|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 8:33:47 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 214
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
But ID *does* support the idea that humans descended from a common ancestor.
quote:
evry1: I get the feeling you're avoiding this. I'm interested because I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about ID. I mean, you've got unclemonkey for example, a hardline YEC, making reference to ID but ID doesn't seem to support his stance at all.
If ID has the support of Creationists, that seems surprising to me. In fact, the way ID portrays itself, I should think it is taking quite a risk, in that it is against evolutionists and also against Creationists.
My apologies Ian. I am not purposely avoiding it. I guess I'm just a bit confused. LOL. I started off confused and have not recovered.
Your first quote is absolutely correct. That common ancestor is Adam. I guess the problem we (or maybe just I) have in differentiating Creation and ID is we don't know exactly where they both stand. With all the IDists I have come to know, in my experience they are not too different in their beliefs that Creationists. That why I was a bit confused because at least to me, ID and Creation seems very similar. Perhaps I have not done enough studying on the IDist's point of view. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks for being so kind. I have found that barren among Evolutionists, which makes no sense, because if they claim to hold absolute fact and truth, they should be loving and respectful to others in hopes to teach them, correct? Again, I appreciate your kindness.
In Christ,
ZG
Hi - firstly thanks for your gracious response. I am not a Christian but I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt in discourse.
Following is my understanding of ID, so I might be off the mark, and in need of Jhud's input.
I too thought ID was similar to YEC. I think what happened is that ID was probably picked up by YECs, who let's face it are demonstrably not averse to twisting scientific evidence to their benefit (even AiG cites examples of this) and compromised ID to their end. Consequently we had the pandas book, the infamous Dover trial, etc. Whereas, in fact, ID in no way supports Creationism and particularly not YEC.
Per the video link, ID supports a common ancestor in the same sense as evolution does - that means an ancient ape, not Adam. That means ID supports the somewhat pathetic 'goo to you' label assigned by YECs to evolution theory. ID argues that some of the evolutionary changes on the way must have had some designer assistance. I should have thought that, on the face of it, ID would be much more appealing to theistic evolutionists than Creationists.
Since Dover, ID has distanced itself from Creationism. Consequently I believe it is a weak argument to say that ID is dressed-up Creationism. The Dover trial proved ID to be dressed-up Creationism, but that's more to do with the way ID was portrayed by the Creationists on the school's board than Behe et al. In this respect, ID is not alone - plenty of scientific endeavour suffers from overly enthusiastic (consider Gore) or even intentionally misleading marketing.
So to me it is quite encouraging that ID is looking at things which seem so complex and beg an alternative explanation. The great pity is that it is portrayed as something which is a replacement for evolution. It's not. Darwin said that, on the face of it, one can't fathom how the eye could have evolved. His explanation was that if we give enough time for incremental mutations to take place, it could evolve through that means alone. ID says it couldn't have. ID asks whether a designer made a tweak here and there to help evolution along. That is not creationism, at least, not in the literal Genesis sense. ID even allows for the possibility that there is no designer. (Thanks Jhud for that clarification.)
Personally, I find ID to be an unsatisfactory explanation. It bothers me that because we can't comprehend how something could have come about over time, we have to attribute it to a designer. I find it intellectually satisfying that something could improve over time through mutation and Darwin's selection process. But I want the opportunity to consider it, I don't want it censored from education - but I also want it presented honestly.
I believe that evolution theory should taught as science's best answer for the origin of species. I don't have a problem with ID being considered in the manner the video portrays, especially since there remain myriad unanswered questions for evolution. BUT the issue for ID is that it has been trumpeted by Creationists as scientific evidence for Creationism and a reason to dismiss evolution theory altogether, with the associated benefit of weakening everything else that points to an old Earth, which rightly had conventional scientists up in arms. The science community retaliated and perhaps somewhat unfairly now dismisses ID out of hand. But you have to ask yourself whose fault that is.
I think that if ID continues to distance itself from Creationism, and focusses more on identifying those mutations that might have required designer assistance, that it will slowly be more accepted as useful research by the scientific community, because I believe that ultimately, the outcome of the research will show us how those mutations could have evolved, thus disproving ID but enhancing our understanding in the process.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 8:48:04 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
Well Ian, theres a lot of stuff I could reply to, but I'm sure this discussion has become a dead horse, so I will spare your and other's agony by asking one simple question. So in your understanding of ID, it is basically theistic evolution, correct? At least thats what I got from your post. If that is true, the last 51 posts make much more sense!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 8:56:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Of course it does. I can even develop my own idiosyncratic interpretation if I want to.
I sure hope you haven't!
You can rest easy on that point. My theology is pretty traditional. Nicene Creed and basic Reformed theology.
quote:
I'd just stick to a normal, simplistic, literal interpretation of God's Word of which He intended.
Well, here is an example of what I mean. Who told you that God intended you to read the scriptures in a "normal, simplistic, literal interpretation"? You say you search the scriptures for the truth. Where does scripture say this is how to read them? How do you know the scripture is not to be interpreted using the Jewish practice of Gematria in which the interpretation is based on the numerical values of the words? How do you know that Peter and Paul's example of interpreting the Old Testament allegorically is not the model we should always follow (and was the model followed in the church for more than a millennium)? How do you know that there is any one right way to interpret every part of scripture?
quote:
IF the Bible were just stories and myths, it would be up to you to make it say whatever you want it to say.
Not true and if you had a good English lit teacher you would know better. A good critique of literature cannot depart significantly from the text even when the text is a story or myth. You cannot make a Shakespearian sonnet say whatever you want it to say. You have to work out what Shakespeare was saying.
If God chose to speak in the language of story and myth, that is God's choice and we still have to respect what God is saying. We can't claim he is saying something different from what he intends the story to say.
quote:
If God did not speak his words expecting us to obey them literally, who's to say your interpretation is more wrong or right than mine?
Well, claiming adherence to a literal reading has not prevented readers of the bible from coming up with hundreds of different ideas about what it says. Are we commanded to baptize only adults or is it permissible to baptize infants? Baptists and Methodists both following a so-called literal reading have different answers to that question. What makes the Baptist interpretation more wrong or right than the Methodist interpretation? Are we commanded to speak in tongues or has that gift passed away? Pentecostals and Presbyterians will give you different answers to that question. What makes the Pentecostal interpretation more wrong or right than the Presbyterian one?
(btw, I don't actually want to discuss these issues. Just making the point that you get the question of who is right or wrong whether or not you subscribe to literalism.)
The answer to your question then is that if one is not adhering to a literal interpretation, the question of figuring out whose interpretation is right or wrong would be settled the same way it is when one is adhering to a literal interpretation.
quote:
Sir, with all due respect,
Actually, its Ms.
quote:
you're wrong. Who are you speaking for again? DEFINITELY not ME, and probably not Jack either! I go to church, listen to my pastor, then come home and search scriptures myself to make sure what was preached was truth.
Yes, and you do so wearing those literalist glasses your pastor taught you to wear, so naturally the way you read scripture agrees with the way your pastor reads scripture.
quote:
I'm a "Biblicist".
And you don't think that's a denominational stance promoted by a certain like-minded group of churches whose leadership teaches their congregations how to read the bible in a "Biblicist" way?
At least I am honest enough to admit that I have a theological stance. And I know what it is. You are kidding yourself. Literalism or biblicism is just as much a denominationally promoted stance as Pentecostalism, Presbyterianism or Lutheranism.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 9:31:33 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 214
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Well Ian, theres a lot of stuff I could reply to, but I'm sure this discussion has become a dead horse, so I will spare your and other's agony by asking one simple question. So in your understanding of ID, it is basically theistic evolution, correct? At least thats what I got from your post. If that is true, the last 51 posts make much more sense!
It's theistic evolution with a bit of help on the way. Theistic evolution holds that God either created the environment in which life (goo) could form, or actively created goo, and evolution turned that goo into you.
ID says the same except hypothesises a designer helped the goo to you process now and again.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 9:34:57 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
Ok Ms. Gluadys, post modernism and relativism has clearly distorted your mind, and has made it nearly impossible for me to have any sort of scriptural, philosophical, or theological debate with you. You stick to the knowledge of your finite brain, and I'll stick to the knowledge of an Absolute, Holy, Omniscience God who can not lie to us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 9:37:24 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
It's theistic evolution with a bit of help on the way. Theistic evolution holds that God either created the environment in which life (goo) could form, or actively created goo, and evolution turned that goo into you.
ID says the same except hypothesises a designer helped the goo to you process now and again.
Ah, thanks. I would definitely appreciate other light shed on this discussion to make sure what has been said is correct. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong Ian, I just think it wise to hear the voice of many, not just one. That's how I learn...
In Christ,
ZG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 10:01:38 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 214
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
It's theistic evolution with a bit of help on the way. Theistic evolution holds that God either created the environment in which life (goo) could form, or actively created goo, and evolution turned that goo into you.
ID says the same except hypothesises a designer helped the goo to you process now and again.
Ah, thanks. I would definitely appreciate other light shed on this discussion to make sure what has been said is correct. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong Ian, I just think it wise to hear the voice of many, not just one. That's how I learn...
In Christ,
ZG
No problem, I too would like someone more knowledgeable than me on ID to post.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 11:01:37 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Ok Ms. Gluadys, post modernism and relativism has clearly distorted your mind, and has made it nearly impossible for me to have any sort of scriptural, philosophical, or theological debate with you. You stick to the knowledge of your finite brain, and I'll stick to the knowledge of an Absolute, Holy, Omniscience God who can not lie to us.
Of course, you are in the same situation I am. The only way you can have knowledge of an Absolute Holy Omniscience [sic] God is via your finite human brain. Or are you claiming that your brain is infinite in its capacity to know the Infinite?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/9/2008 11:08:26 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
Or are you claiming that your brain is infinite in its capacity to know the Infinite?
No, I'm claiming that God has given us ample resources (His Word) to understand Him as much as we possibly can, or as much as we can, leaving us accountable for our actions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 6:04:31 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Or are you claiming that your brain is infinite in its capacity to know the Infinite?
No, I'm claiming that God has given us ample resources (His Word) to understand Him as much as we possibly can, or as much as we can, leaving us accountable for our actions.
That I agree with. And we both have finite brains with which to understand Him "as much as we possibly can".
But that has nothing to do with establishing that God intends us to read scripture in a simplistic literal way.
Where do you get the idea from that this is what God intends?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 12:20:49 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
But that has nothing to do with establishing that God intends us to read scripture in a simplistic literal way.
Where do you get the idea from that this is what God intends?
Well, without using scripture, its simply logical. First of all, when a parable was spoken, it was always pronounced to be a parable before it was spoken (Luke 15:3). Are there stories and allegorical passages in the Bible? Absolutely. But they are NEVER written as declarative sentences without first establishing its status as a parable. So to say the Genesis is a myth, story, parable, or allegory would be the first time this happened in all of scriptures. (Not to mention, there is not one parable found in Genesis, assuming the creation account is not a parable. Actually, I'm not quite sure if ANY of Moses' writing included a parable. It would be unlike him to insert a parable out of the clear blue, and then never write one again.) Parables have to either be established as parables by clearly stating it is a parable, or it uses certain literary devices to make it clear it is a parable. Neither of which is found in Genesis, so why should I believe otherwise? You have no good reason for me to change from literally interpreting Genesis other than to fit your finite humanistic knowledge of science. Again, I choose God over my own knowledge.
Secondly, you said...
quote:
Not true and if you had a good English lit teacher you would know better. A good critique of literature cannot depart significantly from the text even when the text is a story or myth. You cannot make a Shakespearian sonnet say whatever you want it to say. You have to work out what Shakespeare was saying.
You are very wrong. I actually had an amazing English lit teacher in both high school and college. I took the AP English Lit test when I was a senior in high school, and I vividly remember this test, because when I finished, I realized how pointless it was. In the essay portion of the test, they gave me 2 passages (2 poems) and a choice of one book in a list my class read throughout the year, and asked us to analyze these 3 in OUR VIEWPOINT. IOW, interpreting the poems can have multiple morals or interpretation. We were asked to support our answers giving references to historical data, other poems, quotes, and the such. So to say there is only one interpretation of a myth, story, parable is simply wrong. Who's to say Shakespeare wrote all he did with only ONE meaning to his writings? Could it be possible that an author writes a piece with a double meaning, double moral, double standard (often conflicting) in its interpretation? It absolutely is possible, and has happened. So if ALL of the Bible is mythical and allegorical, who's to say your interpretation of Genesis is more right or wrong than mine? So is the list of genealogies just a story too? Come on, give me a break. I know you must see this as ridiculous!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 1:31:38 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think that if ID continues to distance itself from Creationism, and focusses more on identifying those mutations that might have required designer assistance, that it will slowly be more accepted as useful research by the scientific community, because I believe that ultimately, the outcome of the research will show us how those mutations could have evolved, thus disproving ID but enhancing our understanding in the process.
Yes, with a little luck the field of ID will turn out to be a good foil for evolution to improve itself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 1:44:47 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
But that has nothing to do with establishing that God intends us to read scripture in a simplistic literal way.
Where do you get the idea from that this is what God intends?
Well, without using scripture, its simply logical. First of all, when a parable was spoken, it was always pronounced to be a parable before it was spoken (Luke 15:3).
No it was not. The part of the gospel where it says "Now Jesus spoke this parable" or some such equivalent is NOT something Jesus said. It is the evangelist telling the people he is writing to that this is a parable. Jesus, as far as we can tell from the gospels, did not announce that he was speaking a parable.
And the evangelists do not always note that a story is a parable either. For example, in Luke 10:29, a lawyer asks Jesus "Who is my neighbour?" and Jesus starts telling him about a man who fell into the hands of robbers and was beaten near to death. Nothing in the text says that Jesus is making up a story off the top of his head. Yet we all agree it is the parable of the Good Samaritan.
So people then and now were smart enough to figure out that a story is a parable even when they are not told explicitly that it is a parable.
quote:
Are there stories and allegorical passages in the Bible? Absolutely. But they are NEVER written as declarative sentences without first establishing its status as a parable.
See above. This is just not true.
quote:
So to say the Genesis is a myth, story, parable, or allegory would be the first time this happened in all of scriptures.
See above. This is just not true.
quote:
(Not to mention, there is not one parable found in Genesis, assuming the creation account is not a parable. Actually, I'm not quite sure if ANY of Moses' writing included a parable. It would be unlike him to insert a parable out of the clear blue, and then never write one again.)
Well, parable, story, myth and allegory are not all the same thing. A myth and a parable are both stories, but not the same kind of story. Allegory can be found in both stories and other kinds of writing. And a story can be a story without any allegory, parable or myth.
So, I think you may be right when you say the Torah has no parable in it. It does, however, have myth, legend and saga in it as well as poetry. I haven't found allegory in the Old Testament yet, but there are many instances in which the New Testament writers interpret the Old Testament as allegory.
quote:
Parables have to either be established as parables by clearly stating it is a parable, or it uses certain literary devices to make it clear it is a parable.
A clear statement that it is a parable is not necessary. See above. Literary devices are, as these are what alert us to what sort of writing we are dealing with. There are plenty of these in the Genesis creation accounts.
quote:
In the essay portion of the test, they gave me 2 passages (2 poems) and a choice of one book in a list my class read throughout the year, and asked us to analyze these 3 in OUR VIEWPOINT. IOW, interpreting the poems can have multiple morals or interpretation. We were asked to support our answers giving references to historical data, other poems, quotes, and the such.
Of course, every good poem has more than one meaning and every interpreter will have their own point of view.
This does not make every interpretation right, or of equal value. (If it did your teacher would have to give you all the same grade for your essay, and I don't expect she did.) As you note, you had to provide support for your answers. You couldn't say that a love sonnet by Shakespeare was really about discovering a gold mine or addressed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster if nothing in the poem supported that interpretation.
So just because everyone provided their own interpretation, it doesn't mean every interpretation was right or equally good. The good interpretations would stick to what Shakespeare was saying and bring out the multiple layers of meaning Shakespeare intended.
It is not true that many levels of meaning and many interpreters mean that you cannot tell a good interpretation from a bad one or a wrong interpretation from a right one.
quote:
So if ALL of the Bible is mythical and allegorical, who's to say your interpretation of Genesis is more right or wrong than mine? So is the list of genealogies just a story too? Come on, give me a break. I know you must see this as ridiculous!
Well, I have never claimed that all the bible is not literal. But we decide on whose interpretation of non-literal passages is best in the same way we decide on whose interpretation of passages intended to be read literally is best.
Of course, sometimes we don't agree. For example, what is the literal meaning of Jesus' words at the Last Supper "This [bread] is my body"? If we can't agree on that, does it matter if we have different ideas about Genesis?
And, yes, the genealogies are a story too. But not "just" a story. Stories in inspired scripture are there for important spiritual reasons. One should never pass them off as "just a story" as if they had no value for the simple reason that they are stories. Why would God have a story told if it was not important to tell it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 8:36:17 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, I have never claimed that all the bible is not literal.
YAY!!! We're getting somewhere! So you agree that some parts of the Bible should be read and interpreted literally? Hallelujah! If this is so, do you not feel it necessary to read God's word from a literal standpoint unless otherwise specified? Nowhere in scriptures a statement along the lines of "the following passage is literal." But there are PLENTY of passages where you find a statement along the lines of "the following statement is a parable which should not be read literally." So why not read God's word literally unless otherwise specified? And in Genesis, like I have already told you, you have no good reason for me not to interpret Genesis literally. I say it is God's intended way of interpreting His words because it is understood. It is the rule of thumb. Like I said above, God never specifies when a passage should be read literally, but it does however specify when a passage should be read as a parable, leading to an obvious conclusion that a literal interpretation of God's Word was intended by Him when He spoke. So unless you can give me reason why I should read Genesis other than literally, I will not alter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 10:46:37 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Well, I have never claimed that all the bible is not literal.
YAY!!! We're getting somewhere! So you agree that some parts of the Bible should be read and interpreted literally? Hallelujah! If this is so, do you not feel it necessary to read God's word from a literal standpoint unless otherwise specified?
No. There is no special sanctity about a literal interpretation that makes is more "true" than another interpretation. We should use our capacity for literary analysis to determine the genre case by case and not assume either a literal or a non-literal interpretation to be best automatically.
btw. did you know that most of the great biblical scholars of the Middle Ages would have disagreed with you entirely? Even when they believed the literal reading to be factual, they believed the task of a scholar was to find the additional layers of meaning in scripture. They believed all the important teachings of scripture were to be found in the moral, anagogical and allegorical interpretations which could be added to the literal interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/10/2008 11:04:04 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
btw. did you know that most of the great biblical scholars of the Middle Ages would have disagreed with you entirely? Even when they believed the literal reading to be factual, they believed the task of a scholar was to find the additional layers of meaning in scripture. They believed all the important teachings of scripture were to be found in the moral, anagogical and allegorical interpretations which could be added to the literal interpretation.
Please provide examples of these individuals of whom you are speaking, and provide evidence of your claim. I don't want your opinion of someone else's opinion.
quote:
They believed all the important teachings of scripture were to be found in the moral, anagogical and allegorical interpretations which could be added to the literal interpretation.
This I agree with, but probably not they way you do. The question is WHICH SCRIPTURE? In parables, this is true. This is why Christ often spoke in parable...to teach morals and to lead people to the Lord. But this does not apply with Genesis, and AGAIN, unless you can give me a good reason to interpret Genesis "non-literally" (which you have yet to do), I will not alter! There is no reason to change.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/11/2008 7:14:47 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Please provide examples of these individuals of whom you are speaking, and provide evidence of your claim. I don't want your opinion of someone else's opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_allegory
Note especially the paragraph from Dante Alighieri's letter to Can Grande della Scala.
quote:
They believed all the important teachings of scripture were to be found in the moral, anagogical and allegorical interpretations which could be added to the literal interpretation.
This I agree with, but probably not they way you do. The question is WHICH SCRIPTURE?
All of it. Here, for example, is a typical sermon from the 5th century preacher St.John Chrysostom using this allegorical style of interpreting both the Passover in Exodus and the wounding of Christ's side as an allegory of the eucharist.
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/379/Blood_and_Water_From_His_Side___St._John_Chrysostom.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/11/2008 12:54:52 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
This makes sense now. You are Roman Catholic, which has led you to believe what you do. Ya, SOME (not most) early ROMAN CATHOLIC Fathers agree as you do, but I could really care less what the RCC teaches. This is one reason I have chosen not to buy into their lies.
A PERFECT example of this in the second link you gave me. I read it all the way through, and Mr. Chrysostom is just flat out wrong. There is no "hidden meaning" in the water and blood that came out of Christs side! The Roman soldier simply pierced his side to make sure He was dead, so breaking Christ's knees would be pointless. This act solidified two prophesies for the coming Messiah. This man simply created a "hidden meaning" to prove a preexisting ideology...that is, you must be baptized (with water) and have communion, specifically in the RCC, to go to Heaven. You see what "hidden meanings" do to Scripture?
God is not the author of confusion. If He wanted us to know something, He would have given us a CLEAR answer. He wrote the Bible for lay people. It was intended for ALL mankind, for EVERYONE to understand, not brilliant theologians and scholars. But this is the reputation of the RCC. Keep everything away from the followers, and keep it only in the hands of the priests and scholars, and you will obtain control over them. Great strategy if you wish to run a cult.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/11/2008 2:50:41 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
This makes sense now. You are Roman Catholic,
Nope. Presbyterian. But then John Chrysostom wasn't Roman Catholic either. I expect he didn't even speak Latin. His native tongue was Greek and he was know for his eloquence. That is why he is called Chrysostom--from the Greek for"golden tongue".
quote:
A PERFECT example of this in the second link you gave me. I read it all the way through, and Mr. Chrysostom is just flat out wrong.
How do you know? What makes him wrong and you right?
quote:
There is no "hidden meaning" in the water and blood that came out of Christs side!
What about in Hagar and Sarah? What about in the flood and the exodus? John is just following the example of the apostles and evangelists. And this was considered a sensible and reliable way of exegeting scripture for over 1,000 years. Many people much better schooled in scripture than either you and I found it a most helpful way to understand it.
quote:
God is not the author of confusion. If He wanted us to know something, He would have given us a CLEAR answer. He wrote the Bible for lay people. It was intended for ALL mankind, for EVERYONE to understand, not brilliant theologians and scholars.
I understand that this is your creed. This is what you believe about God and the scriptures. My only point is that it is a creed, something you believe. It cannot be shown to be fact. The medieval assumption that the message of scripture was to be found in its non-literal symbolism is also a creed. As far as I can see there is no way to show either creed to be right or wrong.
And, of course, we are not limited to these two visions of scripture either. I don't slavishly follow either of these beliefs when I deal with scripture. I like to look at many interpretations from many perspectives because I find several of them helpful in different ways. Scripture to me is like a gemstone. It cannot be fully understood by looking at just one facet. All contribute to the full beauty of the gem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/11/2008 7:48:23 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I don't understand what that has to do with biodiversity, but I understand what you are asking now. And to answer your question...if evidence like that were ever found, I would personally denounce Christianity. But that will never happen. This does not mean I am not open to evidence that could be found, but I just don't believe it will be. And I obviously believe this because of what God's Word says, which is why I would renounce my beliefs if that time comes...but again, I don't believe it will.
What evidence, if found, would indicate that humans and other great apes share a common ancestor? What would this evidence look like?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/11/2008 9:42:58 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
quote:
What evidence, if found, would indicate that humans and other great apes share a common ancestor? What would this evidence look like?
A speaking monkey who (I use that word intentionally) is capable of abstract thought.
< Message edited by evry1needsgod -- 6/11/2008 9:49:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/12/2008 12:48:17 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
What evidence, if found, would indicate that humans and other great apes share a common ancestor? What would this evidence look like?
A speaking monkey who (I use that word intentionally) is capable of abstract thought.
Monkeys are not great apes. However, gorillas are great apes and are capable of abstract thought.
"From the beginning, Koko's ability to learn exceeded expectations. Over time, Koko has mastered over 1,000 signs, and has invented new signs and compound words (e.g., “eye hat” for mask). Without any training, she demonstrated extensive comprehension of spoken English. The Project has also demonstrated that great apes possess qualities that were previously considered exclusively human, such as abstract thought, feelings, sense of humor and imagination."
http://www.koko.org/friends/about_us.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/12/2008 1:15:50 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 518
Status: offline
|
Learned abilities is hardly abstract thought. I teach my dog not to get into the garbage by inflicting pain (minimal) on the dog when he does. He has learned that if he gets into the garbage, pain will shortly follow. Does this prove I caused a mutation in his body, resulting in a conscience? Maybe to an evolutionist it does, but all it proves is that my dog, Philo, feels and does not particularly care for pain. Sorry evolutionists, my Philo has no more proved you right than Koko.
Had Koko never seen a human being, these so called "feeling, sense of humor, imagination, and abstract thought" would never have happened, meaning they are learned, remaining exclusive to mankind. Had Philo never become a part of my family, he would not have learned not to get into my garbage. No evolution here!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/12/2008 1:43:53 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Learned abilities is hardly abstract thought.
But communicating through sign language is abstract thought.
Or are you saying that deaf people are not capable of abstract thought because someone had to teach them to use sign language?
quote:
Had Koko never seen a human being, these so called "feeling, sense of humor, imagination, and abstract thought" would never have happened, meaning they are learned, remaining exclusive to mankind.
And now you are just making stuff up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The dead horses - 6/12/2008 3:19:52 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 1271
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
[image]http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/kosovo/photos/deadhorse.jpg[/image]
_____________________________
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed." - 2nd Peter 3:10
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
