Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on June 11, 2008, 09:17:53 AM
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
Logical following of facts, in the instance of evolution much like in the instance of atomic theory the word theory doesnt mean what most ppl think of when they hear "theory". It simply means that that it is not set in stone but that doesnt mean that it is based on conjecture. Every scientific finding since the time of darwin or mendel or any of the others that led to a greater understanding of our biological or genetic worlds has lended itself to evolution. Even when parts are missing when one theorizes(the more common meaning) the answers that would be in step with evolution the findings that follow back up the theory.
That being said i see no conflict between evolution and faith, it may suprise you to know that charles darwin, charles lyell(one of darwins colleagues who darwin worked with on natural selection), gregor mendel(father of modern understanding of genetics) were clergy. After all who better to investigate the wonders and workings of God's creations?
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
Your question is a loaded one and I am sorry to say Stella that I have realised that these sorts of posts coming from you invariably are NOT born of general interest or a desire to challenge your own rigidly held beliefs. It's a shame.
What convinced me? Actually reading about evolution (instead of listening to Creationist rants) and observing the natural world.
-
Logical following of facts, in the instance of evolution much like in the instance of atomic theory the word theory doesnt mean what most ppl think of when they hear "theory". It simply means that that it is not set in stone but that doesnt mean that it is based on conjecture. Every scientific finding since the time of darwin or mendel or any of the others that led to a greater understanding of our biological or genetic worlds has lended itself to evolution. Even when parts are missing when one theorizes(the more common meaning) the answers that would be in step with evolution the findings that follow back up the theory.
That being said i see no conflict between evolution and faith, it may suprise you to know that charles darwin, charles lyell(one of darwins colleagues who darwin worked with on natural selection), gregor mendel(father of modern understanding of genetics) were clergy. After all who better to investigate the wonders and workings of God's creations?
And yet this creator god of yours engaged in so much waste, required billions of years, with such an imperfect (and cruel) mechanism as natural selection to bring all this about; strange indeed.
-
Your question is a loaded one and I am sorry to say Stella that I have realised that these sorts of posts coming from you invariably are NOT born of general interest or a desire to challenge your own rigidly held beliefs. It's a shame.
Why do you feel the question is "loaded?" ???
Contrary to your presumption, I am interested if there are certain specific aspects of Darwinism that convinced people here to embrace it as true.
If you are uncomfortable with any of my posts I apologize. Please feel free to ignore this (or any of my) thread(s).
-
And yet this creator god of yours engaged in so much waste, required billions of years, with such an imperfect (and cruel) mechanism as natural selection to bring all this about; strange indeed.
im not sure what is more crass about you deicide your arrogance or your stance...It is extremely arrogant of you to assume and yes it is an assumption that God doesnt exist and that you are somewhat better than others for not believing in God. Like in many things our understanding of existence is not complete and just b/c we see one part of the picture does not mean we know what the picture is. Views have changed on a number of subjects over the years and do you not conceive it possible that your views as of right now are not the correct ones?
Who said it was a waste?
seems to me that natural selection among others would be great mechanisms in assuring that life would perceiver, no?
why do you believe that science and religion are at odds with each other?
-
Why do you feel the question is "loaded?" ???
Contrary to your presumption, I am interested if there are certain specific aspects of Darwinism that convinced people here to embrace it as true.
If you are uncomfortable with any of my posts I apologize. Please feel free to ignore this (or any of my) thread(s).
My point is, that no matter how much evidence you were presented with, you would not change your mind; that is faith, or belief without evidence. If firm evidence for Christianity were to arise tommorow and I do mean firm, I would instantly change my mind.
Have you actually read anything in detail about Evolutionary Theory or Genetics?
-
im not sure what is more crass about you deicide your arrogance or your stance...It is extremely arrogant of you to assume and yes it is an assumption that God doesnt exist and that you are somewhat better than others for not believing in God. Like in many things our understanding of existence is not complete and just b/c we see one part of the picture does not mean we know what the picture is. Views have changed on a number of subjects over the years and do you not conceive it possible that your views as of right now are not the correct ones?
Who said it was a waste?
seems to me that natural selection among others would be great mechanisms in assuring that life would perceiver, no?
why do you believe that science and religion are at odds with each other?
All of that pointless death; the death of billions of animals, some torn limb from limb, others eaten alive, starved to death, mass extinction, harmful mutation, still births, etc.; tell me, do you really think that is the best way a loving creator deity could go about it?
I think evolution and religion are at odds with each other AND science and religion. Religion is based on faith, science on evidence; theories in science are also based on evidence, doctrines in religion are based on faith, authority and tradition. They couldn't be more contradictory or oppositional to each other.
I am perfectly willing to change my mind if you or someone else presents suitable evidence to do so. For example, I used to study and believe in astrology. I changed my beliefs about it because of contrary evidence.
-
All of that pointless death; the death of billions of animals, some torn limb from limb, others eaten alive, starved to death, mass extinction, harmful mutation, still births, etc.; tell me, do you really think that is the best way a loving creator deity could go about it?
I think evolution and religion are at odds with each other AND science and religion. Religion is based on faith, science on evidence; theories in science are also based on evidence, doctrines in religion are based on faith, authority and tradition. They couldn't be more contradictory or oppositional to each other.
I am perfectly willing to change my mind if you or someone else presents suitable evidence to do so. For example, I used to study and believe in astrology. I changed my beliefs about it because of contrary evidence.
again who said it was pointless? animals have to eat to survive, babies with illnesses do not survive...if God put Natural selection into place among the other evolutionary mechanisms then they are following along arent they?
Explain to me how believing in evolution contradicts belief in religion...you have based your arguement on the bases of science and religion but you can believe in science and have faith at the same time darwin did it so did mendel and many other scientist.
im goin to the gym...
-
My point is, that no matter how much evidence you were presented with, you would not change your mind; that is faith, or belief without evidence. If firm evidence for Christianity were to arise tommorow and I do mean firm, I would instantly change my mind.
Do you realize it's odd for you to presume to know my thought processes or really much about me or what I would do in any given situation or of what I am capable?
People make assumptions about people that are incorrect frequently. And these are people that have known each other (in real life) for years. People also surprise themselves at times.
In short, you shouldn't presume to know anything about the way I think or the way I might think.
If I was presented with firm evidence that God is not real etc... I would absolutely change my mind. I want to believe what is true. I think it would be easier to believe was no God to which we are accountable. But I don't believe that to be the case.
(Btw, changed lives [including mine] are some of the evidence that I accept)
Have you actually read anything in detail about Evolutionary Theory or Genetics?
The last time in detail was college.
If firm evidence for Christianity were to arise tommorow and I do mean firm, I would instantly change my mind.
For instance what would you accept as firm evidence for Christianity?
Also, are there any aspects of Darwinism, if refuted, that would turn you away from same?
Please keep in mind if any of my questions make you uncomfortable or if you'd rather not respond to certain ones, don't feel compelled to answer.
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
bump in hope that columbusdude might want to answer
-
All of that pointless death; the death of billions of animals, some torn limb from limb, others eaten alive, starved to death, mass extinction, harmful mutation, still births, etc.; tell me, do you really think that is the best way a loving creator deity could go about it?
I hate hearing/seeing about that too. But I believe that stuff is the result of sin entering the world. There was no shedding of blood before Adam and Eve sinned. The inference is that all creatures were initially plant-eaters.
-
bump in hope that columbusdude might want to answer
Hey, I just saw this. In the future if anyone wants my response to a thread which I miss, just nudge me with a PM.
I've said this stuff dozens of times on here, so let's recap.
Evolution is the central idea of biology. Without evolution, nothing in biology makes sense.
Evolution = Natural Selection + Random Mutation
Our genetic material is coded digitally, just like information in a computer. Computers use binary language (0 and 1), genes use a four-letter alphabet (A, C, T, and G).
Random mutation: sometimes, there are just random copying errors. Whole chunks of A,C,T,G's are lost, inverted, misplaced, etc
Natural selection: a gene that makes its possessor more likely to survive into sexual maturity and produce more off-spring is more likely to survive, whereas a gene that makes its possessor less likely to produce healthy off-spring will perish.
As a result, Stella, you and I are made up of champion genes. They have survived over the eons by making our ancestors more likely to grow past adolescence and reproduce, while many other genes vanished. This selection is non-random, because it is a function of the gene's effects on the organism's success in life.
Before I go on, do you understand these two points? Do you have a problem with either one of them?
-
As a result, Stella, you and I are made up of champion genes.
:D ;D
Before I go on, do you understand these two points? Do you have a problem with either one of them?
OK I think I'm following what you have said so far... so yes please continue.
-
:D ;D
OK I think I'm following what you have said so far... so yes please continue.
OK, so evolution is nothing more than these two concepts, natural selection and random mutation.
EVEN IF all living organisms did not have common ancestors, evolution would still hold. EVEN IF life originated several times instead of once, evolution would still hold. EVEN IF life was created by a supernatural power long ago, evolution still holds. EVEN IF life on earth were brought from some alien life form long ago, evolution still holds.
The claim that all organisms living on earth today is just a simple corollary of the above, supported by a convergence of ample evidence from the fossil record and molecular genetics. C'est tout.
-
OK, so evolution is nothing more than these two concepts, natural selection and random mutation.
EVEN IF all living organisms did not have common ancestors, evolution would still hold. EVEN IF life originated several times instead of once, evolution would still hold. EVEN IF life was created by a supernatural power long ago, evolution still holds. EVEN IF life on earth were brought from some alien life form long ago, evolution still holds.
The claim that all organisms living on earth today is just a simple corollary of the above, supported by a convergence of ample evidence from the fossil record and molecular genetics. C'est tout.
Oh, I thought you were a Darwinist in the sense that all creatures came from one common ancestor...am I wrong about that?
Aren't Darwinism and evolution 2 "diff." things? Maybe Darwinism is not the term I wanted to use
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
-
I am saying you have the emphasis all wrong. The big thing in biology is not common ancestry, is natural selection + random mutation.
Common ancestry, which so worries the religious freaks (esp. the whole "monkey" obsession), is just a small corollary.
-
I am saying you have the emphasis all wrong. The big thing in biology is not common ancestry, is natural selection + random mutation.
OK I think we can both accept these! (Although I don't believe random mutations result in entirely diff. species [but maybe you don't either]).
Common ancestry, which so worries the religious freaks (esp. the whole "monkey" obsession), is just a small corollary.
OK, so are you saying that you do accept as true that all living creatures came from one common organism?
-
OK I think we can both accept these! (Although I don't believe random mutations result in entirely diff. species [but maybe you don't either]).
OF COURSE I DON'T. DDUUUUUHHHHHH.
OK, so are you saying that you do accept as true that all living creatures came from one common organism?
Yes. All the evidence supports it, none of the evidence contradicts it. So far, any way.
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
There seems to be more evidence backing it up than the alternative.
-
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
linear progression of fossil records and the carbon dating of said records
-
The "Fatal Flaws" of Darwinian Theory
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.
Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent "fatal flaws" that are well known to population geneticists, but that have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades--based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However, population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. At the 6th International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh on August 3-7, 2008, two papers will be presented on the results of tests that utilized numerical simulation of mutation and natural selection. They are entitled "Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection" and "Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory." The primary authors of these two papers are Dr. John Baumgardner and Dr. John Sanford, respectively.
A new population genetics simulation tool called Mendel's Accountant has been developed jointly by ICR and Feed My Sheep Foundation for studying mutation and natural selection. The program is a state-of-the-art forward-time population genetics model that tracks millions of individual mutations with their unique effects on fitness and unique location within the genome through large numbers of generations. It treats the process of natural selection in a precise way.
The program allows a user to choose values for a large number of parameters such as those specifying the mutation effect distribution, reproduction rate, population size, and variations in environmental conditions. Mendel's Accountant is thus a versatile and capable research tool that can be applied to problems in human genetics, plant and animal breeding, and management of endangered species. With its user-friendly graphical user interface and its ability to run on laptop computers, it can also be fruitfully employed in teaching genetics and genetic principles, even at a high school level.
Biologically reasonable Mendel's Accountant input parameters produce output consistent with (a) the biblical account of recent creation, (b) rapid local adaptation followed by stabilization of changes in an organism’s visible features, (c) a spike in genetic variation followed by continuously declining diversity, (d) rapid genetic degeneration tapering into a more gradual but continuous genetic decline, and (e) many extinction events.
This program is freely available for personal use and can be downloaded from the web at http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net. When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection. The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness.
Mendel's Accountant provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the "fatal flaws" inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified--with a degree of certainty that should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
-
The "Fatal Flaws" of Darwinian Theory
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.
Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent "fatal flaws" that are well known to population geneticists, but that have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades--based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However, population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. At the 6th International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh on August 3-7, 2008, two papers will be presented on the results of tests that utilized numerical simulation of mutation and natural selection. They are entitled "Mendel's Accountant: A New Population Genetics Simulation Tool for Studying Mutation and Natural Selection" and "Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory." The primary authors of these two papers are Dr. John Baumgardner and Dr. John Sanford, respectively.
A new population genetics simulation tool called Mendel's Accountant has been developed jointly by ICR and Feed My Sheep Foundation for studying mutation and natural selection. The program is a state-of-the-art forward-time population genetics model that tracks millions of individual mutations with their unique effects on fitness and unique location within the genome through large numbers of generations. It treats the process of natural selection in a precise way.
The program allows a user to choose values for a large number of parameters such as those specifying the mutation effect distribution, reproduction rate, population size, and variations in environmental conditions. Mendel's Accountant is thus a versatile and capable research tool that can be applied to problems in human genetics, plant and animal breeding, and management of endangered species. With its user-friendly graphical user interface and its ability to run on laptop computers, it can also be fruitfully employed in teaching genetics and genetic principles, even at a high school level.
Biologically reasonable Mendel's Accountant input parameters produce output consistent with (a) the biblical account of recent creation, (b) rapid local adaptation followed by stabilization of changes in an organism’s visible features, (c) a spike in genetic variation followed by continuously declining diversity, (d) rapid genetic degeneration tapering into a more gradual but continuous genetic decline, and (e) many extinction events.
This program is freely available for personal use and can be downloaded from the web at http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net. When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection. The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness.
Mendel's Accountant provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the "fatal flaws" inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified--with a degree of certainty that should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
What??? Where are the fatal flaws. One fatal flaw I see is a program where anyone would think "biologically realistic parameters" could be selected. That just won't happen, ever.
-
What??? Where are the fatal flaws. One fatal flaw I see is a program where anyone would think "biologically realistic parameters" could be selected. That just won't happen, ever.
Hmm that is weird, it did not list one flaw
-
Christians will post/write anything to justify their delusional fairytales.
-
Christians will post/write anything to justify their delusional fairytales.
LOL as stated as many times as you have failed to prove that evolution contradicts religion, evolution doesnt mean you cant believe in God.
-
LOL as stated as many times as you have failed to prove that evolution contradicts religion, evolution doesnt mean you cant believe in God.
Ask your fellow Christians; many will say it does.
-
Ask your fellow Christians; many will say it does.
LOL that doesnt make your stance any less wrong either my friend.
-
LOL that doesnt make your stance any less wrong either my friend.
Please tell me how Genesis is compatible with evolution?
-
LOL as stated as many times as you have failed to prove that evolution contradicts religion, evolution doesnt mean you cant believe in God.
Any Abrahmic religions that have Genesis like verses as does the bible, torah, koran cannot possibly accept evolution.
Total contradictions from man being a complete creation from a god, and man evolving via extremely slight modifications of an organism.
-
Please tell me how Genesis is compatible with evolution?
pls explain to me how it contradicts it.
-
pls explain to me how it contradicts it.
God made man and all the beast individually in complete form.
-
There is no contradiction. Only if you interpret spiritual scripture as scientific scripture, there is.
-
There is no contradiction. Only if you interpret spiritual scripture as scientific scripture, there is.
So the scientist has to play this on the level of a spiritualist? Sounds fair!
Wavelength, do you believe in a God? Do you believe this God is bound by the laws of the universe?
-
So the scientist has to play this on the level of a spiritualist? Sounds fair!
A scientist deals with science, it's just one role (or better one job) a human can pursue. As soon as a 'scientist' reads spiritual scripture, he has two option: stepping out of science to be able to understand the truth contained in the scripture, or (like scientific reductionists or creationists just as well) interpret e.g. the bible on a pure scientific basis. Unfortunally, the latter leads to imaginary conflicts instead of understanding.
Wavelength, do you believe in a God? Do you believe this God is bound by the laws of the universe?
Yes I believe in God (although this statement alone does not say much nowadays). Regarding the 'laws of the universe', this depends on what you mean by that. If you mean the 'scientific laws of the universe', or better, what the current scientific theories imply they are, the answer is no. Simply because, the world is more than its scientific aspects and God is the origin of everthing there is.
-
A scientist deals with science, it's just one role (or better one job) a human can pursue. As soon as a 'scientist' reads spiritual scripture, he has two option: stepping out of science to be able to understand the truth contained in the scripture, or (like scientific reductionists or creationists just as well) interpret e.g. the bible on a pure scientific basis. Unfortunally, the latter leads to imaginary conflicts instead of understanding.
So again, we're working on the assumption that scripture is truth?
Are you saying a scientist applying their method of thought to the Bible is entirely fallible? So in essence, you must be a Christian to understand the Bible?
-
So again, we're working on the assumption that scripture is truth?
In essential spiritual scripture, there is essential truth. What you mean by 'truth' is probably again 'scientific truth'.
Are you saying a scientist applying their method of thought to the Bible is entirely fallible? So in essence, you must be a Christian to understand the Bible?
It's possible and probably quite interesting to some people to investigate the bible in such a way. My point is that you won't find the essential truth this way.
In the end, the core truth contained in the bible goes beyond every method of thought. Simply because, the divine cannot be captured directly by the thinking mind. It even says in the bible that every image (thought-structure) of God is false.
You do not have to 'be a Christian'. Honestly, I don't even know what that means, 'being a Christian'. For most people it just means following a set of rules of the ideology they unfortunally have turned religion into.
-
In essential spiritual scripture, there is essential truth. What you mean by 'truth' is probably again 'scientific truth'.
It's possible and probably quite interesting to some people to investigate the bible in such a way. My point is that you won't find the essential truth this way.
In the end, the core truth contained in the bible goes beyond every method of thought. Simply because, the divine cannot be captured directly by the thinking mind. It even says in the bible that every image (thought-structure) of God is false.
You do not have to 'be a Christian'. Honestly, I don't even know what that means, 'being a Christian'. For most people it just means following a set of rules of the ideology they unfortunally have turned religion into.
Well I believe almost all of this to be false. The Bible isn't truth, and doesn't go beyond every method of thought.
I thought personal that being a Christian, means you accept Christ as the saviour that he died for our sins.
-
Well I believe almost all of this to be false. The Bible isn't truth, and doesn't go beyond every method of thought.
That's a possible point of view, no doubt. One you will most certainly come to if you only investigate it scientifically.
I thought personal that being a Christian, means you accept Christ as the saviour that he died for our sins.
That's true of course, if understood.
-
That's a possible point of view, no doubt. One you will most certainly come to if you only investigate it scientifically.
That's true of course, if understood.
So on your ground I don't hold a valid position for my opinions, because I look religion and spirituality from a vantage point you don't accept.
-
So on your ground I don't hold a valid position for my opinions, because I look religion and spirituality from a vantage point you don't accept.
If you say that e.g. the world was not created in seven days, as a scientist, I would agree. So I completely accept that. My point is that this statement does not reveal anything substantial about Genesis. The Genesis is an attempt to describe the undescribable. Time e.g. is a human concept. It is also a part of the creation. There is no real timeline for creation. The seven days are a means to separate the essential parts of creation.
-
If you say that e.g. the world was not created in seven days, as a scientist, I would agree. So I completely accept that. My point is that this statement does not reveal anything substantial about Genesis. The Genesis is an attempt to describe the undescribable. Time e.g. is a human concept. It is also a part of the creation. There is no real timeline for creation. The seven days are a means to separate the essential parts of creation.
Yeah again, I don't agree.
How come Charles Darwin does an exceptional explanation the origin of mankind, whilst God struggles?
Isn't it the creators responsibility to be clear and not leave things to the whims of men?
-
Yeah again, I don't agree.
How come Charles Darwin does an exceptional explanation the origin of mankind, whilst God struggles?
Isn't it the creators responsibility to be clear and not leave things to the whims of men?
Charles Darwin has created a scientific theory about the biological aspects of life. Genesis talks about the origin of existence in general. That's just something different.
Clarity has nothing to do with scientific accurateness. Since the bible is not a scientific work, the goal is not scientific accurateness but revelation of truth. The truth is crystal clear, it just cannot be captured by words directly. This is not a flaw of the bible but an implicit restriction of human thought.
-
Charles Darwin has created a scientific theory about the biological aspects of life. Genesis talks about the origin of existence in general. That's just something different.
Clarity has nothing to do with scientific accurateness. Since the bible is not a scientific work, the goal is not scientific accurateness but revelation of truth. The truth is crystal clear, it just cannot be captured by words directly. This is not a flaw of the bible but an implicit restriction of human thought.
So the creation of man from dust, an woman from the rib of man doesn't explain the biological creation of humans?
God create his book knowing full well that humans would stumble because of implicit restriction of the human mind?
-
So the creation of man from dust, an woman from the rib of man doesn't explain the biological creation of humans?
The bible talks about the essential aspects of existence. The scientific aspects of existence (as created by human thought) are non-essential. Indirectly, the bible also explains the existence of scientific theories about the world, since those theories would have never arisen if human consciousness would not have been created in the first place.
God create his book knowing full well that humans would stumble because of implicit restriction of the human mind?
Fully understanding the word of God and reaching salvation is one and the same. The potential of salvation implies that we are born with just the seed of it in us.
-
Christians will post/write anything to justify their delusional fairytales.
That is not true!
-
That is not true!
It definitely is.
-
Arguing with Wavelength is a waste of time.
Believe me.
-
Arguing with Wavelength is a waste of time.
Believe me.
And why is that?
-
Fully understanding the word of God and reaching salvation is one and the same.
I disagree; intellectual assent does not guarantee salvation. The Pharasees fully understood God's word but Jesus openly rebuked many of them because of their self-righteousness.
The potential of salvation implies that we are born with just the seed of it in us.
No, after the fall of man we are all born spirtually dead and desperately wicked.
Rom 3:10-12
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Ephesians 2 doth support the above.
-
I disagree; intellectual assent does not guarantee salvation. The Pharasees fully understood God's word but Jesus openly rebuked many of them because of their self-righteousness.
I was not talking about intellectual assent. Rather the opposite.
No, after the fall of man we are all born spirtually dead and desperately wicked.
Rom 3:10-12
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Ephesians 2 doth support the above.
How does that contradict what I said?
-
I was not talking about intellectual assent. Rather the opposite.
How does that contradict what I said?
You said:
The potential of salvation implies that we are born with just the seed of it in us.
There is no potential in us to be saved. We are all lost, dead in our sins. There is no potential only Christ.
If you believe what the bible says about salvation.
-
You said:
There is no potential in us to be saved. We are all lost, dead in our sins. There is no potential only Christ.
If you believe what the bible says about salvation.
That's a question of usage of the words. The potential must be there. It is not in 'me' as in my ego of course. It's in something that goes beyond that. The exclusiveness of Jesus Christ in Christianity must go beyond the historic person of Jesus.
-
The exclusiveness of Jesus Christ in Christianity must go beyond the historic person of Jesus.
I have never heard this before please explain, maybe I'm not fully comprehending what you are saying. I thought without Christ there is no Christianity.
HM
-
And why is that?
Weil Du glaubst, dass altertuemliche Buecher, die von ignoranten Hirten unter gewissen, historischen Umstaenden geschrieben wurden, mehr Aussagekraft haben, als die modernsten und besten Methoden zum Verstaendnis des Seins, naemlich die der Wissenschaft.
Meinetwegen kannst Du das Gleiche ueber das Epos von Gilgamesch sagen.
-
Weil Du glaubst, dass altertuemliche Buecher, die von ignoranten Hirten unter gewissen, historischen Umstaenden geschrieben wurden, mehr Aussagekraft haben, als die modernsten und besten Methoden zum Verstaendnis des Seins, naemlich die der Wissenschaft.
You know that this is not true. I've stated countless times that spiritual scripture does not compete with science. I even said so in my first post in this thread.
-
I have never heard this before please explain, maybe I'm not fully comprehending what you are saying. I thought without Christ there is no Christianity.
HM
Jesus Christ transcends his mere historic person, wouldn't you agree? I think it's essential that he is the Son of God and not that his name was Jesus Christ and he lived 2000 years ago.
-
Weil Du glaubst, dass altertuemliche Buecher, die von ignoranten Hirten unter gewissen, historischen Umstaenden geschrieben wurden, mehr Aussagekraft haben, als die modernsten und besten Methoden zum Verstaendnis des Seins, naemlich die der Wissenschaft.
Meinetwegen kannst Du das Gleiche ueber das Epos von Gilgamesch sagen.
I think your original post was directed at me, so why respond in German? Try a language from the Scandinavian branch, Spanish or preferably English next time squire!
-
I think your original post was directed at me, so why respond in German? Try a language from the Scandinavian branch, Spanish or preferably English next time squire!
He said that I would claim that spiritual scripture (written by ignorant sheperds under certain historic circumstances) has more explanatory power than modern science. He gets lost in his fetish for the german language sometimes ;D
-
He said that I would claim that spiritual scripture (written by ignorant sheperds under certain historic circumstances) has more explanatory power than modern science. He gets lost in his fetish for the german language sometimes ;D
Cheers buddy! :)
-
No, after the fall of man we are all born spirtually dead and desperately wicked.
The only people who are born evil are serial killers, and we lock them up or execute them.
It's sad that you believe this. Babies and children are not "desperately wicked."
I'll bet if you were lost in the woods alone for an indeterminate period of time, even if you fervently believed in God, you'd lose this man-made construct very quickly and find that you are just another creature lucky to be alive. This whole concept of being "born wicked" is a horrible socializing tool.
-
The only people who are born evil are serial killers, and we lock them up or execute them.
Are you being sarcastic?
Environment plays a major role of the development of any potential serial killer.
-
Are you being sarcastic?
Environment plays a major role of the development of any potential serial killer.
No, actually I wasn't, but maybe I shouldn't have said "born." I meant serial killers usually haven't developed a sense of conscience, start indulging their violent fantasies and acting some of them out when they're kids... as early as six or seven. At least, that's what I've read. I couldn't think of any other type of human being that would be considered "wickedly desperate" at such an early age.
-
No, actually I wasn't, but maybe I shouldn't have said "born." I meant serial killers usually haven't developed a sense of conscience, start indulging their violent fantasies and acting some of them out when they're kids... as early as six or seven. At least, that's what I've read. I couldn't think of any other type of human being that would be considered "wickedly desperate" at such an early age.
Right, environment effects you at all ages, you're especially susceptible at a younger age.
-
If we used this type of definition for Darwinism: the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago.......
What is the main aspect or aspects of Darwinian theory that convinced you to embrace Darwinism as truth?
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Or, a super hero did it in 6 days.
Take your pick.... ::)
-
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Or, a super hero did it in 6 days.
Take your pick.... ::)
I prefer Dagda!!!!!!!!!!!!!