
My wife still cringes at the memory of her minister as a teen who would talk about his drives by the local synagogue and how each time he would look at the building and ponder... "How could all those people could kill our lord"her minister is a somewhat misguided moron then.

westofyou
05-15-2005, 10:44 AM
her minister is a somewhat misguided moron then.

Just keeping with the theme of the thread. :evil:

RedsBaron
05-15-2005, 02:01 PM
The Bible teaches that everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, crucified Jesus, in that He died for all sinners, and that includes all of us.
I realize Mel Gibson's "The Passion" was controversial with some. IMO one of the more effective scenes in that movie was the depiction of the first nail being driven into the hand of Jesus. In that scene you do not see the face of the Roman soldier driving in the nail, just his hand. I understand that the hand driving in the nail was that of Gibson himself, his way of recognizing that he shared in the responsibility for the death of Jesus.

GAC
05-15-2005, 09:36 PM
It should be reworded to say, "Some Jews".

Did all Jews kill Jesus? Did all wanted him killed? Did all Muslims attack the World Trade Cener? Did all christians participate in the crusades?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but the term "The Jews" implicates all jews. Isn't "some jews" a more appropiate term?

Oh please. Jesus' ministry was first to his own people (the nation of Israel)... to the Jew first, then the Gentile. The Bible says he was rejected and crucified by his own people. When they had the choice between Barrabas and Jesus, the crowds screamed for Barrabas to be freed. When Pilate asked the crowd what he should do with Jesus they screamed "crucify him!" and "let his blood be on us and on our children." (Matthew 27).

No one within the Jewish community, including his own disciples, stood to defend Jesus when he was arrested and tried. As I stated before.. he died alone, abandoned and mocked by his own people. And even the Apostles (fellow Jews) in their epistles laid the blame on their own countrymen.

When I say that the Jews killed Jesus, it should be interpreted the same as when someone says the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, when ALL Japanese were not involved. ;)

It's not being anti-semitic by stating the truth and showing that the Jewish population THEN condoned, supported, and stood by his crucifixion were. Nor is it an indictment of Jews today.

Falls City Beer
05-15-2005, 10:13 PM
It's not being anti-semitic by stating the truth and showing that the Jewish population THEN condoned, supported, and stood by his crucifixion were. Nor is it an indictment of Jews today.


Let's just put it this way: it's anti-Semitic when it serves the purposes of anti-Semites.

The Bible is not history. Neither is the Torah. Neither is the Koran. Neither is Herodotus. Neither is Thucydides. Neither is Homer.

They are folk tales heated and reheated to suit their age.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2005, 11:44 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html

Another example of what's wrong with Kansas.

GAC
05-16-2005, 08:05 AM
Let's just put it this way: it's anti-Semitic when it serves the purposes of anti-Semites.

So we rewrite or amend history in order to possibly prevent those that hate from using it for their own misguided agenda?


The Bible is not history. Neither is the Torah. Neither is the Koran. Neither is Herodotus. Neither is Thucydides. Neither is Homer.They are folk tales heated and reheated to suit their age.

Can you prove any of the above statement? (I loved it when people make generalized comments like this)... because it's funny, alot of scholars, historians, archeologists, would disagree with you since they have utilized the Bible to help validate certain aspects of man's history (cultures, civilizations, historical figures, geography, cities,etc), and found the Bible to be quite reliable/helpful in alot of instances.

Ancient digs have been located using the the Bible. Such ancient civilizations that many thought didn't exist, such as the Amorites, Hittittes, and others, have now been proven to have existed. Have you ever read such magazines as Arechelogical Review (and no, it's not a relgious foundation)? You'd find it quite interestng as to the vast discoveries that have been made that validate alot of various situations recorded in the Bible (both old and new testament).

savafan
05-16-2005, 09:17 AM
GAC, after thinking about this for a while, I agree with you and dropped the signature in favor of one of my old ones.

registerthis
05-16-2005, 10:37 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html

Another example of what's wrong with Kansas.
It's so, so frustrating to read things like this.

What people (mainly, the pro-intelligent design supporters) consistently fail to mention is that science makes no speculations on the concepts of an intelligent designer, it makes only conjectures and theories on observable data. In other words, science intentionally leaves open the question of whether or not there was an intelligent designer behind creation, because that is a question for religion, not science.

Likewise, "intelligent design" is not, nor should it be, presented as an alternative to evolutionary theory. It's not "one or the other". If you teach a literal interpretation of Genesis, you're forgoing overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary and setting back untold numbers of children's education. If you teach the theory of intelligent design as a part and parcel of the evolutionary process, you're infringing on the separation of church and state.

Typically, Kansas is the state leading this backwards charge... :(

Johnny Footstool
05-16-2005, 10:44 AM
It's so, so frustrating to read things like this.

It's even more frustrating to know that this is the kind of educational environment my kids (if I ever have them) will be growing up in.

registerthis
05-16-2005, 10:59 AM
No. Jesus was the Son of God (God incarnate) who was rejected and despised by men because he did something that mankind didn't like - he exposed them to the knowledge of their sin, their standing before God, and that he was their only path to salvation via repentance and faith. That deeply offended the ears/sensibilities of man THEN, and it does TODAY.

The Jews had him killed 3 thousand years ago for his message of truth. Today's society would have done the same, or labelled/ostracized him as a fringe religious fundamentalist nutcase whose message was bigoted, hateful, and intolerant.
Unlikely--more likely, he would have been killed by conservative evangelical leaders and politicians who cloak their political motives unde rthe guise of religion in order to further their own objectives. jesus was very much against the established religious order of the day--their exclusionary practices, their stressing of the importance of rituals over works, their browbeating and chest-thumping to proclaim their own righteousness. Sounds awfully similar, doesn't it?


Jesus did not favor proposals for reform, nor was he open to new ideas for progress, and his tolerance of the ideas and behavior of others had limitations. It wasn't like the goal of his earthly ministry was to sit down at a round table with man and together try to troubleshoot the ills of society, and take suggestions on how to improve them. And he firmly rebuked ideas and behaviors that he deemed sinful, immoral, and worthy of condemnation, because they were contrary to the will of the Father. That would easily be labelled narrow-mindedness and bigotted in today's society.
That may be, but the fact is he turned the established religious order on its head when he proclaimed that salvation was for all peoples, not simply for the Jews. For this he was labeled everything from crazy to a heretic, because what he preached was against the stablished religious principles.

You are using these statements to support your position that Jesus was not a liberal, and by implication seem to show that liberals waver in their beliefs or morals in order to adapt to the established order of the day. While an certain adaptation to the current society is inevitable, liberals are grounded in a set of beliefs and principles every bit as strong as conservatives--the difference is they push for a change from perceived societal wrongs to make a better overall society. Conservatives believe the current society is ideal and seek to prevent change.


The Jesus you portray above would have never been crucified. How could he have been when he was so open-minded, tolerant, and accepting?
Because it so egregiously offended the religious leaders of the time, they branded him a blasphemer and a heretic. Salvation for gentiles? Unquestionned forgiveness of sins? The good of people before religious ritual? It's surprising he wasn't crucified sooner.


The same goes for the apostles and early 1st century church. They were persecuted, tortured and killed because of who they followed (Jesus) and their continuation of preaching his message. The message has never changed.
The core message, no. The way people have interpreted it through the centuries, yes. People have used the "infalliable Word of God" to support some unbelieveable atrocities and beliefs over the years. Of course, we look back now and see that they were wrong for interpreting it that way (misguided, selfish, etc.) But it was exactly this type of thinking that jesus sought to overturn.


The Bible says Jesus is the "same yesterday, today, and forever". He doesn't change or evolve with the times and attitudes of society. He didn't need to enter a new enlightenment or progressiveness of thought. He said that he was "the light of the world", and that man needed to come to him.And people have done an absolutely bang-up job distorting that message.


There is a huge problem in society today (and yes, also in alot of churches) to mold Jesus into an image that is more palatable to the masses. Instead of listening to Christ's call to conform to him, we want him to conform to us. Because it's all about getting people into church and increasing attendance. It's all about making Jesus more accepting in the eyes of today's society. So many emphasize certain qualities/characteristics of Jesus - his love, compassion, forgiveness - while deliberately ignoring the others - righteous anger, sin, repentance, commitment, and especially this talk of judgment/hell.
Because the leaders in these progressive churches of which you speak have chosen to convert people to Christ not on fear, self-loathing or fright, but out of genuine love. It's not that the "other" qualities of jesus which you mention are discarded--I know of no Christian church, for example, that doesn't believe in the existence of a hell. But that the positive qualities of his ministry are what should be focused on to draw people to him. People who come to believe in Christ simply to avoid going to hell, for example, are finding religion for entirely the wrong reasons.


Look extensively at what happened to Jesus during his 3 1/2 year ministry. The masses followed him in throngs as long as he performed miracles, healed their sick, and spoke soothing words to their "itching ears". But those numbers started to dwindle radically when he spoke of sacrifice and total commitment to him. They rejected those "hard sayings" of Jesus, not because they were hard to understand, but because they didn't want to obey.
You must be reading a different version of the Bible than I do. true, jesus spoke of the importance of committment and sacrifice...but there is no indication that his following or popularity dwindled because of that. His triumphant entrance into jerusalem, only a week prior to his crucifixtion, was met with unbridled enthusiasm and throngs of support from people. If people were being turned away from him based on his teachings of sacrifice, that message apparentally had not reached jerusalem yet.

registerthis
05-16-2005, 11:03 AM
It's even more frustrating to know that this is the kind of educational environment my kids (if I ever have them) will be growing up in.
Out of curiosity, where is Olathe? I have and aunt and uncle that live in Independence, if you know where that is...

Falls City Beer
05-16-2005, 11:32 AM
So we rewrite or amend history in order to possibly prevent those that hate from using it for their own misguided agenda?

No, we know what history IS before we say things like:

"It's not being anti-semitic by stating the truth and showing that the Jewish population THEN condoned, supported, and stood by his crucifixion were. Nor is it an indictment of Jews today."

First of all, no one knows honestly whether there was one man named Jesus or if he was an amalgamation of several prophets. Most credible historians believe Jesus wasn't one man. Secondly, the Gospels, if you want to believe them, do not say THE ENTIRE JEWISH RACE wanted Jesus crucified as you suggested. That is the trumped up accusation fostered and coddled by Christians throughout time to burn, torture, exile, ghettoize, murder, rape, steal from Jews. When Christians got the plague, who was the cause? Had to be Jews poisoning the wells. :rolleyes:

So in short, you don't know the history, and second, even if the Bible IS history, as you suggest, then you're interpreting it incorrectly.

Johnny Footstool
05-16-2005, 01:27 PM
Out of curiosity, where is Olathe? I have and aunt and uncle that live in Independence, if you know where that is...

It's a suburb just south of KC on the Kansas side. Independence is basically on the other side of town. All the areas surrounding KC are *fairly* similar.

Falls City Beer
05-16-2005, 01:47 PM
Ah yes, I get negged anonymously. Wow that takes courage.

You know, I know I'm a big ole sinner who is going to hell and all that, but I've never negged anyone on this board, and I never will (and if I did you can bet I'd take full credit for it) because I believe the GREATER GOOD is that everyone HAS A VOICE. The negativity system is stupid, IMO--first the complaint is that there are too many people complaining; and then so we turn around and give the inmates bats and chainsaws (negs) to use under cover of darkness. Great idea.

Personally, I'm not scared that I'm going to somehow be sent to the little kids Thanksgiving table around here because I'll be buoyed by enough of the smart people who stand behind dissenting and different opinions.

My recommendation: full disclosure, both positives and negatives. That way I can avoid any thread that person has posted on so I don't get capriciously negged whenever that person feels like it.

My recommendation to the negativizer: grow up. Seriously. Be a big boy/girl.

westofyou
05-16-2005, 01:52 PM
Ah yes, I get negged anonymously. Wow that takes courage.

You know, I know I'm a big ole sinner who is going to hell and all that, but I've never negged anyone on this board, and I never will (and if I did you can bet I'd take full credit for it) because I believe the GREATER GOOD is that everyone HAS A VOICE. The negativity system is stupid, IMO--first the complaint is that there are too many people complaining; and then so we turn around and give the inmates bats and chainsaws (negs) to use under cover of darkness. Great idea.

Personally, I'm not scared that I'm going to somehow be sent to the little kids Thanksgiving table around here because I'll be buoyed by enough of the smart people who stand behind dissenting and different opinions.

My recommendation: full disclosure, both positives and negatives. That way I can avoid any thread that person has posted on so I don't get capriciously negged whenever that person feels like it.

My recommendation to the negativizer: grow up. Seriously. Be a big boy/girl.

I agree with everything you said about the neg points and the bible as history.

So if ya'll want to nail me to the cross so to speak for having a dissenting opinion to yours and having the cajones to agree with FCB then have at it.

I'll treasure it.

Redsfaithful
05-16-2005, 01:54 PM
Registerthis, excellent post.

FCB, yeah I agree with you on the negative thing. I've been dinged a few times simply because people disagree with what I'm saying, and that's not really the point I don't think.

paintmered
05-16-2005, 01:59 PM
Registerthis, excellent post.

FCB, yeah I agree with you on the negative thing. I've been dinged a few times simply because people disagree with what I'm saying, and that's not really the point I don't think.

No, that's not the point of it at all, and it is unfortunate that some think of it that way.

If you makes any of you feel any better, I've been negged for moderating before.

GAC
05-16-2005, 08:44 PM
It's so, so frustrating to read things like this.

What people (mainly, the pro-intelligent design supporters) consistently fail to mention is that science makes no speculations on the concepts of an intelligent designer, it makes only conjectures and theories on observable data. In other words, science intentionally leaves open the question of whether or not there was an intelligent designer behind creation, because that is a question for religion, not science.

Likewise, "intelligent design" is not, nor should it be, presented as an alternative to evolutionary theory. It's not "one or the other". If you teach a literal interpretation of Genesis, you're forgoing overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary and setting back untold numbers of children's education. If you teach the theory of intelligent design as a part and parcel of the evolutionary process, you're infringing on the separation of church and state.

Typically, Kansas is the state leading this backwards charge... :(

If you are a Christian, and you claim to be one, then how can you so easily discount Genesis and endorse evolution? I have no problem with evolution being taught in our schools. But evolution has not been proven via scientific methodology as absolute. There should be that elective that respects those who do not adhere to that teaching, and want to examine creationism.

It's interesting because those who oppose or do not beleive in creationism say that it's because it's based solely on faith. And that is not totally true. Creationism also involves scientific methodology. Yes, it also involves the element of faith; but so does evolution. ;)

I want the opportunity for my children to learn both sides/aspects, and to then be able to make the choice for themselves. And I do not like it when I see teachers ridicule Genesis/creationism in our schools in certain instances, and yes, I have seen examples of this happening, simply because they do do adhere/believe in it.

GAC
05-16-2005, 09:40 PM
Unlikely--more likely, he would have been killed by conservative evangelical leaders and politicians who cloak their political motives unde rthe guise of religion in order to further their own objectives. jesus was very much against the established religious order of the day--their exclusionary practices, their stressing of the importance of rituals over works, their browbeating and chest-thumping to proclaim their own righteousness. Sounds awfully similar, doesn't it?

As I have emphatically stated before - neither party has a monopoly on religion as far as right standing with God. Just as the Dems have done with the black vote, so Repubs have done a good job with the evangelical vote. Plus, some blame must be placed on the Democratic Party for them pushing away people of faith.

I was raised a Democrat. I vote Republican not because I think they are the "Party of God", but because they are the closest to my core beliefs (economically and values). And I would say that is the same for most who vote Repunblican. There is no self-righteousness involved at all.



That may be, but the fact is he turned the established religious order on its head when he proclaimed that salvation was for all peoples, not simply for the Jews. For this he was labeled everything from crazy to a heretic, because what he preached was against the stablished religious principles.

You're absolutely right - he turned the Jewish religious order on it's head because they made it a religion of outward and not inward with all it's emphasis on ceremonies, rituals, etc. It was works oriented, which is always steeped in promoting self-rigteousness. It does not mean that Jesus opposes all established organized religion, or that it is wrong.

Today - evangelicals are labeled "self-righteous" (and I really don't think most really understand the term) because they preach Christ as the only means of salvation. But isn't that what Jesus taught? Was Jesus self-righteous then? ;)

[/QUOTE]You are using these statements to support your position that Jesus was not a liberal, and by implication seem to show that liberals waver in their beliefs or morals in order to adapt to the established order of the day.[/QUOTE]

I've never said that at all. What I said was that one needs to be cautious as to place any type of "label", which caries a political connotation, on the Son Of God. As I have stated before, you can't put people in a box. Not all who vote Repub do so because they totally embrace everything conservative. And the same with those who vote Democratic. Not all liberals embrace the progressive thinking that has greatly influenced the current Democratic Party. But as far as a progressive thinker goes - yes, they do not believe that truth is absolute. Jesus did, and so taught so. So therefore, when it comes to discussing Christianity, there are absolutes.


While an certain adaptation to the current society is inevitable, liberals are grounded in a set of beliefs and principles every bit as strong as conservatives

I've never indicated that they didn't.


--the difference is they push for a change from perceived societal wrongs to make a better overall society.Conservatives believe the current society is ideal and seek to prevent change.

Wrong perception on conservatives. Both sides, motivated by their core beliefs, seek change and improvement. It's simply a difference in ideology/opinion. Conservatives want just as much to improve society and not stand still. This perception that we are heartless and don't care for the less fortunate within a society is baseless. What we don't adhere to is that government is the best to always carry out that task. We believe in individual activism/involvement. Christ didn't teach that it was the role of government to care for the poor, the weak, and the helpless. That's not saying government shouldn't be involved, and that Christians should simply cede that role to government and say that is enough and they've done their part. Christ, and the apostles taught that we are to be personally involved in people's lives to improve them. And every church I've been involved with has taken on that role. In my last 20 years of invovlvement I have seen alot of evangelicals sacrificng and giving of themselves daily.




Because it so egregiously offended the religious leaders of the time, they branded him a blasphemer and a heretic. Salvation for gentiles? Unquestionned forgiveness of sins? The good of people before religious ritual? It's surprising he wasn't crucified sooner.

They tried to stone him on numerous occasions. ;)


And people have done an absolutely bang-up job distorting that message.

Some have. But you'd have to sight more specific examples.



Because the leaders in these progressive churches of which you speak have chosen to convert people to Christ not on fear, self-loathing or fright, but out of genuine love.

You can't exclude any of the elements that Jesus himself taught on. In can't emphasize his love, forgiveness, and grace while ignoring the other aspects that involve the notion of man's sin, accountability, and judgment. And alot of churches, for the sake of numbers. membership, and to make the Gospel more appealing to the masses has compromised that message.


It's not that the "other" qualities of jesus which you mention are discarded--I know of no Christian church, for example, that doesn't believe in the existence of a hell.

I wasn't referring to churches by that comment, but by those who reject Christianuty, or try to "amend" it to suit their tastes.


But that the positive qualities of his ministry are what should be focused on to draw people to him. People who come to believe in Christ simply to avoid going to hell, for example, are finding religion for entirely the wrong reasons.

No one is trying to scare people into the church. But one must preach the whole truth, or else many will be also drawn for the wrong reasons. Read the parable of Jesus in Matthew 13, where Jesus taught about sowing and the types of soil that the seed (his word) falls on.


You must be reading a different version of the Bible than I do. true, jesus spoke of the importance of committment and sacrifice...but there is no indication that his following or popularity dwindled because of that.

Then why did they leave him as he drew closer to the cross? Read John 6, and look at what happened in that particualr situation when the masses rejected his teaching. See verses 60-66. The more he began teaching on pesonal commitment and sacrifice to HIm, and the less he was performing miracles and "entertaining" the masses, they rejected and left him. See alos the example of the Rich Yong Ruler (Mark 10:17-22).

His triumphant entrance into jerusalem, only a week prior to his crucifixtion, was met with unbridled enthusiasm and throngs of support from people. If people were being turned away from him based on his teachings of sacrifice, that message apparentally had not reached jerusalem yet.[/QUOTE]

And by the end of the week those same masses were screaming "Crucify Him! And let his blood be on our hands!"

Why? Because they thought Jesus was going to be a Messiah in the sense of King David, a warrior who was coming to Jerusalem to deliver them from the Roman oppression. They sorely misunderstood his message from the beginning, and therefore rejected him when they see him arrested, refusing to defend himself, and being led away to be crucified. They felt they had been misled by a charlatan and betrayed. So they readily consented and rejoiced in his crucifixion. Most did, but not all.

gilpdawg
05-16-2005, 09:53 PM
Ah yes, I get negged anonymously. Wow that takes courage.

You know, I know I'm a big ole sinner who is going to hell and all that, but I've never negged anyone on this board, and I never will (and if I did you can bet I'd take full credit for it) because I believe the GREATER GOOD is that everyone HAS A VOICE. The negativity system is stupid, IMO--first the complaint is that there are too many people complaining; and then so we turn around and give the inmates bats and chainsaws (negs) to use under cover of darkness. Great idea.

Personally, I'm not scared that I'm going to somehow be sent to the little kids Thanksgiving table around here because I'll be buoyed by enough of the smart people who stand behind dissenting and different opinions.

My recommendation: full disclosure, both positives and negatives. That way I can avoid any thread that person has posted on so I don't get capriciously negged whenever that person feels like it.

My recommendation to the negativizer: grow up. Seriously. Be a big boy/girl.

Wow, that's bullcrap. The point of this is not to neg people you don't agree with, but people who don't contribute anything to the board. I was gonna post my thoughts on this, but my athiest-ism would probably kill my rep. So nevermind.

Redsfaithful
05-16-2005, 10:46 PM
No one is trying to scare people into the church.

Do you really believe that or did you just toss that in there without putting a lot of thought into it?

If you really believe that fear truly isn't used to push people towards Christianity than I'd like to respond to that, but part of me believes you didn't really mean that.

So I'll wait to see what you say.

Jaycint
05-16-2005, 11:31 PM
Wow, that's bullcrap. The point of this is not to neg people you don't agree with, but people who don't contribute anything to the board. I was gonna post my thoughts on this, but my athiest-ism would probably kill my rep. So nevermind.

I wouldn't neg you for expressing that opinion, and I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on it. ;) Some of the people on this side of the board irritate me to no end, and I'm sure I return the favor from time to time, but in the end I respect their right to their ideas and freedom to express them. Not a good road to go down to start negging people for expressing an opposite viewpoint if that is indeed what happened.

GAC
05-17-2005, 08:34 AM
Do you really believe that or did you just toss that in there without putting a lot of thought into it?

If you really believe that fear truly isn't used to push people towards Christianity than I'd like to respond to that, but part of me believes you didn't really mean that.

So I'll wait to see what you say.

I meant exactly what I said. But if you wish me to put more thought/explanation into it, then here goes...

If YOU feel that evangelicals need to somehow effectively and literally scare the hell out of someone in order to set them straight with God, or dangle people's feet over hellfire, then that just again proves TO ME, as it has numerous times on here in our discussions on Christianity, your continued warped sense/perception of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the church as a whole on this earth. And where you got it from I don't know.

I didn't come to Christ because someone put the "fear of God" in me. Nor is my service/commitment to Christ out of some fear that if I don't I'll burn. When the grace of Christ touches someone's heart it effects an inner change, a transformation, that is very hard to explain to one as yourself who is such a skeptic/critic.

And I'll bet you that if other Christians on here spoke up and gave their testimony they'd concur also as to why they came to Christ. It wasn't out of fear or dread.

What I said in my previous response is that when preaching the Gospel, one must share the entire truth/facts of that Gospel message. Not omit those parts that displease or upset you. Jesus didn't hold back. Nor did his apostles in the 1st century.

You don't over emphasize one aspect/characteristic of God, while denying the other. Then you are being misleading. Some seem to think that Jesus only spoke soothing and peaceful words... "That's right Jesus, tell us more about forgiveness, love, grace, and all those nice, comfortable things we like to hear. But for heaven's sake, leave out the parts about how our sin makes us personally accountable before God, the fact we must be totally committed to you as Savior, and especially those horrible parts about some sort of judgment and this terrible place called Hell."

Then how could they (or anyone) reject someone who spoke/taught only so?

If that is all you want to hear, then there is probably a church that will accomodate you. They are just going to have to do alot of editing, and "reading over" alot of sections in the Bible and Jesus' own words.

Well RF-there were two subjects that Jesus spoke more on then any other in the Gospel accounts. One was money. Guess what the other one was? ;)

He spoke of judgment/Hell not to use "scare tactics" on the masses, though a reverential fear (respect) for God should be shown by all men; but simply because it does exist, and they needed to know the entire truth.

All the aspects that I just mentioned above RF are a comprehensive part of the Gospel message that Jesus taught. You will be deceiving yourself by trying to emphasize one while ignoring the other. In order for anyone to be truthful with themselves in a honest approach study of the Bible (Gospel), they have to take it all in.

That is what I meant.

It's all about B-A-L-A-N-C-E.

I have never in my entire Christian life, and in witnessing to others, ever used scare tactics on anyone in preaching the Gospel. But I also didn't leave anything out. It's all in how the message is presented.

I simply believe that when doing so, you must be honest, as Jesus was, and preach the entire truth.

And in my studies of former great evangelists/teachers, where revivals among men were stirred, they preached a balanced message that contained all the aspects/characteristics of Jesus and the Gospel.

registerthis
05-17-2005, 10:56 AM
If you are a Christian, and you claim to be one, then how can you so easily discount Genesis and endorse evolution?
Because being a Christian does not mean I turn my mind off to the advancement of scientific discoveries and hypotheses. Evolution is an accepted scientific principle at every credible research and educational institution. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing contradictory about believing in evolution and Genesis--unless you accept a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, which I don't.


I have no problem with evolution being taught in our schools. But evolution has not been proven via scientific methodology as absolute. There should be that elective that respects those who do not adhere to that teaching, and want to examine creationism.
Simply because you choose not to adhere to the teaching of a scientific theory that is accepted by all but the most fringe scientists and researchers doesn't mean that an alternative, with no credible scientific backing, should be taught in its place.

I assume by "creationism" you are referring to a literal interpretation of Genesis--6 day creation, no evolution between species, 6,000 year old Earth, etc. Otherwise, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Evolution explains the PROCESS of how we got to where we are, but doesn't attempt to explain the origins of said process. That is because there is no sceintific evidence on which to ground any credible theory. Thus, science has essentially left the question of "what started it all?" up to religion and other such studies. The problem arises when religion attempts to take over as an explanation of the PROCESS. Creationism used as an explanation of a process is not science, therefore it shouldn't be taught as such.


It's interesting because those who oppose or do not beleive in creationism say that it's because it's based solely on faith. And that is not totally true. Creationism also involves scientific methodology. Yes, it also involves the element of faith; but so does evolution. ;)
No, evolution does not require "faith" to believe, it requires detailed study and observation, both of our existing world and of the species that came before us. There is no credible scientific methodology that could explain a 6,000 year old Earth.


I want the opportunity for my children to learn both sides/aspects, and to then be able to make the choice for themselves.
You have that opportunity--in Sunday School. If you want to teach your children that "creationism" is an acceptable alternative to evolution as a process, Church or your home would be a perfectly acceptable place in which to do that. School is not.


And I do not like it when I see teachers ridicule Genesis/creationism in our schools in certain instances, and yes, I have seen examples of this happening, simply because they do do adhere/believe in it.
I believe teachers should stay out of the religion argument completely--neither commenting for it, or against it. Because in much the same way that you get angry when you see teachers ridicule Genesis, so would parents of other children who would be forced to have their children be "taught" creationism.

registerthis
05-17-2005, 11:29 AM
As I have emphatically stated before - neither party has a monopoly on religion as far as right standing with God. Just as the Dems have done with the black vote, so Repubs have done a good job with the evangelical vote. Plus, some blame must be placed on the Democratic Party for them pushing away people of faith.
I don't disagree with you here--as I have stated before, I believe the democratic party should do more to reach out to people of faith to bring them into the party. But not by sacrificing their principles or ideals. I believe there is a sizeable population of progressive people of faith whom the Democratic party could reach out to. As a self-professed democrat and liberal, though, I'm not interested in recruiting evangelical, conservative Christians into the party.


I was raised a Democrat. I vote Republican not because I think they are the "Party of God", but because they are the closest to my core beliefs (economically and values). And I would say that is the same for most who vote Repunblican. There is no self-righteousness involved at all.
I don't believe there is self-righteousness involved, either. I've not accused anyone of that. My mother votes Republican, for goodness sake. I'm still working on her. ;)


You're absolutely right - he turned the Jewish religious order on it's head because they made it a religion of outward and not inward with all it's emphasis on ceremonies, rituals, etc. It was works oriented, which is always steeped in promoting self-rigteousness. It does not mean that Jesus opposes all established organized religion, or that it is wrong.
Again, I never implied anything of the sort. I believe Jesus encouraged his disciples to meet with one another, sounds organized to me.


Today - evangelicals are labeled "self-righteous" (and I really don't think most really understand the term) because they preach Christ as the only means of salvation. But isn't that what Jesus taught? Was Jesus self-righteous then? ;)
I'm not going to delve into a discussion about who is "saved" and who isn't, suffice to say that, yes, I think jesus was self-righteous. :)


I've never said that at all. What I said was that one needs to be cautious as to place any type of "label", which caries a political connotation, on the Son Of God. As I have stated before, you can't put people in a box.
Well, that's exactly what others here have been saying. "Liberal" isn't a political term, it's a mindset. It's not a blind acceptance of the values and beliefs which society or the establsihed order holds. Jesus may not have been a political liberal, but for the times he was very much a religious one.


Not all who vote Repub do so because they totally embrace everything conservative. And the same with those who vote Democratic. Not all liberals embrace the progressive thinking that has greatly influenced the current Democratic Party. But as far as a progressive thinker goes - yes, they do not believe that truth is absolute. Jesus did, and so taught so. So therefore, when it comes to discussing Christianity, there are absolutes.
Where do you get the idea that liberals do not believe in absolutes? I believe that people have an absolute freedom to live their lives as they so choose, free of government interference. I believe people have an absolute right to question authority and the established order. My absolutes may be different than yours, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.


Wrong perception on conservatives. Both sides, motivated by their core beliefs, seek change and improvement. It's simply a difference in ideology/opinion. Conservatives want just as much to improve society and not stand still.
The very definition of a conservative is "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. " If conservatives want to change society for the better, as you put it, they seek to return society to a time before liberalism had led to a more progresive one. Conservatives, by their very definition, don't seek to advance society forward, to adapt to new ideas or new philosophies. If you disagree with this, then I would argue that you're not a true conservative.


This perception that we are heartless and don't care for the less fortunate within a society is baseless.
I don't believe that, but i do think many Republican voters have a skewed opinion as to what is helping the less fortunate.


What we don't adhere to is that government is the best to always carry out that task. We believe in individual activism/involvement. Christ didn't teach that it was the role of government to care for the poor, the weak, and the helpless. That's not saying government shouldn't be involved, and that Christians should simply cede that role to government and say that is enough and they've done their part. Christ, and the apostles taught that we are to be personally involved in people's lives to improve them. And every church I've been involved with has taken on that role. In my last 20 years of invovlvement I have seen alot of evangelicals sacrificng and giving of themselves daily.
As have I, but for our society to function to its best capabilities, government social programs MUST be enacted and maintained. They are not a replacement for individual activities, but individual activities will not alone, by any stretch of the imagination, rectify the situation faced by the poor and lower-middle class.


They tried to stone him on numerous occasions. ;)
They did, he was quite splippery.


Some have. But you'd have to sight more specific examples.
The numerous evangelicals, ministers, pastors, etc. who preach hate and intolerance from their pulpits on Sunday mornings. I've heard the whole "Love the sinner, hate the sin" line, but the fact of the matter is many of them find it much easier to simply hate the sinner as well.


You can't exclude any of the elements that Jesus himself taught on. In can't emphasize his love, forgiveness, and grace while ignoring the other aspects that involve the notion of man's sin, accountability, and judgment. And alot of churches, for the sake of numbers. membership, and to make the Gospel more appealing to the masses has compromised that message.
I've never said they excluded anything that Jesus taight in. In fact, my exact quote was
It's not that the "other" qualities of jesus which you mention are discarded--I know of no Christian church, for example, that doesn't believe in the existence of a hell. But surely you understand that the positive ethos of Jesus's message is a better tool to bring people to church than the "negative" aspects? They are not ignored, but they aren't put up on the church sign, either.


No one is trying to scare people into the church.
Do you honestly believe that? In Columbus, a local church put on "Hellgate" every year, which took children through a haunted-forest style tour that showed the horrible, horrible htings that would happen to you if you weren't baptized and didn't accept Christ. You don't think that's using fear to motivate people to join the church?


Then why did they leave him as he drew closer to the cross? Read John 6, and look at what happened in that particualr situation when the masses rejected his teaching. See verses 60-66. The more he began teaching on pesonal commitment and sacrifice to HIm, and the less he was performing miracles and "entertaining" the masses, they rejected and left him. See alos the example of the Rich Yong Ruler (Mark 10:17-22).
Ah, but that's not what you argued. You said

those numbers started to dwindle radically when he spoke of sacrifice and total commitment to him.
Jesus had spoke, frequently, about those topics throughout his ministry, yet even up until the time he was sentenced to die he had masses of people following him. Clearly, it wasn't simply him TALKING about those things that drove people away, it was the threat that they would be killed, as well.


And by the end of the week those same masses were screaming "Crucify Him! And let his blood be on our hands!"
Yep, funny how such a large group of people can be convinced into doing something so wrong...

Redsfaithful
05-17-2005, 11:36 AM
RF, I meant to quote your post, but instead I edited it and accidently wiped it out.

I'm sorry. :(

-paint

registerthis
05-17-2005, 11:46 AM
RF, I meant to quote your post, but instead I edited it and accidently wiped it out.

I'm sorry. :(

-paint
Should you get negative rep points for that? ;)

Johnny Footstool
05-17-2005, 11:58 AM
Creationism also involves scientific methodology.

So did phrenology. And astrology. Unfortunately, all are very poor examples of scientific methodology.


I want the opportunity for my children to learn both sides/aspects, and to then be able to make the choice for themselves.

I agree that students should be taught about creationism. These beliefs are a very important part of our culture and need to be examined. As such, students should learn about creationism (not just the Christian version, but all major religions) in Social Studies class. Not in science class.

Redsfaithful
05-17-2005, 12:58 PM
RF, I meant to quote your post, but instead I edited it and accidently wiped it out.

I'm sorry. :(

-paint

This is what I remember.



I didn't come to Christ because someone put the "fear of God" in me. Nor is my service/commitment to Christ out of some fear that if I don't I'll burn.

GAC, you continually fail to see things from any point of view save for your own.

Unions are bad because Honda treats it's workers well, and it's workers are not unionized.

Christianity doesn't use fear because you became a Christian apparently because of balanced teaching.

You should try to see things from perspectives other than your own. It's really quite enlightening.


You have that opportunity--in Sunday School. If you want to teach your children that "creationism" is an acceptable alternative to evolution as a process, Church or your home would be a perfectly acceptable place in which to do that. School is not.

Amen Brother Registerthis. GAC, why don't you simply drop the pretense of wanting a balanced approach taught in schools and simply admit that you want creationism taught - period? Registerthis outlines perfectly acceptable places where creationism can be taught, but public schools really don't apply. If you disagree then why don't you run for school board? I'm sure with your point of view you'd do ok in Bellefontaine, from what I know of the town.

GAC
05-17-2005, 02:59 PM
First of all, no one knows honestly whether there was one man named Jesus or if he was an amalgamation of several prophets. Most credible historians believe Jesus wasn't one man. prophets.

Please quote me your sources from these credible historians. I'vre never in my entire life and studies of Jesus heard the above hypothesis about Jesus. That is definitely a new one.


Secondly, the Gospels, if you want to believe them, do not say THE ENTIRE JEWISH RACE wanted Jesus crucified as you suggested.

And if you read/understaund my post, you realize that I never said the ENTIRE JEWISH RACE crucified Jesus. I used the term Jews in the same sense as someone would say "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor". Now was every Japanese involved in that situation? Of course not.

You seem to like to assume and read into things.


That is the trumped up accusation fostered and coddled by Christians throughout time to burn, torture, exile, ghettoize, murder, rape, steal from Jews. When Christians got the plague, who was the cause? Had to be Jews poisoning the wells. :rolleyes:

That is your opinion. But you don't mind if I also roll my eyes at such an absurb accusation? Christians have nothing but love and admiration for Jews. We deeply understand their history, and also their inherhent role in the plan of God for the redemption of all mankind.


So in short, you don't know the history, and second, even if the Bible IS history, as you suggest, then you're interpreting it incorrectly.

After listening what you've just put forth, I don't think I'll be looking to you for anymore history lessons.

Redsfaithful
05-17-2005, 03:32 PM
After listening what you've just put forth, I don't think I'll be looking to you for anymore history lessons.

Smart, someone tells you things you disagree with (or haven't heard before) so stop listening. You'll learn quite a bit that way.

registerthis
05-17-2005, 03:44 PM
Christians have nothing but love and admiration for Jews. We deeply understand their history, and also their inherhent role in the plan of God for the redemption of all mankind.
I have no doubt that you do, GAC, and I know other Christians do as well.

But there are also a good number who don't feel that way. Once again, you're putting forth your own personal feelings/experiences and applying it to a broad spectrum of people. Religious anti-semitism is still prevalent in many areas.

Jaycint
05-17-2005, 03:52 PM
Smart, someone tells you things you disagree with (or haven't heard before) so stop listening. You'll learn quite a bit that way.

Let's be honest, nobody on this side of the board ever really learns anything from the other side, especially in these types of threads. Nobody is converting anybody in either direction. You basically have people from two fundamentally different approaches to life trying to explain/beat over the head/ hammer home to the other side with why their way is correct. It's an exercise in frustration. I'm not speaking of particular posters or political leanings, both are equally hard-headed at times. And the debate is usually so acid tongued in nature that it struggles to stay healthy.

Example:
Poster A: You're close minded.

Poster B: No you're close minded and on top of that you're a violent anti-semite.

(Note: Before I get any PM's this example was not meant to portray the earlier exchange about anti-semitism between GAC and Johnny or whoever it was.)

Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle.

registerthis
05-17-2005, 04:05 PM
Let's be honest, nobody on this side of the board ever really learns anything from the other side, especially in these types of threads. Nobody is converting anybody in either direction. You basically have people from two fundamentally different approaches to life trying to explain/beat over the head/ hammer home to the other side with why their way is correct. It's an exercise in frustration. I'm not speaking of particular posters or political leanings, both are equally hard-headed at times. And the debate is usually so acid tongued in nature that it struggles to stay healthy.
I don't see anyone here getting nasty with their posts--no insults, name-calling, etc. When you get political threads your bound to get tremendous differences of opinion. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed.

Not every opinion is expressed simply to convert the other side. If that were the case, I would quit my day job and become a full time political pundit. :)

Jaycint
05-17-2005, 04:10 PM
Not every opinion is expressed simply to convert the other side. If that were the case, I would quit my day job and become a full time political pundit. :)

And here I wasted 4 years on a Computer Science degree! :)

registerthis
05-17-2005, 04:18 PM
And here I wasted 4 years on a Computer Science degree! :)
hah, I almost did, then I decided to go into business. :evil:

Sometimes I wish I'd stayed with CIS.

Jaycint
05-17-2005, 04:23 PM
hah, I almost did, then I decided to go into business. :evil:

Sometimes I wish I'd stayed with CIS.

I think I majored in just about everything at one point or another before settling on Computer Science. If I remember correctly it went English, History, Political Science with a minor in Russian, and then Comp Sci. LOL

Sorry for the thread hijack guys, back to our regularly scheduled debate. :)

Johnny Footstool
05-17-2005, 04:33 PM
(Note: Before I get any PM's this example was not meant to portray the earlier exchange about anti-semitism between GAC and Johnny or whoever it was.)

"Not I," said the fly. I steered clear of that 12-car pileup.

Rychian
05-17-2005, 04:34 PM
What is most ridiculous about all of this is that it gets us absolutely nowhere. The greatest thing I have ever learned in Seminary is tolerance. Shocking! I know, a seminary teaching tolerance. And before the term "liberal" gets thrown out there to defame who and what I am, let me first state that Christ came out of Love.
All of the people in my congregation that I pastor are all different. There is a girl that has many a tattoo and piercing. This is one of the only churches that doesnt judge her for that. There is a Peruvian girl who had to run from the Catholic church because she wanted to help in leadership (now she will be starting a counseling center eventually). Every church in America (and the world) has a massive problem with judging. All too often the "sinner" finger is pointed outward and not inward. We need to remember that there was only one sinless person, and I aint him.
Jesus Christ in my opinion was a liberal minded man.
Liberal meaning --> He rebuked the status quo. He rebuked the Pharisees, The Religious people who were impressed with their "religiousness". What is most often missed is that the Pharisees were the liberal sect of that day. They were supposed to be of the people, Jesus never even went after the Saducees or the Essenes or the Zealots. The Pharisess were supposed to represent who and what the people were, and they werent doing their job. The Saducess never came out of the temple, the Essenes caved up somewhere and became hermits (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Zealots were too busy being assassins (Peter). He went after the Liberals of the Day!! So no side is safe here.
That being said, throw out your thoughts on what a liberal and conservative are today. Much as with the greek, they do not translate to back then. We cannot smack 21st century thought and hatred on a 2000 yr old text.
Christ was so liberal and shocking that He called his father Abba. Before this the Jews could not even udder the name YHWH (God) so they replaced it with Adonai (lord). Now here comes a man calling him Daddy. That aint a conservative status quo thought in my opinion.
The main issue with this whole thread is one person saying they are right, while the rest of You all are going to hell. We are no better than the Baptist Minister who inspired this thread if we think that. Our job here on earth, is to try to emulate Christ as He went before us. Some wont accept that, I respect their opinion as I used to be Atheist as well. However, no person with a big ole sign saying "________ go to hell!" Has ever helped anyone. Christ came out of love. No more, no less. Until we can love with that same passion and heart, we will never be what we were supposed to be.
I love you all.

Tom

Redsfaithful
05-17-2005, 05:10 PM
Let's be honest, nobody on this side of the board ever really learns anything from the other side, especially in these types of threads.

I've learned quite a bit on this side of the board. Does it happen often? No, I'll admit that it doesn't. But it does happen. MWM is a great example of someone who's given me a great deal to think about.

Rychian, your post was really interesting. I'll bet you've got quite a few interesting stories to tell with the direction you've gone in life.

Rychian
05-17-2005, 05:43 PM
Interesting is a word for it. I know for sure i am not the typical pastor type and that is why our church is the way it is. The people involved in our church plant are one in a million and my biggest prayer is that we change the way people look at christianity. If we can simply change that image in the mind of one person, than our job is done. Cliche i know, but i suppose it works.

Peace
Tom

registerthis
05-17-2005, 05:46 PM
Interesting is a word for it. I know for sure i am not the typical pastor type and that is why our church is the way it is. The people involved in our church plant are one in a million and my biggest prayer is that we change the way people look at christianity. If we can simply change that image in the mind of one person, than our job is done. Cliche i know, but i suppose it works.

Peace
Tom
That's the spirit, Tom. The Church needs more people with this mindset. :)

M2
05-17-2005, 06:03 PM
Great post Rychian.

On this "scientific" argument, Intelligent Design is the scientific equivalent of a pig building a house of sticks. The absolute silliest thing it does is bring up cell processes which actually support the Theory of Evolution.

GAC
05-17-2005, 09:10 PM
Simply because you choose not to adhere to the teaching of a scientific theory that is accepted by all but the most fringe scientists and researchers doesn't mean that an alternative, with no credible scientific backing, should be taught in its place.

Fringe scientists and researchers? The following scientists were creationists:

* Charles Babbage (1792-1871) (computer science)
* Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (gas dynamics)
* David Brewster (1781-1868) (optical mineralogy)
* Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) (comparative anatomy)
* Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) (hydraulics)
* Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) (thermokinetics)
* Henri Fabre (1823-1915) (entomology of living insects)
* Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (electromagnetics)
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) (electronics)
* William Herschel (1738-1822) (galactic astronomy)
* James Joule (1818-1889) (reversible thermodynamics)
* Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) (energetics)
* Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (celestial mechanics)
* Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) (systematic biology)
* Joseph Lister (1827-1912) (antiseptic surgery)
* Matthew Maury (1806-1873) (oceanography)
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (electrodynamics)
* Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (genetics)
* Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (calculus)
* Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) (hydrostatics)
* Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (bacteriology)
* William Ramsay (1852-1916) (isotopic chemistry)
* John Ray (1627-1705) (natural history)
* Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) (dimensional analysis)
* Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866) (non-Euclidean geometry)
* James Simpson (1811-1870) (gynecology)
* Nicholas Steno (1631-1686) (stratigraphy)
* George Stokes (1819-1903) (fluid mechanics)
* Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) (pathology)
* John Woodward (1665-1728) (paleontology)

Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.


I assume by "creationism" you are referring to a literal interpretation of Genesis--6 day creation, no evolution between species, 6,000 year old Earth, etc. Otherwise, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. Evolution explains the PROCESS of how we got to where we are, but doesn't attempt to explain the origins of said process. That is because there is no sceintific evidence on which to ground any credible theory. Thus, science has essentially left the question of "what started it all?" up to religion and other such studies. The problem arises when religion attempts to take over as an explanation of the PROCESS. Creationism used as an explanation of a process is not science, therefore it shouldn't be taught as such.

Just one simple question - you therefore reject the Genesis account on the origin of man and believe that man evolved from the ape? Where has science proven that?



You have that opportunity--in Sunday School. If you want to teach your children that "creationism" is an acceptable alternative to evolution as a process, Church or your home would be a perfectly acceptable place in which to do that. School is not.

Creation science is a legitimate science, regardless of what you or any others may claim. How much research/study have you done into creation science?

Our schools are suppose to be institutions of learning. There is no reason, when so many in our society do not either believe in, or doubt, evolution, that creation science cannot be taught as an elective course.



I believe teachers should stay out of the religion argument completely--neither commenting for it, or against it. Because in much the same way that you get angry when you see teachers ridicule Genesis, so would parents of other children who would be forced to have their children be "taught" creationism.

Again - where did I say that children should be forced to be taught creation science? I didn't.

GAC
05-17-2005, 09:25 PM
I have no doubt that you do, GAC, and I know other Christians do as well.

But there are also a good number who don't feel that way. Once again, you're putting forth your own personal feelings/experiences and applying it to a broad spectrum of people. Religious anti-semitism is still prevalent in many areas.

Where among evangelicals? I agree that it was a problem for the Catholic Church in their history; but I'm not Catholic. Show me where it is prevalent among mainstream Protestant teaching? It is not there.

Show me where credible and reputable Protestant teachers, not some fringe case, has preached anti-semitism? I know that Graham, at one point in his career made an insensitive remark about the people of Israel; but he also came back and apologized and asked for forgiveness.

Looking at the broad spectrum of people (evangelicals), they completely know and understand the role of the nation of Israel in God's plan.

It's not about my personal feelings. How did I arrive at my thoughts about the people/nation of Israel? It was how I was taught within those very mainstream churches. And again, if you asked any Christian a question concerning this situation you'd most likely get the same response I have given.

How can any Christian hold contempt for the people of Israel when their Savior came through the Jewish people? Realistically, they can't.

Were the apostles Paul and Peter, who were also Jewish, promoters of anti-semitism when they, in their letters, held their own brethren responsible for the crucifixion of Christ?

Evangelicals are strong supporters of the nation of Israel, and are shown contempt by the secular world for that support. The secular world has shown more hate and contempt towards the nation of Israel then the Body of Christ ever has.

Falls City Beer
05-17-2005, 09:31 PM
Where among evangelicals? I agree that it was a problem for the Catholic Church in their history; but I'm not Catholic. Show me where it is prevalent among mainstream Protestant teaching? It is not there.

Show me where credible and reputable Protestant teachers, not some fringe case, has preached anti-semitism? I know that Graham, at one point in his career made an insensitive remark about the people of Israel; but he also came back and apologized and asked for forgiveness.

Looking at the broad spectrum of people (evangelicals), they completely know and understand the role of the nation of Israel in God's plan.

It's not about my personal feelings. How did I arrive at my thoughts about the people/nation of Israel? It was how I was taught within those very mainstream churches. And again, if you asked any Christian a question concerning this situation you'd most likely get the same response I have given.

How can any Christian hold contempt for the people of Israel when their Savior came through the Jewish people? Realistically, they can't.

Were the apostles Paul and Peter, who were also Jewish, promoters of anti-semitism when they, in their letters, held their own brethren responsible for the crucifixion of Christ?

Evangelicals are strong supporters of the nation of Israel, and are shown contempt by the secular world for that support. The secular world has shown more hate and contempt towards the nation of Israel then the Body of Christ ever has.

Hitler's power structure was essentially Lutheran.

Redsfaithful
05-17-2005, 09:33 PM
Insensitive?

http://www.counterpunch.org/vestgraham.html


But this conversation with Billy Graham is something else again. Here is the most admired and influential religious leader in America complaining to the president of the United States about the Jews and their "stranglehold" on the media, and blaming them for "all the pornography."

Even when Nixon replies that he agrees but "can't say that" in public, Graham presses the point: Yes, right, but if you get elected to a second term, then we could do something about the problem.

Graham adds that while many Jews are friendly to him, "they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country."

Yeah, slightly insensitive.

Remember this isn't conjecture, this conversation was recorded on tape.

GAC
05-17-2005, 09:39 PM
What is most ridiculous about all of this is that it gets us absolutely nowhere. The greatest thing I have ever learned in Seminary is tolerance. Shocking! I know, a seminary teaching tolerance. And before the term "liberal" gets thrown out there to defame who and what I am, let me first state that Christ came out of Love.
All of the people in my congregation that I pastor are all different. There is a girl that has many a tattoo and piercing. This is one of the only churches that doesnt judge her for that. There is a Peruvian girl who had to run from the Catholic church because she wanted to help in leadership (now she will be starting a counseling center eventually). Every church in America (and the world) has a massive problem with judging. All too often the "sinner" finger is pointed outward and not inward. We need to remember that there was only one sinless person, and I aint him.
Jesus Christ in my opinion was a liberal minded man.
Liberal meaning --> He rebuked the status quo. He rebuked the Pharisees, The Religious people who were impressed with their "religiousness". What is most often missed is that the Pharisees were the liberal sect of that day. They were supposed to be of the people, Jesus never even went after the Saducees or the Essenes or the Zealots. The Pharisess were supposed to represent who and what the people were, and they werent doing their job. The Saducess never came out of the temple, the Essenes caved up somewhere and became hermits (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Zealots were too busy being assassins (Peter). He went after the Liberals of the Day!! So no side is safe here.
That being said, throw out your thoughts on what a liberal and conservative are today. Much as with the greek, they do not translate to back then. We cannot smack 21st century thought and hatred on a 2000 yr old text.
Christ was so liberal and shocking that He called his father Abba. Before this the Jews could not even udder the name YHWH (God) so they replaced it with Adonai (lord). Now here comes a man calling him Daddy. That aint a conservative status quo thought in my opinion.
The main issue with this whole thread is one person saying they are right, while the rest of You all are going to hell. We are no better than the Baptist Minister who inspired this thread if we think that. Our job here on earth, is to try to emulate Christ as He went before us. Some wont accept that, I respect their opinion as I used to be Atheist as well. However, no person with a big ole sign saying "________ go to hell!" Has ever helped anyone. Christ came out of love. No more, no less. Until we can love with that same passion and heart, we will never be what we were supposed to be.
I love you all.

Tom

Excellent post Tom. And in my association with churches over the last 20 years I can wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. I just don't like, nor appreciate it, when that "label" is spread over all churches as a whole when something like what this Baptist preacher did is seen. It's not fair.

And I've never carried the attitude of finger pointing and saying I'm right, and the rest of you are going to Hell. But even as a pastor you know that it is the responsibility of the believer to defend the Gospel and preach the truth. It's what got Jesus crucified, the apostles martyred, and the early church persecuted.

I've never placed myself on a pedestal. I fully understand the inherent working of sin in my own life and struggles. In witnessing and trying to lead others to Christ, is it then wrong to try and share that with others, just as it was shared with me at some point in the past?

Romans chapter 7 has always taught me alot in my life when reading the Apostle Paul's own struggles.

If that is being seen as judgmental, then so be it.

M2
05-17-2005, 10:24 PM
The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee until after the death of Christ. IMO, he never stopped being one, he just applied Pharisee structure, creed over conduct, to Christianity. Great quote from Wil Durant on the subject:

"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."

Johnny Footstool
05-17-2005, 10:36 PM
Creation science is a legitimate science, regardless of what you or any others may claim. How much research/study have you done into creation science?

I'll play ping-pong...

I've read enough about creation "science" to know that the root hypothesis is (to paraphrase) "Life is far too complex and magical to be an accident. Something had to have set it in motion." The "scientific evidence" collected to support this hypothesis includes tidbits like "look at the flagellum. It's far too complex to have evolved on its own. Something had to have designed it." Sound familiar?

No matter how you slice it, that's not science.

M2
05-17-2005, 11:10 PM
Here's the thing I don't get. We know, absolutely know, there were humans around long before 6,000 years ago.

Using mitochondrial DNA we can trace back the history of humanity across time and continents. We've found neanderthal cousins to humanity and, recently, discovered tiny human cousins on Flores just east of Java. We know that a hundred million years ago dinosaurs roamed the earth. We also know that birds evolved from dinosaurs. We've got the skeletal evidence to show it.

Geologists have also made huge strides in figuring out how the earth got running water and an oxygenated atmosphere.

None of this precludes the possibility of a God who created the earth. It's just that the process seems to be a whole lot more complex than anyone could have imagined 2,000 years ago. And what we discover in the next 2,000 years will make what we know now look like preschool material.

Any centuries old religion that demands it be taken as scientific fact and historical certitude is begging to get turned into a mythology. So I'm just going to toss this out there, perhaps, just perhaps, a God that set massive cosmic, geological, chemical and biological forces in motion to create a world which would, after billions of years, produce creatures capable of self-awareness and critical thought expects those creatures to continue to evolve in order to fulfill the design He set in motion. I'm not saying that is the case, but I sure wouldn't rule it out.

Jaycint
05-18-2005, 09:38 AM
M2 touched on some things that are really fascinating questions to me. Namely the following:

Hard scientific evidence flies in the face of the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The existence of humans (in one form or another) long before 6000 years ago is a given. So to me that begs the question, do you take the Bible literally and throw out the scientific evidence, or do you take it as a guideline on how to live with lots of stories meant to teach lessons but not as a historical text (in regards to the origins of man, not the people and places which can be validated)?

The question I have where hard science is concerned, and also where I find myself tending to believe moreso in intelligent design is the question of how did everything begin back at the beginning of time? Not just Earth but the entire universe. If it was a Big Bang then where did that first atom that exploded come from? Didn't someone have to create it? Before that atom existed didn't something exist prior to it? Was there just an atom that appeared out of the blue in the nothingness of nothing? Where did the nucleus and electrons of that atom come from? I guess what I am saying is at the beginning of all beginnings wouldn't there have to be some intelligent source to "create" something? And if there was then where did "he" come from? I don't buy and never will buy the idea that something can be created from nothing.

Interesting topics for discussion, I wish I had even a few of the answers.

Very interesting stuff to me.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2005, 09:46 AM
I guess what I am saying is at the beginning of all beginnings wouldn't there have to be some intelligent source to "create" something? And if there was then where did "he" come from?

Good questions.

We can't (or won't) comprehend the idea that maybe existence is a cosmic accident. That idea pretty much blitzes the whole meaning of life. The belief/philosophy that something "had" to create everything seems plausible to a lot of us because without it, why even bother? I share that belief. But it's not based in science. And it shouldn't be taught as science.

registerthis
05-18-2005, 09:48 AM
Fringe scientists and researchers? The following scientists were creationists:
<list deleted due to length>

Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.
Two comments spring to mind immediately:

One, Darwin first postulated his theory on evolution in 1859. However, it was far from a commonly accepted scientific principle at that time. It would not be until the 20th century that evolution would be viewed by a plurality of scientists and researchers as the most logical and rational explanation for life's progression on Earth. Everyone on your list above died prior to 1925, the year of the Scopes Monkey Trial, where a high school biology teacher was 'exonerated" for teaching evolution in his classroom.

That you can find a list of 20 or so scientists prior to 1925 who believed in creationism isn't surprising. You could probably find a few even now. I, on the other hand, do not feel a need to provide a "list" of scientists who accept evolution, as it would be far too voluminous and would encompasse practically every scientist studying anthropology, geology, biochemistry, biology, and many more fields. It would be akin to providing a list of scientists who believe the Earth revolves around the sun.


Just one simple question - you therefore reject the Genesis account on the origin of man and believe that man evolved from the ape? Where has science proven that?
I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is completely unsubstantiated. There's simply no evidence to support it. I'm not going to delve into a discussion with you over the intricacies of evolution simply because I am not a scientist. I do believe that our genetic makeup and shared genetic traits indicate our evolution from a lower form of life.


Creation science is a legitimate science, regardless of what you or any others may claim. How much research/study have you done into creation science?
No, it's not science, and here is why:

There are several qualifications for a theory or hypothesis to be "scientific." It must be "falsifiable"--in other words, it must be able to be questioned, and, in theory at least, be able to be overturned with evidence. It must be testable and reproducible--if a theory cannot be tested, or its results can't be consistently reproduced, it's not science. It must be naturalistic--not relying upon supernatural forces or miracles to work. It must be supported by empirical evidence and data. And, perhaps most importantly, its supporters must be objective and unbiased in their research, and they must be willing to change if evidence suggests they should.

Creationism isn't falsifiable--you can't disclaim a miracle or act of divine intervention, and ultimately that's what creationism rests upon. It isn't testable or reproducible, as God is no longer churning out new life forms, and the methodology He would have used to create the universe cannot be reproduced. It is not naturalistic. It isn't predictable--we can't use knowledge gained from a study of creationism to postulate a theory on other unexplainable phenomena, it merely explains evidence we already know. It isn't based upon empirical evidence, and its supporters are generally not objective or unbiased.

There are a number of good writings about this, if you're interested in doign research of your own. I recommend "The God Hypothesis" by Michael Corie, a physicist who, by the way, happens to be a Christian.



Our schools are suppose to be institutions of learning. There is no reason, when so many in our society do not either believe in, or doubt, evolution, that creation science cannot be taught as an elective course.
Perhaps you could make an argument that, taught as a social science as an explanation of cultures and beliefs, it could be taught as an elective course. But it should never be taught as a science as an alternative to evolution, and it should include creation stories from a plurality of cultures, not simply the Judeo-Christian belief.


Again - where did I say that children should be forced to be taught creation science? I didn't.
Children deserve an education that will adequately prepare them for their life in the world, and schools must do everything they can to ensure that students are taught subjects free of intervention from unobjective outside influences pushing an agenda.

registerthis
05-18-2005, 09:53 AM
M2 touched on some things that are really fascinating questions to me. Namely the following:

Hard scientific evidence flies in the face of the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The existence of humans (in one form or another) long before 6000 years ago is a given. So to me that begs the question, do you take the Bible literally and throw out the scientific evidence, or do you take it as a guideline on how to live with lots of stories meant to teach lessons but not as a historical text (in regards to the origins of man, not the people and places which can be validated)?

The question I have where hard science is concerned, and also where I find myself tending to believe moreso in intelligent design is the question of how did everything begin back at the beginning of time? Not just Earth but the entire universe. If it was a Big Bang then where did that first atom that exploded come from? Didn't someone have to create it? Before that atom existed didn't something exist prior to it? Was there just an atom that appeared out of the blue in the nothingness of nothing? Where did the nucleus and electrons of that atom come from? I guess what I am saying is at the beginning of all beginnings wouldn't there have to be some intelligent source to "create" something? And if there was then where did "he" come from? I don't buy and never will buy the idea that something can be created from nothing.

Interesting topics for discussion, I wish I had even a few of the answers.

Very interesting stuff to me.
I believe in a Supreme Being that is, ultimately, responsible for everything in our universe. As I have mentioned previously on this thread, science does not, nor can it, adequately explain the amazing string of cosmological coincidences that led us to where we are. It's not adversarial to evolutionary science to admit that there are some things which evolution does not account for.

Evolution does do an adequate job of explaining the process for how we got here. Why some people view it as less of a miracle that God would choose evolution as a method for populating our world rather than a sudden series of rapid creations is a mystery to me.

Rychian
05-18-2005, 09:54 AM
The basic question behind all of this is the translation of the word Yom. I have no idea how to put in an image, but heres a link for you to check out. http://hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V18 It is normally translated Day, but what kind of day. We can speak of the Day when the reds were good and mean the Big Red Machine. Not just October 1 1976. No one can come out and state a day is a day is a day when dealing with the Word Yom. Yom Kippor is the day of atonement yes, but it is normally HAYom kippor, which is "The Day of atonement, or today of atonement." The fact is, I dont place God within my nice little 24 hour box. He can do what He wants to do.
That being said, I am a creation believer, though I dont think anyone has the time right, Scientists or Creationists.

Tom

registerthis
05-18-2005, 09:55 AM
So I'm just going to toss this out there, perhaps, just perhaps, a God that set massive cosmic, geological, chemical and biological forces in motion to create a world which would, after billions of years, produce creatures capable of self-awareness and critical thought expects those creatures to continue to evolve in order to fulfill the design He set in motion. I'm not saying that is the case, but I sure wouldn't rule it out.
I'd say you're definitely on the right track with this. :thumbup:

Jaycint
05-18-2005, 10:06 AM
Good questions.

We can't (or won't) comprehend the idea that maybe existence is a cosmic accident. That idea pretty much blitzes the whole meaning of life. The belief/philosophy that something "had" to create everything seems plausible to a lot of us because without it, why even bother? I share that belief. But it's not based in science. And it shouldn't be taught as science.


Oh yeah, I wasn't arguing the "teach in school" point. I don't even know where I stand on that issue. I was just thinking out loud about the ideas behind the beginning of time. Taking all religious angles out of the equation (or as much as is possible), I feel like there had to be some higher power there to create the cosmos where that cosmic accident occurred, you know what I mean? Otherwise where did the cosmos come from? Where did the things come from that created the cosmos? It's just intriguing to me because I like to think I'm pretty analytical in my approach to problem solving but that has always been the one question that I couldn't in any way get my mind around.

registerthis
05-18-2005, 10:09 AM
Deleted duplicate post

Puffy
05-18-2005, 10:38 AM
The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee until after the death of Christ. IMO, he never stopped being one, he just applied Pharisee structure, creed over conduct, to Christianity. Great quote from Wil Durant on the subject:

"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."

I have never heard that quote before, but man thats good! Thanks.

gilpdawg
05-18-2005, 04:53 PM
I'd say you're definitely on the right track with this. :thumbup:
Yep! I agree with that as well. For the most part.

GAC
05-18-2005, 09:03 PM
I reject a literal interpretation of Genesis because it is completely unsubstantiated. There's simply no evidence to support it. I'm not going to delve into a discussion with you over the intricacies of evolution simply because I am not a scientist. I do believe that our genetic makeup and shared genetic traits indicate our evolution from a lower form of life.

The only problem is that DNA doesn't evolve. If man supposedly evolved from a single celled organism, then that organism would have had to have already possessed the DNA of man to begin with. Each particular species has their own set DNA.

I don't express total scorn or rebuke towards man's scientific methods. I simply believe that their methodology is limited and inconclusive. As Christians, if WE believe that man is finite, fallible, and limited in their knowledge, then any methodolgy (whether it is labelled as science or whatever) they devise/develop will have it's possible falacies and limitations, and yes, can raise skepticism.

One for example is the dating process to determine the age of the earth, fossils, etc. Whether it is radiodating or carbon-14 dating.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. Scientists select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach.

These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:

- The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn't happen in nature.
- Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
- The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
- Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.
- Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.

C-14 dating also has it's serious flaws due to many different factors that could affect the dating process and give varying/mixed results. In a nutshell -it is not a very reliable source of dating. If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.

You say you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (i.e creationism). Yet Jesus did. And I take it very seriously, as a Christian, when he said ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). Where does Jesus make any mention of evolution? Where does he ever, during his earthly ministry, discount or refute the creation story as recorded in Genesis?

GAC
05-18-2005, 09:18 PM
The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee until after the death of Christ. IMO, he never stopped being one, he just applied Pharisee structure, creed over conduct, to Christianity. Great quote from Wil Durant on the subject:

"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."

Whoever made that quote obviously didn't know, via reading/studying the Bible, either Peter or Paul. Paul wrote "For me to live is Christ", and exhorted beleivers to "clothe themselves with Christ". While early in his Christian ministry it was Peter who was having a hard time leaving the outward forms/rituals of Judaism (Acts 10:9-15), and was strongly rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-16)

You cannot show me anywhere where Paul carried over the Phariseeic structure that he once adhered to and transferred it to Christianity. And I'm referring to the rigid, outward form of ritualistic, ceremonial forms that existed under Judaism. In fact, he rebuked some of the early churches, which were largely comprised of Jews newly converted to Christ for trying to go back to or implement those forms innto Christianity (see Galatians).

registerthis
05-19-2005, 12:57 AM
The only problem is that DNA doesn't evolve. If man supposedly evolved from a single celled organism, then that organism would have had to have already possessed the DNA of man to begin with. Each particular species has their own set DNA.
I'm sorry, but that is simply wrong. DNA *does* evolve. You may know "genetic evolution" by its more common name, "genetic mutation".

Genetic mutation once was studied only in the nucleus of cells, by comparing genes in the nucleus of one cell with genes in the nucleus of another cell. However, mutations here occur very slowly, and since these nuclear genes are inherited from both parents, it can be difficult to track (particularly due to recombination.)

However, the study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which mutates much faster and is passed on only maternally and therefore cannot recombine, presents a much clearer picture on how individuals relate to one another and provides an excellent tool for tracing our genetic heritage.

Using the mtDNA tracking method based on a study performed in Africa, molecular biologists have been able to determine that the transformation from an "archaic" version of human beings, to the anatomically current species, occured between 100-140,000 years ago on the continent of Africa. Amazing, fascinating stuff, really.

BTW, if you're curious to find out more about this (as you claim to have an open mind on this subject), this site, though technically complex, provides a good synopsis of the above-mentioned study: Link to article (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/)


I don't express total scorn or rebuke towards man's scientific methods. I simply believe that their methodology is limited and inconclusive. As Christians, if WE believe that man is finite, fallible, and limited in their knowledge, then any methodolgy (whether it is labelled as science or whatever) they devise/develop will have it's possible falacies and limitations, and yes, can raise skepticism.
The problem with your argument is that you equate your belief in creationism with other people's "belief" in evolution. People don't "believe" in evolution, the difference is in the willingness to seriously consider new attempts to explain observed phenomena. Evolution is based on observations of data from a number of sources. It is open to criticism and skepticism, and these criticisms lead scientists to study further and provide the "hooks" onto which the theory is expanded and made more precise. "Creationism" is not open to such arguments and skepticism, it claims to be infallible, despite a lack of any observational data to prove it.


One for example is the dating process to determine the age of the earth, fossils, etc. Whether it is radiodating or carbon-14 dating.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. Scientists select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach.
That's complete rubbish, I'm afraid. Scientists do no such thing, and I would challenge you to find documented evidence that reputable scientists have intentionally discarded dates received from the Carbon-14 process which do fit their "view" of an old Earth. Scientists are not like creationists--they do not enter into their studies with a bias towards one view or another. Their only intent is to determine, based on available facts and data, the most logical explanation for occurences. They are not out to "disprove" creationism--their findings and documented evidence accomplishes that on its own.


However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
I chose not to respond individually to your carbon dating comments for two reasons. One, carbon dating is hardly the exclusive method scientists use to offer a "date" of certain organic materials. It is only useful back to approximately 50,000 years, and even then the dates are given only as "approximations." The dates do not nearly vary so much as to suggest that the Earth could potentially be only 7,000 years old, as you seemingly suggest, but variations of several hundred to a thousand years are not uncommon.

Secondly, scientists have successfully refuted challenges to the carbon dating system to support it as an adequate method for approximate dating of organic materials, and I need not repeat them here and turn this thread into a scientific dissertation. If you are curious, this site offers a good synopsis of it. (Never say i don't provide reading material): Link to Carbon Dating article (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html)

i did want to make another point, since you brought up radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is actually a general term given to a variety (over 40) of intricate dating techniques used to provide the approximate age of rocks and other minerals on our Earth. The important thing to remember is all of these dating methods agree. COntrary to your assertion, disagreements between radiometric dating techniques are the exception, not the rule. The dating systems agree a great majority of the time.

Using all data from radiometric dating techniques, in order for someone who holds the view of a young Earth to be correct, it would require a difference in magnitude ranging from 10,000 to over 1 million. This is based on ALL data observed. The differences of which you speak, and imply are so grandiose, are actually generally within the margin of error--a few percent--and certainly no where near the *magnitude* of difference which would be necessary to support your views of a young Earth.

I have a good website for this one too, also written by a Christian physicist. Very good article on this topic (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html)

Simply put, radiometric dating overwhelmingly supports the theory of an old Earth, the evidence is irrefutable.


You say you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (i.e creationism). Yet Jesus did. And I take it very seriously, as a Christian, when he said ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). Where does Jesus make any mention of evolution? Where does he ever, during his earthly ministry, discount or refute the creation story as recorded in Genesis?
Two questions:

One, where does Jesus ever condemn homosexuality? His lack of teachings on this topic certainly hasn't prevented a vast majority of Christian leaders from taking a very anti-homosexuality stance. Should we infer that Jesus promoted homosexuality, since he never spoke of it directly?

Two, why does the theory of a God who set into motion the biological laws and events that are the evolutionary process contradict an allegorical view of Genesis?

EDIT: This is the last I'm going to post relative to the young earth vs. old earth "argument." The proof offered to support the idea of an old Earth is overwhelming and irrefutable. There is absolutely nothing to support the idea of a 7,000 year old Earth, and the contortions of evidence and data which would be necessary to conform to that view are so preposterous they need not even be mentioned. I view this as akin to arguing that the Earth is not round, or does not revolve around the sun--pointless and redundant.

Johnny Footstool
05-19-2005, 04:25 AM
Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. Scientists select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach.

So despite the "fact" that Christianity is taking over the world (as "proven" in an article posted in another thread), a cabal of evil, Godless scientists has used conjecture and shaky evidence to successfully fool the general populace into doubting the Bible?

RedsBaron
05-19-2005, 06:41 AM
Whoever made that quote obviously didn't know, via reading/studying the Bible, either Peter or Paul. Paul wrote "For me to live is Christ", and exhorted beleivers to "clothe themselves with Christ". While early in his Christian ministry it was Peter who was having a hard time leaving the outward forms/rituals of Judaism (Acts 10:9-15), and was strongly rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-16)

You cannot show me anywhere where Paul carried over the Phariseeic structure that he once adhered to and transferred it to Christianity. And I'm referring to the rigid, outward form of ritualistic, ceremonial forms that existed under Judaism. In fact, he rebuked some of the early churches, which were largely comprised of Jews newly converted to Christ for trying to go back to or implement those forms innto Christianity (see Galatians).
Paul repeatly preached about the freedom a believer had in Christ and that salvation was by faith, not works. The references to Galatians are directly on point.

GAC
05-22-2005, 09:55 AM
The problem with your argument is that you equate your belief in creationism with other people's "belief" in evolution. People don't "believe" in evolution


Evolution is based on observations of data from a number of sources. It is open to criticism and skepticism, and these criticisms lead scientists to study further and provide the "hooks" onto which the theory is expanded and made more precise. "Creationism" is not open to such arguments and skepticism, it claims to be infallible, despite a lack of any observational data to prove it.

I have no problem whatsoever if anyone wants to show disbelief in creationism because THEY CLAIM the observable data is not there. I simply believe that the observable data is there, and scientists simply haven't been able to put it all together. Or they simply ignore it when it counters their belief system. Why is that not possible when they haven't done it with evolution either. The fact of the matter is that evolution has not been proven factual via scientific methods. Because when their science disproves any of their findings (and it has) they simply reject those findings because it doesn't line up with what they want to believe/validate. Therfore, they conclude, it must not be true.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

You make the assumption that any scientist that makes statements of disbelief in evoluton, age of the earth, etc., are "fringe" scientists who don't even know their own field of expertise. I find that interesting that just because scientists doubt those findings/studies they are quick to be labelled such when science itself leaves so many holes and vacuums of unanswered questions in their scientific methodology.

Take a hard look at the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang model is basically presented as fact in much of the education system. Now it has to be modified because it has been shown to be possibly in error. The observable data you need does not confirm what they have been teaching for decades. The universe is still expanding when they said it was slowly decaying due to the "bang" slowing. YIKES!

A team of astronomers from the University of Texas announced a startling discovery in 2004. They had used the 4-metre Blanco Telescope in Chile to find a long string of fully formed galaxies. It has sometimes been called the Francis Filament, after team member Dr Paul Francis from the Australian National University.

The research team caused a stir when they reported their discovery at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society on 7 January 2004. Astronomers around the world were astonished at how mature galaxies could have formed so fast in the young universe.

The astronomers calculated that the supercluster was 300 million light-years across, and right at the most distant edge of the universe, 10.8 billion light-years away. (A light-year is how far light would travel at its current speed of 300,000 km/s (186,000 mps) in a year—9.5 trillion km or 5.9 trillion miles.)

However, the discovery is a huge problem for evolutionary timescales. These galaxies exist when, according to big bang cosmology, they shouldn’t have had time to form.

In the current main evolutionary model, galaxies formed from variations in the density of matter produced by the big bang. Big bangers imagine that the universe needed billions of years before stars and galaxies could form into the recognizable structures we see near the Milky Way galaxy today. But this new discovery is precisely the reverse of big-bang predictions:

- These galaxies appear to be fully formed, mature structures.
- The galaxies are aligned in a long string.
- The string is colossal—more than 300 million light-years long.

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.

Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

"Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing."

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

"There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."

As I stated before- naturalistic cosmologists will undoubtedly find a way to fit this new evidence into the atheistic big bang model. However, this would merely show that scientists always interpret facts in the light of theory. Theory, in turn, depends on one’s belief system.

A Really Long Fuse Before the Big Bang

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

"Once upon a time, say a dozen or so billion years ago, space and matter came into existence out of nothing and expanded a million trillion trillion-fold. And that's how we got what exists today." So the story-tellers --- I mean evolutionist cosmologists --- once told us. They like spinning tales to us, who like children in a nursery, are always eager to hear something new. But the old story above, called The Standard Big Bang Theory, prompted some of the more skeptical children to ask embarrassing questions, like: "What happened before the Big Bang?" and "How could the initial matter be so precisely evenly-spread throughout space at the beginning?" The usual story-teller response was something like, "Ask me something more meaningful, like, 'What's north of the North Pole?'"

Now a new story-teller, to his credit, has tried to answer the children's questions more seriously. He tells us something like this: "Well, you see, the universe really didn't come into existence a mere few billion years ago. It actually started a long time ago! It was a very dull universe for an infinitely long time. Then --- all of a sudden --- only a dozen or so billion years ago, it decided to get some sparkle into its dreary life and explode. But it had all that infinity of years beforehand to get ready and distribute matter very smoothly throughout itself before it went boom. You see, now I've attached a really, really long fuse to the Big Bang firecracker."

"Marvelous!" say the children --- "How do you know all this?"

"Ah," says the story-teller, "I just reached into my bucket of zeroes --- we cosmologists use them like a carpenter uses nails --- and just tacked together some popular stories, er, theories, like "inflationary cosmology" and "string theory."

"We get it," say the children, "Your fuse is a string! But isn't string theory just a nursery story, too? What actual data does it predict or explain?"

"Uh, well," says the story-teller, "string theory actually hasn't connected with any data yet. It's very complicated. But we're getting there. Just wait."

"How long should we wait?" asks one of the children, "As long as it took your fuse to finish burning? Infinity years?" "And besides," asks another, "what was there before your fuse came into existence?" But the story-teller has left the nursery, seeking more gullible children.



I chose not to respond individually to your carbon dating comments for two reasons. One, carbon dating is hardly the exclusive method scientists use to offer a "date" of certain organic materials. It is only useful back to approximately 50,000 years, and even then the dates are given only as "approximations." The dates do not nearly vary so much as to suggest that the Earth could potentially be only 7,000 years old, as you seemingly suggest, but variations of several hundred to a thousand years are not uncommon.

The amount of helium in the air and in rocks is not consistent with the earth’s being billions of years old, as believed by evolutionists and progressive creationists. Rather it is good scientific evidence for a short age, as taught by a straightforward reading of Genesis.

I'm going to quote you sources from creationism organizations. Some may simply discount them because of the source. That's fine if they can disprove what they are reporting. The studies didn't originate WITH Creation Magazine, but where done by respected scientists in the field, and REPORTED in the magazine.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp

The Earth's magnetic field shows that the earth is young..

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp



i did want to make another point, since you brought up radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is actually a general term given to a variety (over 40) of intricate dating techniques used to provide the approximate age of rocks and other minerals on our Earth. The important thing to remember is all of these dating methods agree. COntrary to your assertion, disagreements between radiometric dating techniques are the exception, not the rule. The dating systems agree a great majority of the time.


Simply put, radiometric dating overwhelmingly supports the theory of an old Earth, the evidence is irrefutable.

It is not irrefutable. Many conditions can and do effect the rate of decay, which is not always a constant, and can give erronoeus and inconclusive results.

I can post credible references too. Unless one can prove they are not credible.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20in accurate

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Even secular scientists show skeptism/doubt to evolution. It's not just people of faith.


Two questions:

One, where does Jesus ever condemn homosexuality? His lack of teachings on this topic certainly hasn't prevented a vast majority of Christian leaders from taking a very anti-homosexuality stance. Should we infer that Jesus promoted homosexuality, since he never spoke of it directly?

I'm not going to go into another debate on this subject because it has been discussed in great lengths on here before. And we are just gonna have to agree that we disagree.

With what cultures/societies, as recorded in the Bible, was homosexuality seen? Jewish? No. It was those societies seen by God as pagan and immoral whom either the nation of Israel (O.T.) or the early Christian church (N.T.) came in contact with. And it wasn't just homsexual behavior that both the Jewish and Christian communities were told to avoid by God. There were numerous other types of behaviors that were also listed.

First off, we don't know if Jesus did/didn't say anything about homsexuality in the Gospels. John stated at the end of his letter that Jesus said/did so mnay things that there woudn't be enough books to record all that he did. But because homosexuality didn't seem to be an issue among the religiously ascetic Jewish community, that could very well be why Jesus never had to cross that bridge during his brief 3 1/2 year ministry among his brethren, the Jews.

But more importantly - a stong and basic fundamental belief among Christians is the deity of Jesus Christ as well documented in the scriptures. both O.T. and N.T. His deity, at least among believers, is not something that is open for debate or to be refuted. He claimed it (and proved it). The Jews misunderstand what he was claiming - it was one of the main reasons they tried to stone him (John, chapters 5 -8). The apostles confirmed it in their letters.

Do you believe in his physical bodily resurrection? Another confirmation.

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be" (John 8:28)

John wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:1,14). Other references Philippians 2: 7-8, Hebrews chapter 1.

I could provide many more references to this truth, in both the old and new testaments. But space prevents it. But my point is that if Jesus is the Word of God (both the spoken word (rhema) and the living word (Logos) ), then when the Bible speaks out against homosexuality (and it does), then Jesus said it. You're limiting Jesus Christ to the 4 Gospels only. The resurrected Jesus made many appearances to his Apostles (including Paul). The letters they wrote were not their opinions, though some try to suggest that. Throughout their letters they claimed....

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16)

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (world). And many of the people who came to Christ also came out of cultures/societies that were pagan, and had many immoral practices/lifestyles, along with pagan types of worship. Letters such as Galatians, Esphesians, Colossians, and Philippians came as a result of Paul addressing these new converts to Christ who, being new to Christ/thre Gospel, were trying to bring/implement these old habits/practices into their new found faith. They didn't know. The letters addressed not only the issue of homosexulaity (where it was evident), but many other types of practices/lifestyles that were the "norms" of those societies.

Now some may try to say that is "fundamentalism"; but the fact is, Paul was very straighforward about such issues.

Listen to the stern (and some today would say "judgmental" words of Paul to the Galatians...

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia:Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

So Paul was addressing the accusations by some that he was not preaching the true Gospel, but was offering his opinion. He quickly addressed that accusation not only here in Galatians, but also in other letters.

And it's interesting, because the word "revelation" in the Greek refers to a "direct face to face confrontation (meeting) with the risen Lord".

So what Paul records, he says came from Jesus.

And later in that letter (and other letters) he states that homosexuality, along with other behaviors, will have no place in the kingdom of God.

You can either accept them or reject them. I can't prove them to you via scientific methodology, nor give you another observable data.

I, and an overhwhelmingly vast majority of Christians, just because we disagree with the homosexual lifefstyle, have never committed, nor would we condone, any type of violence or mistreatment of them. And those that do, and claim to do so under the "mantle" of Christ are either truly misguided OR aren't truly Christian to begin with. That's simply my opinion. I'll leave that up to the Lord.

And that is all I am going to say on this matter.



Two, why does the theory of a God who set into motion the biological laws and events that are the evolutionary process contradict an allegorical view of Genesis?

You haven't shown that biological laws and events have been set by God that confirm the evolutionary process. Nor have you offered convincng and irrefutable proof that the earth is billions of years old.

Now I have a question for you...

You claim to be a Christian. I am not here to refute that. But how do you reconcile those clear Biblical teachings as taught/confirmed by your Lord and Savior that teach the Genesis account of God creating man, man's fall into sin and having a "fallen, sin nature", his need of redemption from that sin, and the death of Christ as the sinless Son of God on that cross as the atoning sacrifice... with evolution?

Evolutionists reject such concepts, and they can't makew them fit. I see you treying to make them somehow fit by making assumptions. You'll make a good scientist someday. ;)

And finally, I must say that I am enjoying these conversations. I hope they remain even keeled and respectful.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2005, 11:33 AM
Whoever made that quote obviously didn't know, via reading/studying the Bible, either Peter or Paul. Paul wrote "For me to live is Christ", and exhorted beleivers to "clothe themselves with Christ". While early in his Christian ministry it was Peter who was having a hard time leaving the outward forms/rituals of Judaism (Acts 10:9-15), and was strongly rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-16)

You cannot show me anywhere where Paul carried over the Phariseeic structure that he once adhered to and transferred it to Christianity. And I'm referring to the rigid, outward form of ritualistic, ceremonial forms that existed under Judaism. In fact, he rebuked some of the early churches, which were largely comprised of Jews newly converted to Christ for trying to go back to or implement those forms innto Christianity (see Galatians).

Will Durant, brilliant scholar of philosophy and historian, exegete and hermeneut. Forgotten in his lifetime more things than half this board put together. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A total dummy. :rolleyes:

GAC
05-22-2005, 12:30 PM
Will Durant, brilliant scholar of philosophy and historian, exegete and hermeneut. Forgotten in his lifetime more things than half this board put together. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A total dummy. :rolleyes:

Didn't say he was a dummy. Just doesn't know his Bible, nor the personalities/characteristics of such men as Paul and Peter if he made such a statement. It's not supported within the the letters he wrote. And anyone who reads those letters (you don't need a PHD or Pulitizer prize to do so) would see that.

Amazing what a bunch of dumb, uneducated Gallileans can do to confound the scholars then... and now. ;)

M2
05-22-2005, 01:17 PM
Will Durant, brilliant scholar of philosophy and historian, exegete and hermeneut. Forgotten in his lifetime more things than half this board put together. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize. A total dummy. :rolleyes:

Don't forget to add religion to philosophy and history. Could quote both testaments in Latin, verbatim. Probably knew them in Greek too.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2005, 01:27 PM
I suppose I implied religious scholar when I wrote hermeneut, but yeah, religious scholar as well.

The quote from Durant is meant to suggest what a readership has done with the Bible, that fundamentalists have given pride of place to Paul over Christ. It's a symbolic statement about how particular sects emphasize what they wish to emphasize in the Bible. That the Bible is, was, and always will be a political tool, a looking glass wherein people see what they want to see.

GAC
05-22-2005, 01:49 PM
I suppose I implied religious scholar when I wrote hermeneut, but yeah, religious scholar as well.

The quote from Durant is meant to suggest what a readership has done with the Bible, that fundamentalists have given pride of place to Paul over Christ. It's a symbolic statement about how particular sects emphasize what they wish to emphasize in the Bible. That the Bible is, was, and always will be a political tool, a looking glass wherein people see what they want to see.

I've never seen, nor used, the Bible as a "political tool" in the sense it is used today. Do I allow my Christian faith to form the way I vote? Sure do. Just like anyone allows their particular ideology to influence there's.

Would you consider me a fundamentalist? Why? Paul mirrored and exemplified the person and teachings of Christ. And even in grace he didn't pull punches with anyone when it came to the doctrinal truths of the Gospel.

There is good and bad in fundamentalism. One can find "fringe" in any ideology. Jesus and the apostles upheld what they referred to a basic fundamental doctrinal truths. Many, if guys like Paul were preaching today, would be attacked by progressive thinkers of now.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2005, 01:55 PM
I've never seen, nor used, the Bible as a "political tool" in the sense it is used today. Do I allow my Christian faith to form the way I vote? Sure do.

I'm no Bible scholar, but I know a contradiction when I read one.

GAC
05-22-2005, 02:02 PM
I'm no Bible scholar, but I know a contradiction when I read one.

Define political tool then? Discussing my faith on here is not being political IMO. If that is the case, then Jesus was the biggest politician of them all. Are you saying that people of faith, should not allow that belief system to influence the way they vote? That I should vote for a candidate free of those influences, regardless if they have stances that I ideologically oppose?

Do you? I doubt it.

If that is the case, then we may as well just put names in a hat and draw out the winner so as to not allow outside influences to determine the results. :lol:

Falls City Beer
05-22-2005, 02:07 PM
Define political tool then? Are you saying that people of faith, should not allow that belief system to influence the way they vote? That I should vote for a candidate free of those influences, regardless if they have stances that I ideologically oppose?

Do you? I doubt it.

If that is the case, then we may as well just put names in a hat and draw out the winner. :lol:

No, I don't see it as a good/bad dichotomy. I'm merely pointing out that to greater and lesser degrees, religious texts are political tools; they've inflluenced politics (left and right) for many millenia. That's just observation.

In my stance, I take a disinterested (not uninterested--it's not the same thing) approach to how morality shapes my vote; I question, weigh, think, compare, then judge rather than slap the doctrinal template over the voting card. I believe in contexts and greater goods, not absolute goods/evils. That's where my political and moral compasses collide.

GAC
05-22-2005, 08:39 PM
No, I don't see it as a good/bad dichotomy. I'm merely pointing out that to greater and lesser degrees, religious texts are political tools; they've inflluenced politics (left and right) for many millenia. That's just observation.

In my stance, I take a disinterested (not uninterested--it's not the same thing) approach to how morality shapes my vote; I question, weigh, think, compare, then judge rather than slap the doctrinal template over the voting card. I believe in contexts and greater goods, not absolute goods/evils. That's where my political and moral compasses collide.

And I wholeheartedly agree with that, and a vast majority of people of faith do the same. My political views are not totally shaped by my religious faith, but they do have an influence.

registerthis
05-23-2005, 12:23 PM
I have no problem whatsoever if anyone wants to show disbelief in creationism because THEY CLAIM the observable data is not there. I simply believe that the observable data is there, and scientists simply haven't been able to put it all together. Or they simply ignore it when it counters their belief system. Why is that not possible when they haven't done it with evolution either.
Because scientists don't work that way, GAC. Scienctific theories do not begin--or end--with preconceived biases. Scientists are not out to disprove creationism, they are attempting to determine the method in which our Earth and universe came into being. The evidence they have uncovered points clearly to an evolutionary process. Whether you want to personally believe it or not--that is your choice. But I don't feel a need to continue posting article after article after article from esteemed scientists and research labs that indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth did not follow a path as literally interpreted from Genesis.


The fact of the matter is that evolution has not been proven factual via scientific methods. Because when their science disproves any of their findings (and it has) they simply reject those findings because it doesn't line up with what they want to believe/validate. Therfore, they conclude, it must not be true.
Absolutely, completely wrong. This is simply the bias of your own opinion, GAC.


Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.
It has. The age of the Earth is not something I am willing to debate with you.

Secondly, evolution is not some random occurence where something that happens to work is the one that sticks. All species evolve and adapt to the environment they are in--you can witness it on a micro level across multiple organisms today--bacteria, for example. Scientists are constantly finding fossil records that show ancestors of species we know today. Kimodo Dragons, for example, are commonly thought to be one of the links between dinosaurs and the smaller lizards and other reptiles we know today. Similarly, several species of feathered dinosaurs have been discovered, leading to observations that they are one of the links between dinosaurs and birds.


You make the assumption that any scientist that makes statements of disbelief in evoluton, age of the earth, etc., are "fringe" scientists who don't even know their own field of expertise. I find that interesting that just because scientists doubt those findings/studies they are quick to be labelled such when science itself leaves so many holes and vacuums of unanswered questions in their scientific methodology.
It's because the scientists that do doubt these things ARE on the fringe of scientific thought and belief. Only .015% of over 480,000 geologists and biologists worldwide accept a literal creation theory over evolution. (Source: Link (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html) Science will never answer every single question--it's not deisgned to do that. But simply having unanswered questions or room for conjecture does not mean that the subject is left entirely open for debate, or open to the most ridiculous of alternatives (which is how I--and every other reputable scientist--views the concept of a 7,000 year old Earth.)


Take a hard look at the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang model is basically presented as fact in much of the education system. Now it has to be modified because it has been shown to be possibly in error. The observable data you need does not confirm what they have been teaching for decades. The universe is still expanding when they said it was slowly decaying due to the "bang" slowing. YIKES!
Yikes? You say 'yikes' because a scientific theory was amended due to the discovery of new evidence? Of course theories are constantly changing, GAC. That's the crux of scientific thought--select a hypothesis, and then do everything you can to disprove it. This makes the ultimate argument that much stronger.

The Catholic Church used to condemn people to death for daring to say the world was round and not the center of the universe, and it took the Church nearly 500 years to apologize for it's mistake. So, if we're going to discuss an inability to adapt to changing theories and models, I would put the Church up as a pristine example.

Secondly, the theory of the Big Bang always left open the question of the whether the universe was ever-expanding, stagnant, or slowly collapsing back in upon itself. For awhile, the common thought was that the Big bang did not explode with enough energy to propel the universe out to infinity, thus it wa smost likely collapsing back in upon itself. Then, scientists discovered "dark matter", which are the sources of energy with negative gravitational pulls (such as black holes) that went undiscovered until fairly recently. Some scientists speculate that dark matter consumes nearly 80% of all available energy in the cosmos. This discovery, among others, led scientists to amend their theory of a collapsing universe to one that is ever-expanding.

And if, at some point in the future, evidence is found which refutes that, the theory will once again be amended. Something, i might add, the Church would refuse to do.


A team of astronomers from the University of Texas announced a startling discovery in 2004. They had used the 4-metre Blanco Telescope in Chile to find a long string of fully formed galaxies. It has sometimes been called the Francis Filament, after team member Dr Paul Francis from the Australian National University....etc.
The Francis Filament is one that many creationaists have pulle dup in order to supposedly support their conclusion that the universe is not as old as it is. I believe you are referring to this particular quote (taken from a NASA release on the topic):


"We are seeing this string as it was when the Universe was only a fifth of its present age," said Woodgate. "That is, we are looking back four-fifths of the way to the beginning of the Universe as a result of the Big Bang."

The problem is that this view was later found to be inaccurate. The galaxies are not as far away as would seem to be indicated. The astronomer Alton C. Arp discussed this in his most recent book, where he states the Francis filament is most likely ejecting quasars. The filament - redshift of z=2.38 - is paired across NGC 7107 with a z=2.397 quasar. This is exactly the sort of phenomenon Arp has been pointing to - bipolar ejections of high redshift objects from low redshift nearby galaxies.

In other words, the redshift emitted by the quasars in the galaxy give the impression that it is much farther away than it actually is. You can read more about that at this link: Link (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm)



A Really Long Fuse Before the Big Bang

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Even secular scientists show skeptism/doubt to evolution. It's not just people of faith.
Where I differ from secular scientists is in the explanation as to how the Big Bang achieved it's seemingly perfect calibration. I*do* believe in a creator who, as I have said multiple times in this thread, was responsible for setting the calibration of the biological dn physical laws of the cosmos, which allowed us to arrive where we are today. I believe the Big Bang explosion was far too perfectly calbirated to have occured by random chance or sheer luck--in other words, the explosion was a planned design.


With what cultures/societies, as recorded in the Bible, was homosexuality seen? Jewish? No. It was those societies seen by God as pagan and immoral whom either the nation of Israel (O.T.) or the early Christian church (N.T.) came in contact with. And it wasn't just homsexual behavior that both the Jewish and Christian communities were told to avoid by God. There were numerous other types of behaviors that were also listed.
You don't believe there were ANY homosexuals in the jewish culture at that time?


First off, we don't know if Jesus did/didn't say anything about homsexuality in the Gospels.
Sure we do. He didn't. if he had, they surely would have been recorded, for surely they would have been viewed as important. Or, are we saying that it's ok to make inferences on biblical passages? That they could be left open to interpretation?


John stated at the end of his letter that Jesus said/did so mnay things that there woudn't be enough books to record all that he did. But because homosexuality didn't seem to be an issue among the religiously ascetic Jewish community, that could very well be why Jesus never had to cross that bridge during his brief 3 1/2 year ministry among his brethren, the Jews.
But Jesus wasn't for the Jews only, he was sent for everyone. I'm sorry, i don't buy your line of reasoning on this argument. On one hand, you're arguing that you can't make any allegorical interpretations about one part of the Bible, because it is the infallible word of God, and on the other you're saying that it's perfectly acceptable to make suppositions about what was or was not said and/or included by Jesus.

You're exactly right on one thing though--if jesus said anything about homosexuality, it was never recorded. Thus, the CHURCH has had to make the determination themselves as to what Jesus would or would not have preached regarding it.


But more importantly - a stong and basic fundamental belief among Christians is the deity of Jesus Christ as well documented in the scriptures. both O.T. and N.T. His deity, at least among believers, is not something that is open for debate or to be refuted. He claimed it (and proved it). The Jews misunderstand what he was claiming - it was one of the main reasons they tried to stone him (John, chapters 5 -8). The apostles confirmed it in their letters.[quote]
What does this have to do with the argument at hand?

[quote]Do you believe in his physical bodily resurrection? Another confirmation.

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be" (John 8:28)
OK....


John wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:1,14). Other references Philippians 2: 7-8, Hebrews chapter 1.

I could provide many more references to this truth, in both the old and new testaments. But space prevents it. But my point is that if Jesus is the Word of God (both the spoken word (rhema) and the living word (Logos) ), then when the Bible speaks out against homosexuality (and it does), then Jesus said it. You're limiting Jesus Christ to the 4 Gospels only. The resurrected Jesus made many appearances to his Apostles (including Paul). The letters they wrote were not their opinions, though some try to suggest that. Throughout their letters they claimed....
So Jesus also instructed parents to stone their children when they were disrespectful? He instructed Israeli armies to slash open the bellies of pregnant women, and stab and behead children, in towns and villages they were conquering? Did Jesus believe the Earth had 4 corners? or that the sun stood still while the Israelites waged war? I am not going to delve into an intense theological debate with you, suffice to say that it is stirctly impossible to not view certain texts of the Bible as allegorical.


You haven't shown that biological laws and events have been set by God that confirm the evolutionary process. Nor have you offered convincng and irrefutable proof that the earth is billions of years old.
Then you are ignoring scads and scads of evidence, including the materials that i provided for you. I do not need to defend my argument against ignorance.


Now I have a question for you...

You claim to be a Christian. I am not here to refute that. But how do you reconcile those clear Biblical teachings as taught/confirmed by your Lord and Savior that teach the Genesis account of God... with evolution?
Easy. because I view it no less spectacular that a Supreme Being could create an amazingly complex and precisely calibrated set of physical laws which have allowed our universe to mature into its current state of being, than if he had created the universe in 6 days.


Evolutionists reject such concepts, and they can't makew them fit. I see you treying to make them somehow fit by making assumptions.
You're completely misreading my argument, if that is what you are implying.

Against my better judgment (because I have a fair opinion that they will not be read), here is some reading material. Again, i feel like I am arguing with the Catholic Pope in the 16th century that the Earth is round, but here we go.

Age of the Earth, from the United States Geological Survey (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)

Various methods of calculating the age of the universe, from the UCAl astronomy dept. (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html)

The Age of the Earth, from the U.S. National Parks Service (.pdf document) (http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.pdf)

Finally, a page from a Christian scientists offering a Christian-rational explanation for the age of the Earth (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/moreland_jp_age_of_earth.shtml)


You'll make a good scientist someday. ;)
No interest...the skeptics drive me crazy.

GAC
05-27-2005, 04:57 PM
Sure we do. He didn't. if he had, they surely would have been recorded, for surely they would have been viewed as important. Or, are we saying that it's ok to make inferences on biblical passages? That they could be left open to interpretation?

And I showed you very plainly where Jesus did speak out against it since Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is God. Jesus - the Living Word - and during his earthly ministry, was the physical manifestation of that word. That's not my opinion, nor interpretation - it's plainly recorded/explained in scripture.

And I made no inference at all on biblical passages. I showed you scriptures, and you conveniently chose to ignore, or not address them. Again, if you would take the time to read the letter of Galatians (just one example), the apostle Paul countered the very argument that you TODAY try to put forth - that what he, or any other apostle, or the church, were not simply offering up their interpretation nor their opinion, but that it was given to them by the resurrected Jesus Christ. It is there for all to plainly see in the scripture.

But if you chose to not want to read or believe it, then that is simply your business. You're not the first person who has tried to explain those many passages away because it did not line up with what they wanted to believe.





You're exactly right on one thing though--if jesus said anything about homosexuality, it was never recorded. Thus, the CHURCH has had to make the determination themselves as to what Jesus would or would not have preached regarding it.

So you're contending that the apostles, when they spoke out against this subject matter very plainly in the epistles were simply introducing doctrine because that is the way they wanted it to be. Nice. Too bad it's wrong. And again, I've shown you that via scripture, but again, you refuse to read it, or simply want to ignore it. Again, that's your business.


But more importantly - a stong and basic fundamental belief among Christians is the deity of Jesus Christ as well documented in the scriptures. both O.T. and N.T. His deity, at least among believers, is not something that is open for debate or to be refuted. He claimed it (and proved it). The Jews misunderstand what he was claiming - it was one of the main reasons they tried to stone him (John, chapters 5 -8). The apostles confirmed it in their letters.What does this have to do with the argument at hand?


Just as I stated above already. If the Bible, both O.T, and N.T. is the entire Word of God, and Jesus is God, then what does that say about the scriptures that oppose homosexuality in both those texts? You limit Jesus to only the 4 gospel accounts, and even Jesus didn't do that. He spoke often to the Jews of his eternal existence, and his claim to deity.And he taught the apostles the same, and they confirmed it in the scriptures. But again, if you feel that the epistles are just the apostle's opinions, trhen you will reject it. But it's basic Christian fundamental doctrine. And respectfully, if you spent as much time study these various subject matters as you do evolution/sciences, you would see this.




OK....


So Jesus also instructed parents to stone their children when they were disrespectful? He instructed Israeli armies to slash open the bellies of pregnant women, and stab and behead children, in towns and villages they were conquering?

Nice way of misquoting and applying O.T. Jewish Law. The Jews did a very good job of that too. And Jesus sternly admonished them for it.


I am not going to delve into an intense theological debate with you, suffice to say that it is stirctly impossible to not view certain texts of the Bible as allegorical.

Which is what you do. You try to make the scriptures line up with your belief system. AnD if something in the Bible flies in the face of that belief system - your easy out is that it's meant to be allegorical.



Then you are ignoring scads and scads of evidence, including the materials that i provided for you. I do not need to defend my argument against ignorance.

Wow! So now I'm ignorant. You have the sciences mastered, and now the scriptures. I bow to your superior intellect.

tommycatluvsme
05-28-2005, 10:14 PM
Good for him.

registerthis
05-31-2005, 11:20 AM
And I showed you very plainly where Jesus did speak out against it since Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus is God. Jesus - the Living Word - and during his earthly ministry, was the physical manifestation of that word. That's not my opinion, nor interpretation - it's plainly recorded/explained in scripture.
Then ther eare plenty of passages in the Bible which jesus spoke of which we don't adhere to today. Would we stone our children for being disrespectful? Would we return a slave to his "master" if he ran away? All Biblical teachings, and all ignored today.


And I made no inference at all on biblical passages. I showed you scriptures, and you conveniently chose to ignore, or not address them. Again, if you would take the time to read the letter of Galatians (just one example), the apostle Paul countered the very argument that you TODAY try to put forth - that what he, or any other apostle, or the church, were not simply offering up their interpretation nor their opinion, but that it was given to them by the resurrected Jesus Christ. It is there for all to plainly see in the scripture.
I'm not ignoring scripture, I'm simply postulating two things:

1) Scripture can be open to interpretation since a good amount of it is allegorical; and
2) Jesus never spoke directly of homosexuality, which he did not.

If you're going to hold every word in the Bible as attributable to jesus, then he contradicts himself a number of times...ordering the Israeli armies to kill women and children in the Old testament, then telling people to forgive and turn the other cheek in the New Testament, for example. But then again, like other evangelicals I know, YOU apparently have sole claim to the correct interpretation of the Bible, the rest of "us" are simply manipulating it for our own ends.


So you're contending that the apostles, when they spoke out against this subject matter very plainly in the epistles were simply introducing doctrine because that is the way they wanted it to be.
No, I said the CHURCH does. There are numerous examples of the Church (by which I mean organized religion) either inventing doctrine, or creating an interpretation or rationale which fits their agenda. It has been done by every denomination at some point in time. I also believe that what the apostles wrote was INSPIRED by God, but was authored by Man, and as such it was written for its time and, in certain cases, allegorically.


Just as I stated above already. If the Bible, both O.T, and N.T. is the entire Word of God, and Jesus is God, then what does that say about the scriptures that oppose homosexuality in both those texts?
OK, since you opened this door....

The Bible tells us to kill homosexuals. From leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

Leviticus 20:10 tells us to kill both men and women who committ adultery (at least it doesn't discriminate.)

Leviticus 19:27 tells us not to cut our hair or shave.

Leviticus 19:19 tells us not to plant two different crops in the same field.

Leviticus 20:14 tells us to burn to death anyone who sleeps with his wife's mother.

Leviticus 21:17 tell sus that people who are blind, lame or have flat noses cannot come to the alter of God.

Leviticus 20:9 tell sus to kill any children who are disrespectful to their parents.

I could go on and on...but obviously there's no point. Jesus doesn't instruct us to do these things, even though they're in the Bible. Unless you're going to argue that the laws were meant for the people of that time.


You limit Jesus to only the 4 gospel accounts, and even Jesus didn't do that. He spoke often to the Jews of his eternal existence, and his claim to deity.And he taught the apostles the same, and they confirmed it in the scriptures. But again, if you feel that the epistles are just the apostle's opinions, trhen you will reject it. But it's basic Christian fundamental doctrine. And respectfully, if you spent as much time study these various subject matters as you do evolution/sciences, you would see this.
You see GAC, the difference between you and I, is that I don't close my mind off to facts and scientific evidence due to religious doctrine. God didn't provide us with brains to simply ignore evidence. Oh, but I know...you're not ignoring evidence, you simply don't believe it.


Nice way of misquoting and applying O.T. Jewish Law. The Jews did a very good job of that too. And Jesus sternly admonished them for it.
OK, well perhaps you could straighten me out then, because I'm a little confused. You say that the entire Bible is the word of God, and that jesus is God, so therefore everything in the Bible is attributable to Jesus. I'm simply pulling out a few quotes here and there to see if this is true. I don't see where I'm misquoting scripture, but perhaps you could enlighten me. I provided a few scriptures from leviticus up above. It's fairly straightforward, really: did Jesus, or did he not, instruct people to do those things?


Which is what you do. You try to make the scriptures line up with your belief system. AnD if something in the Bible flies in the face of that belief system - your easy out is that it's meant to be allegorical.
Nope, I only view it as allegorical when the Biblical record is obviously wrong. The sun didn't stand still, the world doesn't have four corners, it doesn't float on ether, it wasn't created in 6 24 hour days, jesus doesn't instruct us to stone disrespectful children, we're not disobeying God by not returning slaves to ther masters...etc. There's nothing noble or righteous about ignoring evidence to cling to religious doctrine simply for the sake of it.


Wow! So now I'm ignorant. You have the sciences mastered, and now the scriptures. I bow to your superior intellect.
Well, perhaps you could drop the sarcasm and examine several of the links I sent you (like I posted, I figured they would be unread...looks like I was correct in that assumption.) If you believe so strongly that the Earth IS only 7,000 years old and WAS created in 6 days, perhaps you could provide some evidence for that? Or debunk the figures from the sites that I provided? Or postulate a theory of your own, instead of providing a sarcastic reply and a "dodge" of the information i provided?

I don't have it all figured out, nor have i ever claimed to. But unlike people such as yourself, I don't close my mind off to alternate theories and ideas simply because they seemingly fly in the face of accepted religious doctrine.

Johnny Footstool
05-31-2005, 11:40 AM
Don't forget Leviticus 11:7-8, which tells us not to eat pork.

Jaycint
05-31-2005, 11:50 AM
Don't forget Leviticus 11:7-8, which tells us not to eat pork.

I'm in big trouble then. Pepperoni pizza owns me.

Puffy
05-31-2005, 12:16 PM
I'm in big trouble then. Pepperoni pizza owns me.

And baby back ribs. Thems good stuff.

registerthis
05-31-2005, 12:28 PM
Guess I'll be joining you all in hell, then...I enjoy the occasional hot dog myself.

Now, Vienna sausuges...if you feed those to your children, perhaps a punishment by stoning is acceptable. :barf:

Johnny Footstool
05-31-2005, 12:53 PM
Tube meat (hot dogs, sausages, etc.) is bad and should get you a ticket to purgatory at least. But, as Vincent Vega said, bacon's good, and pork chops' good.