Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[rookhawk]

This is what you said:

It is interesting how the early scriptures also discuss beasts of burden working in the fields that appear to be hominids, but they weren't "men" either.

Literally nothing you just provided backs that up…

Makes perfect sense if you define a Man as a being with knowledge of good and evil, rather than as the scientific first homo sapien.

You didn't provide a self evident, reasoned approach as to how all animals and plants ever known in the geologic record could live in the same timeframes considering their adaptations were designed for offensive or defensive abilities against animals of the same geological epoch.

 

[Red Leg]

The hundreds of millions of years did not happen. Your beliefs have no Biblical foundation.

They are not my beliefs. They are established scientific fact. That the Bible, as literally interpreted by you, doesn't account for them is your issue and perhaps the issue of those who have to make allowances for those beliefs in some manner. My interpretation of biblical truth has no issue with reconciling itself with scientific truth.

The fundamental flaw of Young Earth Creationism is that it essentially rejects scientific knowledge and understanding developed since the Enlightenment. That means, those adherents, given the capacity to learn and reason by their Omniscient God, have rejected those capabilities to attempt to dwell intellectually in the 17th century. Instead of treating the Bible as a philosophical treatise in understanding God, Young Earth Creationists have decided to turn to it as a natural history text. In Hebrews is the famous quote that faith has to do with "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That is the majesty of belief, not trying to justify the calculations of some Anglican Bishop who in 1650 begetted himself to the conclusion that God began creation at sunset on October 23, 4004 BC. How fundamentalists decided to embrace that escapes me, but it transforms the study of the broad majesty of creation and the world to come into a debate over the origin of sea shell fossils in the San Gabriel River. God must weep.

Nowhere does he insist faith is the rejection of knowledge. Indeed, the Bible is replete with examples to the contrary. I believe it is in Hosea we can find, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me."

So you are indeed correct that there is not a literal biblical foundation for the Jurassic Period anymore than there are foundations for a host of things we now understand that our far less educated predecessors did not. My response is that is irrelevant because the God I comprehend expects me to fully use my capability to comprehend a far broader and more comprehensive creation than ever conceived by an Old testament Scribe.

 

[MS 9x56]

Pete Hegseth just announced the Chaplain Corp of the US military will now wear their religious insignia, rather than their officer ranks on their uniforms. It is the Department of War's opinion that the rank of Chaplain should be the focus, rather than their military rank.

I think thats a bold, very proper move. The Chaplain Corp is coming back to its original purpose and the woke/secular humanist faction is being eradicated from the armed services.

About damn time too.

 

[MS 9x56]

Perhaps... but not nearly as insensitive as a buddy of mine's barn cats..

theyre both black cats (one completely black.. the other predominantly black but with some small white patches)..

he caught them fighting in the barn a few years back.. and promptly re-named them

Blackie Chan and Bruce Leroy..

theyve kept those names ever since..

I have one name foe all cats and so far they all respond to it. Damn cat!

 

[RLD]

Genesis 1 and 2 are actually complementary. Gallons of ink have been spilled on it. Have you honestly looked into both sides of the argument?

They are complimentary, but are noticeably different. And almost certainly written by different authors.

The authorship of the OT is a very complex and fascinating subject.

 

[Ray B]

The opinions stated involve history. the other focus of religion is the future. So when you are done discussing past events how about you answer a couple questions. 1. Given that when a person's time on Earth is done he/she transforms into eternity. Now eternity, given the 3-D perspective of Earth is a very long time, How long will it be before life in eternity becomes the accepted norm with little thought to the person's time on Earth? 10,000 year? 1 million years? 10 million years? After all, at 10 million years, eternity would have just gotten started.

 

[Red Leg]

To those who (especially those identifying as Christians) earlier asserted and/or agreed with the claim that Islam is not a false religion, how do you reconcile that with the following statement?

Bible Gateway passage: John 14:6 - New International Version

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

www.biblegateway.com

A Muslim would first point out that his revelation is more current than yours by seven centuries - that he has the benefit of an program update from God that you missed. I would note this is essentially the same argument with which we Christians confront Jews. Secondly, he would fully agree that the guidance provided by Jesus is essential in leading a life that would be rewarded by God. After all, Jesus is recognized as the greatest prophet before Mohammed. Finally, we have no comment on Islam form John, because it did not yet exist.

I hasten to add this is not meant as an endorsement of Islam. But, I think it is important to understand all the sects and denominations within the broad family of peoples who worship the same God.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Makes perfect sense if you define a Man as a being with knowledge of good and evil, rather than as the scientific first homo sapien.

You didn't provide a self evident, reasoned approach as to how all animals and plants ever known in the geologic record could live in the same timeframes considering their adaptations were designed for offensive or defensive abilities against animals of the same geological epoch.

Don’t deflect, you made an incorrect statement and then backed it up with nothing even close to what you claimed.

If you can believe 8 billion people came from 8 and ultimately came from 2 and however many languages alive today came from one and that God who made everything and sent His Son to die for the world, it’s not hard to see where such biodiversity came from and how it can exist.

I’d say you haven’t done anything but push millions of years, evolution and misrepresented what little Scripture you have shared, using worn out arguments.

 

[rookhawk]

A Muslim would first point out that his revelation is more current than yours by seven centuries - that he has the benefit of an program update from God that you missed. I would note this is essentially the same argument with which we Christians confront Jews. Secondly, he would fully agree that the guidance provided by Jesus is essential in leading a life that would be rewarded by God. After all, Jesus is recognized as the greatest prophet before Mohammed. Finally, we have no comment on Islam form John, because it did not yet exist.

The most damning issue with Islam is the conflict between internal critique and appeal to external authority.

In the Quran, it spells out clear as day that the Injeel (New Testament) and the Torah/Tanakh are valid, authoritative scripture. That's not my words, that's the Muslim's prophets words as laid down in the Quran which they believe is A.) Eternal, B.) Always did exist, C.) is uncorrupted, D.) and lays down the perfect final example of how to live for all time.

So the internal authority in the Quran points to the above and also states that the OT and NT are authoritative.

So best case of logic: A.) The Torah is True, B.) The New Testament is True, C.) The Quran is True. That is the burden of Islam to prove.

However, there are numerous conficts between the Bible and the Quran that cannot be reconciled. So either the OT and NT are false, or the Quran is false, or all of them are False. This is the Muslim dilemma.

Most mainstream Muslims contend with this damning connundrum by stating that the Old and New Testaments have been altered and contaminated. The problem with this assertion is that A.) We have all the manuscripts that far predate the era of Mohammad, so we know exactly what 7th century Jews and Christians believed and what they read. B.) The assertions by Mohammad as to what Christians and Jews believe was not accurate for the 7th century, such as the Trinity is the Father, Mother, and Jesus. C.) There is no evidence for a "uncorrupted" version of the OT and NT that can be presented that would give an alternative scriptural translation that could have been known to Mohammad in the 7th century.

Numerous examples exist of this conflict in the Quran versus the Bible, including:

A.) divinity of the Messiah / Christ, that Allah has no son yet the Messiah is his son in the OT and Jesus is the Son in the NT.

B.) Description of heaven being hot with need for shady and cold water in the Quran, versus it being in no way described that way in the Bible.

C.) Salvation and knowing salvation.

D.) Kosher laws are authoritative in Islam, yet the prophet eats rabbits and camels.

E.) That you should only pray to God, yet the daily islamic prayers invoke Mohammad.

In short, only two options remain: either A.) OT and NT are false, making Islam false, or B.) alternatively that the OT and NT are true, therefore Islam is false.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

A Muslim would first point out that his revelation is more current than yours by seven centuries - that he has the benefit of an program update from God that you missed. I would note this is essentially the same argument with which we Christians confront Jews. Secondly, he would fully agree that the guidance provided by Jesus is essential in leading a life that would be rewarded by God. After all, Jesus is recognized as the greatest prophet before Mohammed. Finally, we have no comment on Islam form John, because it did not yet exist.

Except they don’t believe in His (Christ’s) divinity, who He said He was. Exclusivity of Christ for salvation is essential. No other way. You identify as a Christian but don’t believe that?

The true Christ. Not the Christ of Islam or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism or whoever else says they believe in Him but don’t

 

[RLD]

They are not my beliefs. They are established scientific fact. That the Bible, as literally interpreted by you, doesn't account for them is your issue and perhaps the issue of those who have to make allowances for those beliefs in some manner. My interpretation of biblical truth has no issue with reconciling itself with scientific truth.

The fundamental flaw of Young Earth Creationism is that it essentially rejects scientific knowledge and understanding developed since the Enlightenment. That means, those adherents, given the capacity to learn and reason by their Omniscient God, have rejected those capabilities to attempt to dwell intellectually in the 17th century. Instead of treating the Bible as a philosophical treatise in understanding God, Young Earth Creationists have decided to turn to it as a natural history text. In Hebrews is the famous quote that faith has to do with "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That is the majesty of belief, not trying to justify the calculations of some Anglican Bishop who in 1650 begetted himself to the conclusion that God began creation at sunset on October 23, 4004 BC. How fundamentalists decided to embrace that escapes me, but it transforms the study of the broad majesty of creation and the world to come into a debate over the origin of sea shell fossils in the San Gabriel River. God must weep.

Nowhere does he insist faith is the rejection of knowledge. Indeed, the Bible is replete with examples to the contrary. I believe it is in Hosea we can find, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me."

So you are indeed correct that there is not a literal biblical foundation for the Jurassic Period anymore than there are foundations for a host of things we now understand that our far less educated predecessors did not. My response is that is irrelevant because the God I comprehend expects me to fully use my capability to comprehend a far broader and more comprehensive creation than ever conceived by an Old testament Scribe.

Careful man, you are starting to sound like St. Augustine of Hippo there...and good on 'ya for that!

Have you ever read "Rock of Ages" by Gould? I think you would enjoy it.

 

[RLD]

Except they don’t believe in His (Christ’s) divinity, who He said He was. Exclusivity of Christ for salvation is essential. No other way

The true Christ. Not the Christ of Islam or Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism or whoever else says they believe in Him but don’t

But do you not think this approach is morally bankrupt? Or even cruel?

If you are correct, then the millions (hundreds of millions?) of people who were born and died without ever having any chance to learn about Christ were all denied salvation. Is that what the Bible teaches? Was that God's plan for them?

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

But do you not think this approach is morally bankrupt? Or even cruel?

If you are correct, then the millions (hundreds of millions?) of people who were born and died without ever having any chance to learn about Christ were all denied salvation. Is that what the Bible teaches? Was that God's plan for them?

I do not.

The Bible is crystal clear that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men so they will be without excuse when they stand before Him in judgement. Not one single person has gone or will go to Hell without having to have made a choice.

 

[Red Leg]

Careful man, you are starting to sound like St. Augustine of Hippo there...and good on 'ya for that!

Have you ever read "Rock of Ages" by Gould? I think you would enjoy it.

It has been in my library for at least 20 years (along with "City of God"). I am one with the concept of the separate but non conflicting Magisteria.

"Science gets the age of rocks, and religion gets the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, and religion determines how to go to heaven."

I find the small mindedness of fundamentalism appalling.

 

[RLD]

I do not.

The Bible is crystal clear that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men so they will be without excuse when they stand before Him in judgement

So how exactly did native Americans or Australian aboriginals come to know of Jesus before Europeans arrived?

 

[RLD]

It has been in my library for at least 20 years (along with "City of God"). I am one with the concept of the separate but non conflicting Magisteria.

"Science gets the age of rocks, and religion gets the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, and religion determines how to go to heaven."

I find the small mindedness of fundamentalism appalling.

I think you and I are becoming rare birds in this approach these days. Good to know there are more of us out there.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

So how exactly did native Americans or Australian aboriginals come to know of Jesus before Europeans arrived?

Sorry should’ve spent more time on the last few posts. Yes, salvation is in Christ alone. It is a hard thing to grasp and a tough question that many people struggle with but places like Romans chapter 1 and Titus 2:11 (among others) are clear. People make a conscious choice. The Holy Spirit is at work in the world and God is sovereign. God would be neither just nor merciful if there was not a choice for each and every individual. You may see that as a non answer. It is what it is. I don’t know everything.. As you can tell, I’m not in the inclusivist camp.

 

[RLD]

Sorry should’ve spent more time on the last few posts. Yes, salvation is in Christ alone. It is a hard thing to grasp and a tough question that many people struggle with but places like Romans chapter 1 and Titus 2:11 (among others) are clear. People make a conscious choice. The Holy Spirit is at work in the world. God would be neither just nor merciful if there was not a choice for each and every individual. You may see that as a non answer. It is what it is. I don’t know everything.. As you can tell, I’m not in the inclusivist camp

Appreciate you taking the time to respond. None of us have all the answers and that issue has taken up space in my head for years.

 

[cwpayton]

Cessationist or not, the final verses of Mark are not canon. In most mainstream modern bibles it will place those verses in italics or footnote them "not in the earliest manuscripts".

That is true as well as the story in John about the woman in adultry, and a few other isolated verses.

 

[cwpayton]

They are not my beliefs. They are established scientific fact. That the Bible, as literally interpreted by you, doesn't account for them is your issue and perhaps the issue of those who have to make allowances for those beliefs in some manner. My interpretation of biblical truth has no issue with reconciling itself with scientific truth.

The fundamental flaw of Young Earth Creationism is that it essentially rejects scientific knowledge and understanding developed since the Enlightenment. That means, those adherents, given the capacity to learn and reason by their Omniscient God, have rejected those capabilities to attempt to dwell intellectually in the 17th century. Instead of treating the Bible as a philosophical treatise in understanding God, Young Earth Creationists have decided to turn to it as a natural history text. In Hebrews is the famous quote that faith has to do with "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." That is the majesty of belief, not trying to justify the calculations of some Anglican Bishop who in 1650 begetted himself to the conclusion that God began creation at sunset on October 23, 4004 BC. How fundamentalists decided to embrace that escapes me, but it transforms the study of the broad majesty of creation and the world to come into a debate over the origin of sea shell fossils in the San Gabriel River. God must weep.

Nowhere does he insist faith is the rejection of knowledge. Indeed, the Bible is replete with examples to the contrary. I believe it is in Hosea we can find, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me."

So you are indeed correct that there is not a literal biblical foundation for the Jurassic Period anymore than there are foundations for a host of things we now understand that our far less educated predecessors did not. My response is that is irrelevant because the God I comprehend expects me to fully use my capability to comprehend a far broader and more comprehensive creation than ever conceived by an Old testament Scribe.

Im still not sure why these are scientific facts, what are you basing this assumption on, carbon 14 or a lecture or book? , because conjecture wont suffice , simply ,no one was around billions of years ago to verify anything, except GOD, so deductive reasoning is subject to review and criticism. the generations of Adam are listed in Genesis so all the billions of years happened before the beginning? because a professor "said so" just wont do. The atomic explosion back in the 40s at the test site created trinity crystal rock, mount saint Helens also spewed up molten rock that tested in millions of years [ carbon 14] but it was formed only decades ago. IF IM required to have faith to believe, IM going to put it in an omnipotent creator not a scientist that cannot prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. isn't science repeatable? In genesis it says{ in the days of Peleg the earth was separated speaking of continent drift ,that happened in recorded history. Christ said" the scripture cannot be broken" John10-35..
My wife makes a butter milk pie from an old recipe from her great grama that rolled into Texas on a covered wagon., but all the ingrediencies could set on the counter till the end of time , but she creates it ,

In Colossians first chapter it says CHRIST created all things in heaven and earth, thats new testament doctrine. So did time create or did Christ? If it took billions of years is it accurate to say " create" seems to me that's a stretch to make a progression of morphed soup onto a unrepeatable earth that supports life in water ,earth and air, with just enough oxygen , light, sun ,and faunna to support all these forms of life. why didnt this " happen " on mars ,the moon , Saturn, if it just requires time. ..................................................................................................................................................................