Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 HUH.....I thought you claimed that the Old Testament (written by Moses) foretold us of the coming of Christ??? Now its the prophets hundreds of years earlier???? was Moses one of the so called prophets??? No Moses was not a prophet for he only spoke the Words OF GOD and did not prophecize of his coming or actions..... see I can argue every point your trying to make and like the Bible you are contradicting yourself!!! The first Messianic prophecy is Genesis 3:15 and I actually said the entire Old Testament was about Christ. The first 5 books of the OT lay the foundation for the coming of Christ in that God here effects the election(Gen), redemption(Exod), sanctification (Lev.) direction(Num.) and instruction (Deut.). Joshua-Ezra are the books of history that lay the foundation for Christ. Job-Songs of Solomon are the books of poetry where the aspiration for Christ is expressed and Isa-Mal. are the books of prophecy that are about the expectation of Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 JJ, Christ taught using parables, correct? So it would be easier for the average Joe walking around in the street 2000 years ago could better understand the message? Using parables didn't make Christ a liar, it made him a teacher. The story of Adam and Eve is a parable, JJ. That does not mean Gid did not create everything, it was a way to explain creation to people who otherwise might not have understood the message, which is what is improtant, it's the teachings that are important, not the vehicle or story used to teach the truth. Imagine, yer talking to a skeptical largely illiterate mob.... and just to set up yout teachings you have to first give a three month long explanation of how God created everything.... the HOW was not important, it was the TEACHINGS, the value system, the how to live stuff that was important.... so Christ just jumped over a detailed explanation using the Adam and Eve parable to get to the important stuff. The story of Adam and Eve is SYMBOLIC truth, so Christ didn't lie. People these days use analogies to help communicat an idea.... parables are not far different from analogies. Right wing christians get all caught up in trying to build some sort of indestructable wall to defend an overly simplistic value and moral system. Every time I listen to one, I reach the same conclussion... delusional thinking and gross rationalizations to defend a system of right and wrong that was created by people to be infallable, and thereby a life without conflict. Everything is black and white. You are a believer like them, or you're not. They then call themselves saints, and are convinced evryone else is going to hell. From this safely made nest high in a tree, they look down and judge all who pass. Little do they know that the power company just might be coming down the street to prune branches from the power lines. One more point.... Christ apparently DID believe in at least some seperation of church and state, as he did say "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's." The absolute righteousness that is preached by right wing christians actuall flies in the face of many of Christ's teachings.... Christ hung out with the sinners... the tax collectors, the prostitutes, and was called out for it many times. Right wing christians condemn those same questionable characters in today's society. The live as far away from the truths of Christ's teachings so as to be .... I'll say it again... delusional. I wasn't talking about the separation of Church and state but instead the separation of the church into different denominations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 i think the design theory is a fascinating one and i believe that it can exist indepently of christianity. there is remarkable order to this earth and a complexity that is seemingly infinite. supposing that it was ordered this way vs. happening by chance is a fascinating construct to discuss and then explore what those impacts would have to conventional wisdom. that's what we are doing here. i'm not saying teach it as fact. i'm saying put it on the table to talk. no one is harmed by this. It still requires a predisposed premise based on faith rather than scientific fact. Show me some factual eveidence that it may be a possibile alternative to other theories that have huge bodies of fact based on scientific study and research that support them and I'd say fine. Until such evidence is brought forth, it should not be taught in public schools. I like a lot of people think that there is power in prayer. That doesn't mean I think it should be taught in publically funded educational institutions. Prayer is faith based, just like craetionism or it's newly adopted more politically correct monnicker of intelligent design. Teach religion in religion class, at home, or anywhere else. It doesn't belong in public schools. Teaching it is contradictory to many other religions and their own teachings. By teaching it, the state would be condoning one belief set over others.... and that violates the seperation of church and state and a whole other can of worms. Find other places to look for converts.... not in the classroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 No, you're missing the point. There's this book of stuff written down by multiple guys that covers the history of a wandering tribe for approximately 4000 years. The very early stuff is the oral history of this tribe that was finally transcribed once a written language became available to these people. The accuracy of this history (both written and oral) has been both called into question and verified by archaeological evidence. Some of it is true, some of it isn't. As with any other story, it has been changed in the telling. We also know, that oral histories are rife with inaccuracies simply because humans find it very difficult to repeat things verbatum. What they see and hear and what they say are very often two different things. Ask any police officer how accurate eyewitness testimony can be. So now, you're saying that this story of creation, that was passed though many mouths before ever being written down, is 100% accurate in it's telling. When the only evidence we have supports a claim that perhaps Adam and Eve were just maybe the oldest two people that the original historian could remember? Back during a time when superstition and fear ruled daily lives more than logic? Finally, your take is that this history, no matter how shakey the foundation it is built on, has a stronger claim to being the truth of what happened than a theory that has been advanced and been placed under scientific scrutiny. And your claim is that because some guy that lived 2000 years ago (but 4000 years after the events in question) said it was so, then that makes it so? If you cannot see why some folks find this hard to swallow then it's only because you don't want to. Jesus Christ is the inspiration and interpretation of the Bible. It is Christ that confirmed the collection of books as both complete and authoritative. Jesus personally confirmed that Adam and Eve were created by God (Matt 19:4), Abel killed Cain (Matt 23:35) that a flood destroyed the world in Noah's time (Luke 17:27) that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush (Luke 20:37), that Elijah performed miracles (Luke 4:15), that Jonah was in the wale three days (Matt 12:40) and that Daniel made true predictions (Matt. 24:15). Btw, Jesus didn't come along a couple thousand years after Moses to reaffirm the OT. He pre-existed before His Incarnation. Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity aqnd is equal to God the Father in attributes and nature. He is God's submissive equal. The Bible states that Jesus is the Creator of the world (John 2:24-25, Col. 1:16). Because He's always been here, He knows what really happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I was saved this summer and no longer drink or engage in any other questionable activity. I stopped coming around here about the same time come to think about it. Saved like how? Do you still suck at fantasy football? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 That doesn't mean I think it should be taught in publically funded educational institutions. Prayer is faith based, just like craetionism or it's newly adopted more politically correct monnicker of intelligent design. Teach religion in religion class, at home, or anywhere else. It doesn't belong in public schools. It doesn't belong in biology class, that's for sure. But I have no problem with chapters of the Bible (or Torah or Koran) being read in literature courses, along with the Illiad, Odyssey, etc. There are some really good stories in the Bible, and it's great literature at the very least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Saved like how? Do you still suck at fantasy football? very true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 JJ, I feel sorry for you bro...I know you'll do anything to get in right with a woman, but I prefer the old idjit JJ....come back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Until someone tells me who created God I will have my doubts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 It still requires a predisposed premise based on faith rather than scientific fact. Show me some factual eveidence that it may be a possibile alternative to other theories that have huge bodies of fact based on scientific study and research that support them and I'd say fine. Until such evidence is brought forth, it should not be taught in public schools. I like a lot of people think that there is power in prayer. That doesn't mean I think it should be taught in publically funded educational institutions. Prayer is faith based, just like craetionism or it's newly adopted more politically correct monnicker of intelligent design. Teach religion in religion class, at home, or anywhere else. It doesn't belong in public schools. Teaching it is contradictory to many other religions and their own teachings. By teaching it, the state would be condoning one belief set over others.... and that violates the seperation of church and state and a whole other can of worms. Find other places to look for converts.... not in the classroom. does the notion of design need to come from faith? that's an interesting question. could it be an outcome or prediction derived from the study of facts and data? it is a fact that for this planet to sustain life such as ours, an infinite number of conditions must be satisfied wrapped up in countless complex relationships involving microscopic cells all the way up the stars the size of the sun. there's a whole lot there that would suggest some orchestration of what we are experiencing could be a valid hypothesis. maybe? we don't just teach the observed examples of micro evolution in school, we freely start from darwin's starting point, the big old family tree that shows how we are all connected. darwin didn't get there by hard evidence and admits that is theories has holes. since this seems like a logical explanation in many ways, teams of scientists have attacked the challenge, generating tons of data. even with all this data, you still cannot definitvely prove the entire theory of evolution, and the gaps that exist don't have to do with the details, they have to do with the big leaps in our species. if i started with the theory of tonorator, let's say, that showed everything connected in a intricate web of designed supercomplexity that in its totality supported our life here on this planet, with air to breathe, food suitable to our bodies, resources that can benefit us in magnificent ways, just the right blend of gases and forces and ranges and limits to keep us going, well then we could go about studying the world in a way that just goes deeper and deeper into those interrelationships and why they are all essential for us to live (which is true). instead, we talk about big bangs and macro evolution like we know they are fact. those to me take just as much of a leap of faith and it's not like these teachings are essential to our ability to come up with new breakthrough scientific discoveries. both paths could get you there and both could stay true to the scientific method. ultimately, neither path would answer the question of why ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 JJ, I feel sorry for you bro...I know you'll do anything to get in right with a woman, but I prefer the old idjit JJ....come back. I'm still married to the same girl but she's married to a different man. Sorry bro, no comin back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 that's bs az. i've been very open about my feelings and none of them are about putting a spiritual mante around myself. go back and read the thread again and stop taking the easy way out. i've been grappling with this question and coming at it from all levels since i've been able to think and for most of that time, i was a staunch athiest. there's no sticking my head in the ground and, again, if tried to read where i'm coming from you would see someone with a very open mind, trying to understand. i just don't see that at all. i see a guy, like so many others, dismissing an entire field of science that he doesn't even begin to understand...and doing it solely because of misguided religious attitudes. you say you've "approached this question from all levels", but it is clear your current understanding is directly related to a spiritual change of heart. that spiritual change of heart can be a truly great thing and can do magnificent things in peoples' lives....but one thing it doesn't do very well at all is answer scientific questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 does the notion of design need to come from faith? that's an interesting question. could it be an outcome or prediction derived from the study of facts and data? it is a fact that for this planet to sustain life such as ours, an infinite number of conditions must be satisfied wrapped up in countless complex relationships involving microscopic cells all the way up the stars the size of the sun. there's a whole lot there that would suggest some orchestration of what we are experiencing could be a valid hypothesis. maybe? we don't just teach the observed examples of micro evolution in school, we freely start from darwin's starting point, the big old family tree that shows how we are all connected. darwin didn't get there by hard evidence and admits that is theories has holes. since this seems like a logical explanation in many ways, teams of scientists have attacked the challenge, generating tons of data. even with all this data, you still cannot definitvely prove the entire theory of evolution, and the gaps that exist don't have to do with the details, they have to do with the big leaps in our species. if i started with the theory of tonorator, let's say, that showed everything connected in a intricate web of designed supercomplexity that in its totality supported our life here on this planet, with air to breathe, food suitable to our bodies, resources that can benefit us in magnificent ways, just the right blend of gases and forces and ranges and limits to keep us going, well then we could go about studying the world in a way that just goes deeper and deeper into those interrelationships and why they are all essential for us to live (which is true). instead, we talk about big bangs and macro evolution like we know they are fact. those to me take just as much of a leap of faith and it's not like these teachings are essential to our ability to come up with new breakthrough scientific discoveries. both paths could get you there and both could stay true to the scientific method. ultimately, neither path would answer the question of why ... I could point to many occassions where I felt prayer made a difference. Can I even begin to prove it? No. But, based on my observations and wonderment, I make that leap of faith. The same leap of faith based on circustantail evidence that seema as though there is correlation in the wonderments one sees and the desire to undertsand it as it relates to creationism is also purely cicumstantial. It can't be proven, while many aspects of evolution have been proven, and only pinholes remain in evolutionary theory as a proven accepted factual law of nature. Creationism, like prayer is an ideation, a belief in something that simply can't be proven. That means it is a leap of faith. That is where science ends, and spirituality begins. Swerski, I agree that the study of religion, it's roots and it's literature are worthy subjects of study. Even in the history class, the world has been so shaped by religious beliefs and instituions it would be reprehensable to omit the effects of religion on world history. The spread of Islam was a war based conversion, at the point of a sword. King Henry wanted a divorce which the Pope would not grant, and the Church of England was created, which ended up costing thousands of lives in Ireland. The beaty of Hindu artistry offers much to be appreciated. The difference lies in the study of those religions and their influences on culture, society and even world geography as opposed to teaching any of those religious beliefs as a basis for scientific theory. The fact that Galileo was jailed for his research by the Catholic church is part of history. It educates us regarding how limiting and dictatorial some relious beliefs can be, especially when based on smoke and mirrors like creationism is. One would think that that lesson would not be forgotten, but here we are again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) i just don't see that at all. i see a guy, like so many others, dismissing an entire field of science that he doesn't even begin to understand...and doing it solely because of misguided religious attitudes. you say you've "approached this question from all levels", but it is clear your current understanding is directly related to a spiritual change of heart. that spiritual change of heart can be a truly great thing and can do magnificent things in peoples' lives....but one thing it doesn't do very well at all is answer scientific questions. ok, so you don't want to read the thread. that's fine. i've never dismissed an entire field of science. i dismiss the notion that our current science is sufficient to claim that macro evolution and radiometric dating are proven, reliable givens that deserve to be in the classroom and taught as hard facts. the former makes some major leaps supported by questionable evidence and the latter is based on a set of assumptions about how the conditions of our planet have been over the past billion years. i'm submitting that coming to these conclusions is not far from the same sort of leap of faith that one takes to believe in god. combine these two and we then start giving full validity to the complete theory of evolution, even though it is based on some major assumptions that are not stemmed from hard facts or the scientific method. if you keep these things in the classroom, then why not introduce a theory of design interconnectedness, because that surely is what we observe in the world today ... Edited November 21, 2007 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 it's funny that according to JJ, jesus was apparently a jewish fundamentalist. this despite turning the entire jewish religion on its head, and basically saying that about three quarters of the rules in the jewish scriptures were distracting junk. in truth, the bible-thumpers of jesus' time were jesus' most bitter enemies. christianity was never a "book" religion until christians with their own agenda, many, many centuries later started trying to make it so. Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was a "book" religion from the get go. Not only did Jesus confirm the inspiration of the OT but He promised inspiration of the New Testament. Although Jesus never wrote any book, He did promise on several occasions that the Holy Spirit would direct His disciples in proclaiming God's truth. When the Twelve were commissioned to preach He promised them it would be "the spirit of your Father speaking through you" (Matt. 10:20); in sending out the Seventy, Jesus gave them authority, saying, "He who hears you hears me..."(Luke 10:16); in the Mount Olive discourse Jesus told His disciples, "It is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit" (Mark 13:11); In the Great Commission the disciples were given "all authority in Heaven and on earth" for "teaching" men to observe His commandments (Matt 28:18, 20; cf. John 20:23); the promise to send the Spirit to direct His disciples into "all the truth" was clearly given by Christ after the Last Supper (John 16:13). Likewise, He told them that the Holy Spirit would "teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Man, I hope JJ really was saved and this isn't some massive fishing trip. If not, then kudos to you, sir, for bringing in one hell of a haul. If so, then I can't wait until one of your "I'm bored" posts! Chicks in burkas all around! No kidding. I've been wondering if this isn't the most spectacular fishing trip of all Huddle time.....which ain't 6,000 years but is quite lengthy. Side note: Isn't it a tad ironic, JJ, to ask all us evolutionists "how we know" when you have no evidence of any kind to support you? All you have is faith and belief based on nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) No kidding. I've been wondering if this isn't the most spectacular fishing trip of all Huddle time.....which ain't 6,000 years but is quite lengthy. Side note: Isn't it a tad ironic, JJ, to ask all us evolutionists "how we know" when you have no evidence of any kind to support you? All you have is faith and belief based on nothing. I've got Jesus and the Scriptures, I don't need anything else. Edited November 21, 2007 by Jumpin Johnies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Creationism should absolutely be taught in the classroom, not as fact, but as an opposing theory to the THEORY of evolution. Creationism can be taught without ever opening a bible or discussing religion. And, you guys talk as if evolution is for the most part a scientific proven fact. It is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Creationism should absolutely be taught in the classroom, not as fact, but as an opposing theory to the THEORY of evolution. Creationism can be taught without ever opening a bible or discussing religion. And, you guys talk as if evolution is for the most part a scientific proven fact. It is not. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 No kidding. I've been wondering if this isn't the most spectacular fishing trip of all Huddle time.....which ain't 6,000 years but is quite lengthy. Side note: Isn't it a tad ironic, JJ, to ask all us evolutionists "how we know" when you have no evidence of any kind to support you? All you have is faith and belief based on nothing. This is not true. While as Christians we may not have much in the way of scientific evidence, we have plenty of other evidence. As JJ has pointed out, the prophecies of the Old Testament cannot be ignored. The validity of the New Testament has been supported by archeology as well as the cross referencing of several thousand of copies found from different places all over the world. You may choose to do so, but arguing against this is a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 but as an opposing theory Creationism isn't a scientific theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Then why would you expect science to prove a theory that isn't scientific? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate lookin' at 40 Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 And evolution isn't a scientifically prove fact. So why teach it as such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Creationism should absolutely be taught in the classroom, not as fact, but as an opposing theory to the THEORY of evolution. Creationism can be taught without ever opening a bible or discussing religion. And, you guys talk as if evolution is for the most part a scientific proven fact. It is not. The use of the word "theory" as applied in it's scientific sense to evolution indicates that evolution has, via exhaustive testing, earned that distinction. In science, a theory is different to the common use of the word, which is closer to hypothesis or even guess. From Wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity. In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Then why would you expect science to prove a theory that isn't scientific? Theory is a scientific term; there is no such thing as a non-scientific theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.