Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

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

Yes, I do. Neither is pleasant. And I do have empathy and human decency, but I don't think twice about what the Lord God has done. He's God. Who is to question Him??!! It's His world. Lots of babies died also in the Great Flood, or World War I or II. Same thing. But Davis just notices other accounts that stick out, which I don't blame him. But it isn't for Davis to question his God.

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 knows what actually happens to those little infants and BJ does not. Their little spirits and souls go back to God and they are in a beautiful place much better than the one they were in. You all just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

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 honor because God himself ordered it and I knew it was really God cause he told me Himself"

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

Something of that caliber would require quite a sign from God. A rain or snow sign. Or even a tornado sign.

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"

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

Hedshaker, I do believe that being a homosexual is still a sin. But, if you can't do anything about it, I wouldn't beat myself over the head about it. But if I could change, I would repent, definitely. And since I've been afforded the luxury, I do not look down on those who can't change whatsoever!! My heart is with them easily!! I've been down that road, so how can I feel any differently. Yes, there are gay Christians. God knows that also. They aren't believing in vain.

Michael

 

[noguru]

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!'?

No, that is not what I did. I am a theist so I think that God is the author of nature. Though I question "traditional/orthodox" views of God. My reason for doing so is also backed by the vast amount of reform of "orthodox" in history.

To me nature is far more inspiring than a Rembrandt. It is resilient, and rises like a phoenix from its own ashes. The only difference between you and I, is I am open to learn about the author of nature from nature. I do not try to force humanly devised boxes on God and force nature in that box.

So if you reevaluate your last question you will see how it is non sense.

 

[Hedshaker]

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.

I don't know how anyone could so persistently miss the point, yet there is.

 

[noguru]

I don't know how anyone could so persistently miss the point, yet there is.

It's a defensive mechanism.

 

[Hedshaker]

Yes, I do. Neither is pleasant. And I do have empathy and human decency, but I don't think twice about what the Lord God has done. He's God. Who is to question Him??!! It's His world. Lots of babies died also in the Great Flood, or World War I or II. Same thing. But Davis just notices other accounts that stick out, which I don't blame him. But it isn't for Davis to question his God.

Who is to question God you ask?On an issue like this, anyone with an ounce of decency is who. But more than that I question you and your subservient sucking up to your nasty invisible friend. It's quite pathetic. Even if your god did exist I would tell it where to get off. Like any imaginary entity, stop believing and it's gone in a puff of logic. Not that it has ever been established to exist in the first place.

But no, it's you I hold responsible for what you say, not your alter ego.

God knows what actually happens to those little infants and BJ does not. Their little spirits and souls go back to God and they are in a beautiful place much better than the one they were in. You all just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Nor do you have the slightest clue what's going on behind the scenes. You think all you have to do is preach it and we all should just believe what you say without question? Don't be naive. The existence of your God has never been established. It's a faith belief, nothing more.

Something of that caliber would require quite a sign from God. A rain or snow sign. Or even a tornado sign.

Extreme weather conditions occur naturally all the time. That you would take that as confirmation before embarking on an infant blood lust says it all really. And it's quite, quite horrible.

Hedshaker, I do believe that being a homosexual is still a sin. But, if you can't do anything about it, I wouldn't beat myself over the head about it. But if I could change, I would repent, definitely. And since I've been afforded the luxury, I do not look down on those who can't change whatsoever!! My heart is with them easily!! I've been down that road, so how can I feel any differently. Yes, there are gay Christians. God knows that also. They aren't believing in vain.

Being celibate is not the same as changing your sexual orientation Michael. You are what you are regardless and no amount of abstinence will change that. But, to be honest Michael, you're not known for looking reality squarely in the face. You seem to think reality is what you want it to be. It isn't. Nor is ones sexuality a sin. It simply is what it is, but your opinion just confirms what Christopher Hitchens had to say about it:

Born sick and commanded to be well

 

[Hedshaker]

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.

Please don't labour under the false impression that you have something new to offer. I've heard all the God arguments out there and then some and I've yet to hear an ounce of credibility in any of them. An iota of evidence might help but, as you know, there's none of that.

Have your faith belief if you must. Live by it and take it with you to the grave. But do me a favour and leave me and mine out of it. Thanks.

 

[Interplanner]

What does 'formless and void' mean, then?

 

[Hedshaker]

What does 'formless and void' mean, then?

It's a bunch of words written by some ancient unknown author and means whatever they wanted it to mean.

empty space; emptiness etc

 

[Interplanner]

It matches almost all world cosmologies about the stage between the defeat of a sinister creature by the creator and the next stage: creating this world as we know it out of the aftermath of that.

I've always heard that evolution left to itself would result in a world dominated by T-Rex. As we know, that is not the domesticated world we now have. What happened?

These two points speak to each other, don't they?

 

[Hedshaker]

It matches almost all world cosmologies about the stage between the defeat of a sinister creature by the creator and the next stage: creating this world as we know it out of the aftermath of that.

I've always heard that evolution left to itself would result in a world dominated by T-Rex. As we know, that is not the domesticated world we now have. What happened?

These two points speak to each other, don't they?

Sure, they speak a bunch of flimflam to each other.

I'm sure all this stuff means something to you. Lets just leave it at that.

 

[Interplanner]

OK, unless your curiosity brings you back to: why isn't our world dominated by T-Rex and hostile for mankind?

 

[Hedshaker]

:kookoo: :kookoo:

Thanks, but if it's all the same to you I'll stick with reality.

:wave2:

 

[Hawkins]

What is really stupid, as a matter of fact, is people assuming to know my mind better than I do. It must be hard for you to accept but not everyone thinks like you. There are things I take for granted, like everyone, but that is not what the discussion was about.

Here's a test for you, see if you can "choose" to believe in leprechauns. Give it a good try and see how you get on. Can you "choose" to believe in a different deity than the one you subscribe to at present?

And no, I don't just believe every piece of daily news I hear, nor do I care for much of it. I accept the consensus of science regarding black holes unless new evidence comes to light but that is not what I would call a "chosen belief" in context of what we were talking about.

Please speak for yourself, thanks :thumb:

Hmm.. so you don't read news? Or you investigate and acquire evidence for every piece of news you read?

People don't need to read your mind to get to the conclusion. Unless you used to live in denial.

Answer the two question above!

 

[Hedshaker]

Hmm.. so you don't read news? Or you investigate and acquire evidence for every piece of news you read?

People don't need to read your mind to get to the conclusion. Unless you used to live in denial.

Answer the two question above!

Go back and follow the discussion in context. I have better things to do

 

[Hawkins]

Yes I tend to trust (believe?) first hand eye witness accounts on the news from reputable sources, so shoot me.
I'll trust those directly involved to know more than I do.
However I don't trust third hand hearsay reports without any evidence to support it that I could check out on my own if I felt the need to verify it.

The nature of history is that you can consider something written 2000 years ago first handed or third handed. They cannot be verified as which is which. Face it or shoot yourself.

People deem them as trust worthy. Because 1) it is said that those spread the information died for what is said. 2) You can't present concrete evidence to conclude that it's not first handed, it is so to all human history written 2000 years ago. and 3) it is about a piece of information concerning their lives.

It's just like the bomb message sent out by someone who is willing to die for what is said.

 

[Hawkins]

Go back and follow the discussion in context. I have better things to do

Continue to live in denial or face directly those 2 simple questions!

Moreover people don't need to read your mind to get to the conclusion. Face it, this is the reality you failed to live with!

 

[Hedshaker]

Continue to live in denial or face directly those 2 simple questions!

Moreover people don't need to read your mind to get to the conclusion. Face it, this is the reality you failed to live with!

Originally Posted by Hedshaker,
Go back and follow the discussion in context. I have better things to do.

Not interested. Find some ones else to annoy cause there's a perfectly functioning ignore feature on this board, you know?

 

[alwight]

The nature of history is that you can consider something written 2000 years ago first handed or third handed. They cannot be verified as which is which. Face it or shoot yourself.

It seems to me that you are being rather selective in which ancient scripture is deemed factual, why don't you believe Mohammed or the Mahabharata?
Are the four gospels really an historical narrative, or are they dramatic reconstructions aimed at a particular audience of a later time?
Is there any hard evidence?
Did former probably illiterate fishermen really bother to take accurate dictation on the go and were even able to write it all down, or did a later evangelist sit down at a desk and reconstruct an earlier story with perhaps a few natural and supernatural embellishments to make it rather more compelling?
As I see it the four anonymous evangelist gospel authors are not believed by academia to have been contemporary or eye witnesses at all and were probably written as dramatic accounts sequentially, well after the events described, while they often conflict.
So why should I believe that they are factually accurate, particularly if miraculous deeds are also to be believed rather than be considered as embellishments?

People deem them as trust worthy. Because 1) it is said that those spread the information died for what is said. 2) You can't present concrete evidence to conclude that it's not first handed, it is so to all human history written 2000 years ago. and 3) it is about a piece of information concerning their lives.

It's just like the bomb message sent out by someone who is willing to die for what is said.

People who want to believe them will believe what they will, but in fact there is only one piece of hard evidence that any character from the NT actually existed which is something called the "Pilate Stone".
Historical accuracy can only rationally be concluded by converging evidence not the hearsay written down years after the events.
If as I suspect, the four gospels at least were only ever meant to be dramatized exciting accounts then how can you know otherwise?

 

[Interplanner]

One of the greatest pieces of evidence is the destruction of Jerusalem. It is mentioned all through Luke, and adequately in the others, but all of them are from accounts 40 years ahead of time. The details of the complete destruction of the place by Rome.

So much happened to the early church that nothing was written down for a couple years because writing down was not the normal method of preservation in that Aramaic-speaking culture. There are slight variations in the 3 called the synoptics (seen together), John took a more 'theological' approach and only becomes parallel in the last third.

the guy you want to talk to is Paul. He wanted the whole movement stopped. Yet he was completely taken hold of by God and by the message. He said he once knew everything about Christ in an ordinary sense, but now realized God was at work in Christ's unusual events. That puts them well into hard evidence history and beyond. He said at one post-resurrection appearance abot 500 saw Christ. Remember, this is a person who once was the leader in stamping out the movement, so he had every reason to ignore, doubt and bury such a statement.

 

[DavisBJ]

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.

I wasn’t aware that my MO was particularly obscure. To be open about it, my MO in this case is to actually read the book you claim is sacred, and if I encounter something that gives me pause, then I think about it, and sometimes bring it here to TOL for consideration. I know in the case of God commanding that infants be slaughtered, after thinking about it I realized that is something that I would not do. I was interested in how the professing Christians would respond if they were asked to kill infants, and generally the response has been hostility towards me for even broaching the question (Except in your case, you answered civilly, thank you).

Do you have issues with my MO?

… I don't question my God and you Do!!

Correct. Since I feel certain your God is just a construct in your own mind, I am not reticent about examining the actions ascribed to that imaginary being.

You do realize, that when you declare “I don't question my God” then you are expressing the very same sentiment that we read about several times each year that is offered by a mother who has killed her kids, or parents who starved their offspring, or even for the 911 attack on the World Trade Centers. In each case, had those people been rational, and dared to “question their God” then many families and many lives might have been spared the horror that the deluded murderers mentally convinced themselves was commanded of God. By your own admission, the only reason you have not committed mass murder is because you don’t feel you have been told to by God – yet.