Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael. The question was far from, silly or loaded. It happens to be a powerful and poignant question that notably puts Christians ill at ease which is way CR has shied away from directly answering the question.

It didn't put me ill at ease. I doubt that God would put me in that situation, to be honest. Cross Ref. can respond or not respond. That is his option. One of the prophets had to eat cow manure mixed with hay, and cooked on the fire, to show that people would, during an upcoming famine, do so to eat something.

If you think it was silly and loaded then why haven't you explained to Davis, with evidence, why you think so? Easy to make a blanket statement but not so easy to justify. And I have to agree with Davis regarding your own answer, that if "you thought" your God ordered you to slaughter infants you would do so without question, especially given the times you claim to have had direct dialogue with your God. Very scary indeed Michael. Shocking in fact! Even if I believed in your God my own answer would be a resounding NO!

God would have to reassure to me that it was Him commanding me to, or asking me to.

Of course it does, in the same way that eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics is OK while vile bigotry toward Homosexuality is justified, should also put him in the spot.

It's moving that you take CR's side so easily but forget that CR entered this thread of his own volition specifically to pick a fight.

CR has been around for years. He is just posting on a thread that he feels strongly about. I can hardly blame him. The best place that a gay Christian can be is here, so they can come to their grips with their homosexuality and other sins. This website invites in those who need to find God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. All are welcome here, even Urantia people. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them. They are spreading around a cult following. Not good, but they will have to answer to God for it. It won't be pretty, I conjecture. OK, I have to run to the hospital and visit my nephew. Bye, you guys!!

Blessings To You, Hedshaker!! Always good to hear from you!!

Michael

arty: :first: :guitar: :singer: :angel: :cloud9:



Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Re God’s order to kill infants:

The way you have written it, it sounds like it was as ordinary as do not steal.

I almost agree with you, except my surprise at how ordinary the killing of children was comes from the Old Testament account itself. After the massacre that is spoken of in I Sam 15, repercussion come down on King Saul – not for killing kids, but for not killing some livestock.

I understand the moral of the story is that unquestioned obedience to God is the goal. But I have a really hard time envisioning the Prophet Samuel dressing down King Saul over livestock, with nary a word said about the killing of innocent people. For the infant victims, is there any pretense of justice in this story?

Infants were not singled out.

I don’t know what “singled out” means in this context. Infants were called out as a specific line item in the list of those to be massacred.

The temple prostitution child-sacrifice for fertility renewal was to be obliterated.

If you have specific information that supports this, I would appreciate you sharing it. Meantime, I will add your “child sacrifice for fertility renewal” to my list of reasons I have been given by Christians trying to justify why the kids had to be killed.

But maybe you can explain for me, if infants were in fact being sacrificed for some pagan ritual, how does that translate into a need for the Hebrew warriors to kill the infants? If you see a girl being raped, so you subdue her attacker, and then rape her yourself? Can you please offer some sensible reason why those children had to be killed, beyond just “cause God said so?”

 

[DavisBJ]

Some of them haven't wrestled with 'formless and void' yet; in fact, they seem to strain to not mention it.

Who is "them" and "they"?

 

[Interplanner]

Literalists and creationists.

There is a claim that "formless and void" was discussed here and I'm trying to find it because I think that is a very important dividing point in the account and for our thinking.

It seems like someone could at least summarize in a line or two...

 

[Hedshaker]

Some of them haven't wrestled with 'formless and void' yet; in fact, they seem to strain to not mention it.

What's to wrestle with about it? It's no more than transient wordary penned by of some anonymous pre-science character from antiquity.

 

[Interplanner]

The resurrected Christ says not so.

It is an example from the ancient near east that ties into the nearly universal belief that this world was created after a victory by a creator god over an awful enemy, usually in the form of a huge lizard or sea-monster. I'm referring to legends from Persia, Egypt, Sankrit, Nordic, Saxon, even NW Native American (discovered just in the past 2 years).

That appears to put it all in the legend category, but the question is whether it has merit it to it in that there was a pre-existing chaotic, watery condition, and then there is the question of whether there was a stage of evolution or just processes that ended in formless and void, which God then changed more or less quickly.

Besides the cosmological questions, there is the psychological question about humans: they have the image of God in them which means they change chaos into order, just as God did in the 6 days.

The material is therefore not as scatter-brained as you might think. The question of a pre-existing 'formless and void' is a fundamental cosmological question.

 

[Hedshaker]

Hi Michael. The question was far from, silly or loaded. It happens to be a powerful and poignant question that notably puts Christians ill at ease which is way CR has shied away from directly answering the question.

It didn't put me ill at ease. I doubt that God would put me in that situation, to be honest. Cross Ref. can respond or not respond. That is his option. One of the prophets had to eat cow manure mixed with hay, and cooked on the fire, to show that people would, during an upcoming famine, do so to eat something.

Infanticide is a little more serious then eating dung, don't you think?

The question may not have put you ill at ease but it really should have if you ask me. There's these little things you may have heard of, like human decency and empathy. Call me old fashioned but some of us put then ahead of cherished religious beliefs.

God would have to reassure to me that it was Him commanding me to, or asking me to.

And how exactly would you go about establishing that then? I guess you'd ask, huh? And how do you reckon the judge would see it?

"I had to do it your honour because God himself ordered it and I knew it was really God cause he told me Himself"

??? You might want to consider revising you defence there Michael :dunce:

CR has been around for years. He is just posting on a thread that he feels strongly about. I can hardly blame him. The best place that a gay Christian can be is here, so they can come to their grips with their homosexuality and other sins. This website invites in those who need to find God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. All are welcome here, even Urantia people. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them. They are spreading around a cult following. Not good, but they will have to answer to God for it. It won't be pretty, I conjecture. OK, I have to run to the hospital and visit my nephew. Bye, you guys!!

Homosexuality is not a sin Michael. It is normal for them to be attracted to the same sex as it's just who they are, which you should know full well being gay yourself. And yes I know you are celibate and think you are no longer gay but I don't buy that. When you call them sinful you just pander to the bigots like the proverbial "Uncle Tom". During my time in show business I've met plenty of gay folk and they're just fine. I'm pretty sure I've never met one yet that would consider Infanticide under "any" circumstances.

And you'll recall that it was CR who came out with the daft statement that "No Christian is gay"

Blessings To You, Hedshaker!! Always good to hear from you!!

Thank you Michael and all the best to you too. I would wish you good luck but I'm not superstitious/

 

[Hedshaker]

The resurrected Christ says not so.

It is an example from the ancient near east that ties into the nearly universal belief that this world was created after a victory by a creator god over an awful enemy, usually in the form of a huge lizard or sea-monster. I'm referring to legends from Persia, Egypt, Sankrit, Nordic, Saxon, even NW Native American (discovered just in the past 2 years).

That appears to put it all in the legend category, but the question is whether it has merit it to it in that there was a pre-existing chaotic, watery condition, and then there is the question of whether there was a stage of evolution or just processes that ended in formless and void, which God then changed more or less quickly.

Besides the cosmological questions, there is the psychological question about humans: they have the image of God in them which means they change chaos into order, just as God did in the 6 days.

The material is therefore not as scatter-brained as you might think. The question of a pre-existing 'formless and void' is a fundamental cosmological question.

That might be you faith belief but it certainly isn't mine. The cosmological argument as already been done to death and still doesn't mean any more now than ever it did. And, to be honest, I'm about sick of hearing about it. Feel free to believe what ever you wish but please give me a break cause if I have to suffer another bout of someone who thinks they can talk their god into existence I might just crack up. Asides, it's late here and I'm a tad knackered.

 

[Interplanner]

Get some rest. You'll need it to be intellectually honest. We can't just dismiss the existence of God at our convenience. We can't dismiss what He claims to be just because we don't want to hear about it. A whole generation is growing up thinking that, even thinking that about other social or cultural questions; it is mistaken and dishonest.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Clearly you cannot see the point that has been made several times Michael. But one more time for good measure: What's he waiting for?



What you or anyone else believe is imminent is meaningless. I cannot put it any simpler so I officially give up now :jawdrop: So feel free to tell me of doom and gloom to come if you absolutely must!

And I'll edit to add: I've missed nothing. I just don't believe a word of it. Geddit?

Dear Hedshaker,

He is waiting for His Own to be killed as the other children were. See Rev. 6:11KJV. It answers your question. Just read it slow and absorb it.

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael. The question was far from, silly or loaded. It happens to be a powerful and poignant question that notably puts Christians ill at ease which is way CR has shied away from directly answering the question. If you think it was silly and loaded then why haven't you explained to Davis, with evidence, why you think so? Easy to make a blanket statement but not so easy to justify. And I have to agree with Davis regarding your own answer, that if "you thought" your God ordered you to slaughter infants you would do so without question, especially given the times you claim to have had direct dialogue with your God. Very scary indeed Michael. Shocking in fact! Even if I believed in your God my own answer would be a resounding NO!

Dear Hedshaker,

That shows that you do not fear God, when He holds your life in His Hands. Irregardless, I would do whatever He wanted because I love Him very much. You do not know God very well.

Of course it does, in the same way that eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics is OK while vile bigotry toward Homosexuality is justified, should also put him in the spot.

It's moving that you take CR's side so easily but forget that CR entered this thread of his own volition specifically to pick a fight.

I didn't know. All I knew was that everyone was pouncing on him like a kitten with a catnip mouse. Or a lion and a lamb. Oh, you mean about eating pork and shellfish, and being unsympathetic to homosexuals. The scriptures he is getting that from is in both the Old and New Testaments. If it were not for God's forgiveness and love, we would be banished to hell. Make no mistake about it. Who loves God most: someone whom is forgiven MUCH, or someone who is forgiven LITTLE?? Forgiven MUCH, of course. So God loving me even though I was a homosexual or ate pork makes me love Him all the more. My love for Him runs deeper indeed.

Praise God & Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

IMHO Darwinian evolution is infinitely more interesting than magic any day.

When you look at nature in all it's infinite splendour there must be something wrong if you're not utterly awestruck.

IMHO, Darwin screwed up totally. When you look at God's Creations, then you are utterly awestruck. Not the result of magic. The result of miracles.

Why on Earth anyone with a functioning brain would yearn for something as vague and ambiguous that it could be described as supernatural when plain old nature is so spine chillimgly mysteries enough, all by itself, is quite beyond me.

Each to his own I guess. :argue:

You give to Darwin what is God's Glory. Not any thing Darwin did. God is nature. There is no mother nature or nature per se except God does it all, including thunder, lightning, rain, wind, hail, snow, blizzards, hot and cold temps., hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, again you misrepresent me. I do not think that a natural process rules out God as the ultimate author of that process. You seem to be the one that carries the yolk of that false dichotomy. Please stop attributing your own errors to me.

Thank You
I wish you peace

Dear noguru,

That's just what I wanted to hear. Thank You. I wish you peace also!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

It's because those very things point beyond to a Creator, a Designer. The astrophysicists in THE PRIVILEGED PLANET (Gonzales and _____) called it the privilege humans have of seeing things God made observable, because he wanted his glory to be seen. You've just taken the feature of observability and said it is just to glorify 'nature' itself.

Ever looked at a Rembrandt a long time and then said, 'paint is so amazing!'?

Dear Interplanner,

Thanks for a wonderful post in this situation. It's like the pot calling to it's maker, "Hey, what's the hole in the bottom for? To say the least!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

The thing is they don't seem to want to do better and believe that all the answers can all be derived from ancient scripture, there being nothing to gain from examining real facts and evidence. Anyone even applying scientific methods and questioning the nature of the natural world can only do harm to their unfalsifiable beliefs, so Morton's demon simply will not allow it to get through.

Dear alwight,

I do believe that Science plays it's part in nature. It teaches us how a caterpillar becomes a beautiful moth or a butterfly, but God is in the inner-workings of that process totally to make it happen. Do you see what I mean? Same with the praying mantises. It could not happen on its own. And with Science we learn about the different birds, and the different amphibians, and reptiles, etc. Someone is stuck on something having to have evolved from something else. That's just not the case, as much as it would be easy to believe. It's not that simple.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Then why did you give direct answer to it twice? You said nothing about it being a silly, loaded question earlier when you responded with your answer.

It is a silly, loaded question for CR. Not so much for me, because it is less loaded for me, since I am on to your MO.

No, contrary to your incorrectly saying I deny it, I fully and freely admit it. And for good reason. When I was a Christian, the slaughter of innocents was one thing (among others) that I too avoided for a long time.

I think that any honest believer, upon encountering bothersome passages in the Bible, is betraying honesty if they choose to hide from seriously pondering passages such as the one in question. Even hideous books can be viewed as wonderful if one chooses to trivialize or ignore the objectionable parts.

It's just that I don't question my God and you Do!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

If God eavesdrops and hears that they even question or maybe worse doubt, then in their minds a fiery eternity apparently awaits. The upshot being that sadly they will probably spend this, the only life they actually know they have, not daring to apply rational thought and using the brain that they think God gave them.

Dear alwight,

I hardly worry about a fiery eternity. I believe in a wondrous eternity. And I do use the brain that God gave me. God does not tell me what to think. I just toss out the stuff that my mind doesn't agree with. It's that simple, really.

Michael

You're :first: arty: :angel: :cloud9: :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Some of them haven't wrestled with 'formless and void' yet; in fact, they seem to strain to not mention it.

Dear Interplanner,

Yes, without form and void. Thus, it was in the beginning. And the story only BEGINS there!!

Michael

arty: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael’s complaint:

My clarification:

Michael tries to dodge:

I am going to repeat again, since it didn’t work the first time - Buddy, PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS. As the exchange above shows, you DID mean me personally. You said directly to me, “… like YOU did to ME when I was new…”

Oh, you mean the way you treated me when you first came on this thread. Just like others did when I first came to this website. Same old, same old.

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Oh, you mean the way you treated me when you first came on this thread. Just like others did when I first came to this website. Same old, same old.

Michael

I mean the problem you have with being untruthful. Same old, same old.