Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:27:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > Hmm - I suppose we would have to define fair. If by fair you
> > mean God treating everybody equally, no - He doesn't.
>
> Bob and Joe are twins. They share exactly the same... ...faith...
>
> Both Bob and Joe die at the same exact time, in the same exact manner.
> Can God condemn Bob to eternal damnation and Joe to... ...heaven?
No - God always keeps his promises. According to your example, both
Bob and Joe repented of their sins and accepted Christ as their Savior.
> > Quite - That's what I'm trying to do, but you don't seem to be
> > willing to have your assumptions corrected. :-)
>
> Oh I'm quite willing to have my assumptions corrected, but it seems
> rather that when I make a statement, you dispute it saying my
> assumptions are incorrect, and when I ask you what my assumptions
> should be, you seem to change the subject.
Interesting - It seems to ME every time I try and correct one of your
false assumptions, you ignore it and jump to something else. :-)
> Fundamental question: What is it about the subjective ideals
> held by the Bible (I.E. X is right because the Bible says so)
> vs some other text?
The Bible is the Word of God. [1] You can't seriously be telling
me that you don't see the difference between the Bible and the
words of Bob or Joe or me.
> Assumption 1 - People will only act insofar as they perceive
> that their actions will benefit themselves.
> Assumption 2 - People learn over time, realizing different things
> that are perceived as self-benefiting.
Well I don't agree with either, but you seem to have defined
yourself a system whereby it can't be discredited by anyone.
Aren't you doing precisely what you "accuse" me of? I'm willing
to say I accept creation and Biblical morality on faith and can't
scientifically prove it to you - You must also admit that you follow
"David morality" and Darwinism on faith and that there isn't
scientific evidence for them.
> Here's where I won't let you off the hook. But before I go on,
> I'll say I think you've opted for the better choice for yourself...
Glad you approve. :-) If there's a "hook" you'd like me to
address I don't see it - please restate the question.
> > <snipped birds of a feather flocking together>
> >
> > > Anyway, you get the idea. So let me ask. Let's assume that feathers
> > > really DO come from birds. What could be done to PROVE it? How
> > > would my friend EVER know or even suspect the 'truth'?
> >
> > Isn't it again a problem of definitions and classifications? God created
> > the first bird, including it's ability to reproduce. The first bird's
> > feathers He created (along with the bird) out of nothing, while subsequent
> > birds grow their own feathers, as He designed them to do. Why do you
> > and your friend have to be considered to be of opposing positions?
>
> No no... VERY important distinction I think I tried to make which was
> that according to the Bibo, feathers are ONLY of direct divine origin.
Oh - Well in that case I would say you quite early on showed there to be
an error in the "Bibo". Such a fundamental error is not present in the Bible.
> And such is the more 'common' theory among Christians today, as
> I believe-- that evolutionary theory may be correct, but that as such,
> it involves a different, less 'direct' interpretation of the Bible.
I don't know how common it is, but I certainly don't support the notion
that "God created the world via evolution over millennia." It's a cop-out.
> The question becomes, though, at what point are you "forced" to
> actually change your interpretation of the Bible? And at what point
> is that interpretation changed sufficiently such that it is no longer what
> it once was? And at what point is it no longer salvageable?
In all our 6000 years, I've not seen an instance of such a change.
There have been situations where us fallible humans have realized
that we've miss-interpreted the Bible, but God's Word is infallible
and will always remain so. [2]
> Basically, is creationism necessary to the religion?
Well if by "the religion" you mean what I believe - yes, the
account of creation in Genesis is an integral part of it. Anyone
who rejects part of God's Word wouldn't fit my definition of a
Christian, but many people do so. I can only answer for me.
> Is the EXACT story of Jesus necessary?
The precise actual wording? Clearly not - every language will use
different words, and the four gospels even give "different" accounts
of Christ's life, death, and resurrection.
> Is it not more fundamental that one have faith, be good, and love others?
The fundamental importance is the One you have faith IN.
> > That's the theory for which I say there is no evidence,
> > and it's the other main branch I referred to.
>
> Like I said, only bits of evidence to support the theory have been
> found. Not enough to 'verify' it by any scientific method I know of.
Yet "your cohorts" present a theory for which there is scant
evidence as though it has been scientifically established as fact.
> > When I present creation as evidence of the Creator in our
> > hypothetical court and you? disallow it,
>
> I suppose it's not that I disallow such evidence, but that I disallow
> such a conclusion. It does not make logical sense to me to assume that
> a complex creation like our universe REQUIRES an intelligent creator.
A complex creation doesn't require an intelligent creator? That's one of
the things that truly baffles me about people who believe in Darwinism.
If I told you that the <set:8002> sitting (assembled and functional) on
my desk wasn't created by me out of parts created by TLC, (using
instructions created by their staff) but rather that a truck carrying ABS
pellets crashed into a UPS van with some rubber bands and other
items outside my office and the firemen found it amongst the rubble,
you would (rightly) call such a statement absurd. In the next breath
however, "you" posit the same thing about the earth - something far
more complex and intricate - and don't see why _I_ say absurd?!?
> By all means you may try and show why the theory of evolution
> as it stands doesn't hold up under scientific analysis-- but I'll most
> likely argue that your objections either say nothing concrete or are
> subject to similar critique by the scientific method.
Meaning that you are believing Darwinism based upon faith in the
same way I believe Creationism - that there isn't much evidence
for either of them. I would of course say that the evidence there
is supports creation - You would (I expect) say the opposite.
SRC
[1] 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,
[2] Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| Steve: You seem to be set on directing your posts only toward a single recipient rather than answering questions and rebuttals from the readership at large. If this is the case, I urge you to pursue your discussion via email, or at the very least to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Before I say 'Aha!' I'll say you can take this back and rephrase it if you wish to... Can God condemn either Bob or Joe to a different fate than the other? And your answer is no? Then aren't you arguing my point that God MUST be fair on this (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) This is one of the other basic problems I see with Christianity. The Bible was written by MEN. Poorly written in many cases. No one can adequately explain to me WHY God seemed to be so chatty with his people 2K years ago, then promptly zipped (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I have always been curious how "literal" readers of the bible reconcile the 2 different stories of creation in Genesis? (...) That is right. I would suggest you take a look a fractal mathematics, and celluar automata theory to see how very (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| Ok, I've been rather busy as of late, so back to the debate... :) (...) Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right? (...) Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings or prejudices? Can you fully trust (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
