Science and God

On 02 Sep 2006 14:17:42 +0200, p4 RemoveThis @enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
Juul) spake thusly:


>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ RemoveThis @tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Now how does one make Him Lord, by calling Him a liar
>> and by claiming that what He came to save you from,
>> never existed?
>
>I do not call him a liar.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male
and female." - Mark 10:6

Note: "from the beginning of the creation". Not, "billions of
years later".

Jesus believed that Adam and Eve existed. He ought to know,
He was there, creating.

John 1:1-3

1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2) The same was in the beginning with God.
3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.

Let me quote someone...

"Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
- Richard Bozarth, Atheist

Make your choice.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that
genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"John Ockerbloom" <spok.RemoveThis@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:eda5la$614$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu...

(snip the best discussion of the subject to date)
Hello John! Too long since we've seen you.
> Conversely, if you conclude that it's *not* justified to call
> God evil just because His creatures are born naturally, you
> also dispose of the argument that God would be evil if His
> creatures *evolved* naturally.
>
> And it might even lead you to believe people when they tell
> you that they're a Christian when they believe in evolution.
> If that isn't too much to hope for.
>
> John Mark Ockerbloom

Fancy that!
Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Peter B. Juul" <p4 DeleteThis @enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk> wrote in message
news:86odtzmw45.fsf@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
> I am now an evolutionist.
>
> AND I am a creationist.
>
> I believe God created the universe and I believe one of his tools was
> evolution. If it isn't so, he has instead set up an enormous amount
> false evidence for evolution, for whatever reasons he might have. I
> rather doubt that.
>

Thanks for this post, Peter. Very reasonable, and very much on topic also
for our calm corner of the web at alt.b-csl.

Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.TakeThisOut@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mosif29p1pvqdqmh78g47dmtjt22d3a3lc@4ax.com...
> being the lying
> evolutionist that you are.

Now pastor! It seems to me that that's not a very pastoral observation
One should be very careful not to give the body of Christ a black eye, no?

With this, I will cease to cross post.

Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

>
> "Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
> Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
> Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
> rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
> God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
> evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
> - Richard Bozarth, Atheist

An atheist dream, maybe?

Blessings,
Ann
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:54:24 -0400, "AJA" <ahnemann.TakeThisOut@optonline.net>
spake thusly:


>> "Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason
>> Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary.
>> Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin and in the
>> rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
>> God. If Jesus was not the Redeemer... and this is what
>> evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
>> - Richard Bozarth, Atheist
>
>An atheist dream, maybe?

Definitely, Ann.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:51:53 -0400, "AJA" <ahnemann.RemoveThis@optonline.net>
spake thusly:


>"Pastor Dave" <_-ananias917-_.RemoveThis@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:mosif29p1pvqdqmh78g47dmtjt22d3a3lc@4ax.com...
>
>> being the lying evolutionist that you are.
>
>Now pastor! It seems to me that that's not a very pastoral observation
>One should be very careful not to give the body of Christ a black eye, no?

Well let's see...

Q1) Is what he said true?

A1) No.


Q2) Is he an evolutionist?

A2) Yes.


A1 + A2 = "LYING EVOLUTIONIST"

Now tell me Ann, how is speaking the truth the same as
giving Christianity "a black eye"?


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:31:01 -0400, "AJA" <ahnemann.DeleteThis@optonline.net>
spake thusly:


>"Peter B. Juul" <p4.DeleteThis@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk> wrote in message
>news:86odtzmw45.fsf@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk...
>> I am now an evolutionist.
>>
>> AND I am a creationist.
>>
>> I believe God created the universe and I believe one of his tools was
>> evolution. If it isn't so, he has instead set up an enormous amount
>> false evidence for evolution, for whatever reasons he might have. I
>> rather doubt that.
>>
>
>Thanks for this post, Peter. Very reasonable, and very much on topic also
>for our calm corner of the web at alt.b-csl.

How is it "reasonable" when it denies what he claims
to believe in?

And how is it reasonable, when all we see is CLAIMS
of "enormous evidence" and NEVER actually see this
supposed evidence?


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Lord, help me get up when I fall. I can fall by myself.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2006 17:20:56 -0700, "Aris Katsaris"
> <katsaris.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >
> >> On 06 Sep 2006 00:45:01 +0200, p4.DeleteThis@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
> >> Juul) spake thusly:
> >>
> >> The fact is, if Genesis isn't accurate, then Jesus lied.
> >
> >Or he was perhaps misquoted?
>
> Then throw your Bible away. It can't be trusted.

Yes, that's the kind of arrogance in you that I'm talking about,
the sort of arrogance that demands perfection before it accepts
anything, and therefore won't be able to accept anything true
at all. The kind of arrogance that throws the baby out with
the bathwater.

Even if the gospel in question was written by an actual follower
of Jesus who heard Jesus' own words with his own ears and
wrote them down as best as he remembered, instead of
valuing and honouring such an honest and precious account
of your Saviour's words, you'll throw that account away, because
"it can't be trusted".

> But don't be
> foolish enough to claim to believe it and then not follow it.

Well, I *don't* follow it, but I understand that people can believe
an account to be honest and good and divinely inspired, and that
it can still fall within the parameters of human error and imperfect
memory.

> >Or perhaps the word "creation" was meant to have a causal
> >and not a temporal meaning, thus referring to God's act of
> >creation rather than the point in time God created these
> >things?
>
> Perhaps, maybe, might have. These are what evolutionists
> call scientific evidence.

Don't turn this around. It's *you* who demanded a certain specific
meaning on these supposed words of Jesus, and produced a
ludicrous chain of consequences if the words didn't have the exact
meaning you sought in them.

The burden of evidence is on you, therefore, and you've not produced
any reason to discount all those hypotheses that don't match
you.

> >So that "from creation" actually meant "already
> >from God's eternal blueprints about the way things should
> >be", rather than actually setting a circle at a calendar
>
> See what I mean? Next you will go on to quote me items
> from some denomination, as if that proves that the Bible
> agrees with evolution,

Nah, I'm quite sure that the Bible doesn't "agree" with evolution;
the same way that the Bible doesn't agree with a heliocentric system.
The Bible doesn't agree with our universe at all.

Which is why the only way to actually believe in it, is
to disbelieve that God intended it to be literal.

> >> There was no Adam and Eve and no original sin,
> >> which is what He supposedly came to save us from.
> >
> >It seems to me strange that the whole Catholic Church
> >has no theological problem with the issue of physical
> >evolution, or that human beings' body may have been
> >created from earlier living forms, but that *you* specifically
> >deem yourself an authority in figuring out such problems
> >and restraining God's freedom in this fashion.
>
> See what I mean?

No, actually, I don't.

> >More sin of Pride, tsk, tsk.
>
> Pride is pretending that an interpretation that goes against
> the actual wording of the Bible is something that everyone
> should believe, because some guy in a funny hat says so,
> especially when you're not even a believer yourself.

You can either believe the Bible is literal, or you can believe
that the Bible is true.

I'm afraid that a Bible that's both literal *and* true is not an
option that's possible in this universe.

> >> Thus, He cannot be Lord, nor Savior, but rather,
> >> a made over monkey, who was either a liar, or was
> >> simply deluded.
> >
> >Jesus will be happy to know that you have condemned him
> >in such fashion.
>
> And this is where you pretend that your imagination is proved
> Biblical fact and try to turn the tables, to pretend that I am
> the one who is fighting against God's word,

And by "God's word" you mean the Bible? Or even own Jesus'
word, that guy who had the habit of using the sort of thing that
is usually called "parable" and which a literalist like you would
never accept?

What inn did the Good Samaritan stay in, anyway? Are there
tours of the place? Jesus said it, so it must be true, or else
he's a liar!

> when in reality,
> you just spent your time imagining up a scenario that allows
> you to ignore what it says.

No, dearie. What allows me to ignore what the bible says
is the fact that I *don't* believe in the bible.

The scenario I imagined up, in which the bible's account of
Genesis is non-literal, is what allows people to keep on
following what the Bible says in the places where it matters.

-Aris Katsaris
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ DeleteThis @tampabay.rr.com> writes:

> How is it "reasonable" when it denies what he claims
> to believe in?

I believe in God the Father, who created everything that is not itself
God - that is, everything except himself, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

I believe in the Son, Jesus Christ, who died in my place and took my
sins upon himself. He who is Lord and was raised from the the grave[1].

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, sent to guide us after the risen
Christ left.

We can make it more formal by reading the apostolic, the nicean or
some other creed I stand by.

Nowhere - *NOWHERE* - does any of these creeds say that in order to be
a christian, I must believe that every word in the Bible is an exact,
scientifically confirmable description of exactly what happened.

As a matter of fact, in parts of the Bible I put far more trust in
than the first chapters of Genesis, minor discrepancies are
abvious. One gospel writer has Jesus saying "verily", another "verily,
verily", and other speeches are differently worded.

The books of the Bible are written by human beings who wanted to tell
other human beings what they believed. The selection of the books that
were made canon wasn't a miraculous happening (or the whim of a single
emperor, as a certain mr. Brown would have us believe), but a process
over decades, nay centuries, in which some books grew popular and
others fell into disgrace and disuse.

The books of the Bible are important. They should all be trusted to
tell us the truth. But "the truth" is not necesssarily an exact
description of what happened. In Genesis the truth is that God created
us. Not whether he spent this or that amount of time doing it.

The words of the Bible are very, very important to us christians. But
they are not God. Only God is God.

Your judging whether I am a christian, depending on whether I read the
same meaning into Genesis 1, is wrong. God is to decide, if I am a
christian. Not you. And as I have made perfectly clear, you choose to
ignore Romans 10,9, when you judge me. How come you can ignore parts
of the Bible, but I can't read another meaning into other parts, and
YOU are a christian, while I am NOT?


[1] That SINGLE sentence makes me a saved christian, according to
St. Paul, whom I trust just a bit more than you.

> And how is it reasonable, when all we see is CLAIMS
> of "enormous evidence" and NEVER actually see this
> supposed evidence?

Seeing demands that you open your eyes.

--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Roses are #FF0000,
The RockBear. ((^)) violets are #0000FF,
I speak only 0}._.{0 all my base
for myself. O/ \O are belong to you"
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On 06 Sep 2006 00:45:01 +0200, p4 RemoveThis @enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
Juul) spake thusly:


>Pastor Dave <_-ananias917-_ RemoveThis @tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>> How is it "reasonable" when it denies what he claims
>> to believe in?
>
>I believe in God the Father, who created everything that is not itself
>God - that is, everything except himself, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
>
>I believe in the Son, Jesus Christ, who died in my place and took my
>sins upon himself. He who is Lord and was raised from the the grave[1].
>
>And I believe in the Holy Spirit, sent to guide us after the risen
>Christ left.
>
>We can make it more formal by reading the apostolic, the nicean or
>some other creed I stand by.
>
>Nowhere - *NOWHERE* - does any of these creeds say that in order to be
>a christian, I must believe that every word in the Bible is an exact,
>scientifically confirmable description of exactly what happened.
>
>As a matter of fact, in parts of the Bible I put far more trust in
>than the first chapters of Genesis, minor discrepancies are
>abvious.

And there it is. You choose not to trust the Bible, unless it
says something that YOU judge to be okay.


>One gospel writer has Jesus saying "verily", another "verily,
>verily", and other speeches are differently worded.

If there were two "verily's", then there was one.


>The books of the Bible are important. They should all be trusted to
>tell us the truth.

Not according to you. You make this claim, after stating
that you do not trust all of the books of the Bible to be
accurate. That makes you a liar.

And btw, no "sentence" makes you a saved Christian.
It is not a magic wand. One must believe in their heart.
You do not. You choose to toss out whatever doesn't
agree with your personal world view.

The fact is, if Genesis isn't accurate, then Jesus lied.
There was no Adam and Eve and no original sin,
which is what He supposedly came to save us from.
Thus, He cannot be Lord, nor Savior, but rather,
a made over monkey, who was either a liar, or was
simply deluded.

Do not talk to me about your supposed "faith".

Your faith is in men, not God. And if the lying evolutionists
tell you tomorrow that man actually came from frogs, you
will believe that without thinking twice.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Christians, keep the faith -- but not from others!
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

On 5 Sep 2006 17:20:56 -0700, "Aris Katsaris"
<katsaris.DeleteThis@gmail.com> spake thusly:


>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On 06 Sep 2006 00:45:01 +0200, p4.DeleteThis@enzym.rnd.uni-c.dk (Peter B.
>> Juul) spake thusly:
>>
>> The fact is, if Genesis isn't accurate, then Jesus lied.
>
>Or he was perhaps misquoted?

Then throw your Bible away. It can't be trusted. But don't be
foolish enough to claim to believe it and then not follow it.


>Or perhaps the word "creation" was meant to have a causal
>and not a temporal meaning, thus referring to God's act of
>creation rather than the point in time God created these
>things?

Perhaps, maybe, might have. These are what evolutionists
call scientific evidence. Then from there, they speculate
based on their imagination, what it supposedly proves.


>So that "from creation" actually meant "already
>from God's eternal blueprints about the way things should
>be", rather than actually setting a circle at a calendar

See what I mean? Next you will go on to quote me items
from some denomination, as if that proves that the Bible
agrees with evolution, while you completely ignore the
points I made, which you snipped most of.


>> There was no Adam and Eve and no original sin,
>> which is what He supposedly came to save us from.
>
>It seems to me strange that the whole Catholic Church
>has no theological problem with the issue of physical
>evolution, or that human beings' body may have been
>created from earlier living forms, but that *you* specifically
>deem yourself an authority in figuring out such problems
>and restraining God's freedom in this fashion.

See what I mean?


>More sin of Pride, tsk, tsk.

Pride is pretending that an interpretation that goes against
the actual wording of the Bible is something that everyone
should believe, because some guy in a funny hat says so,
especially when you're not even a believer yourself.


>> Thus, He cannot be Lord, nor Savior, but rather,
>> a made over monkey, who was either a liar, or was
>> simply deluded.
>
>Jesus will be happy to know that you have condemned him
>in such fashion.

And this is where you pretend that your imagination is proved
Biblical fact and try to turn the tables, to pretend that I am
the one who is fighting against God's word, when in reality,
you just spent your time imagining up a scenario that allows
you to ignore what it says.

Have a nice life.


--

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34

O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O

"For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword."

Don't let the littleness in others bring out
the littleness in you.
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God 

Pastor Dave:

Assuming your interpretation of Genesis is correct, if you
really do believe in the literal truth of the Bible, what is
your justification for saying that believing in your
interpretation of Genesis is necessary for Salvation?

"For it is by Grace you are saved, through faith, not by works,
lest any man should boast."

Getting every jot and tittle of doctrine correct is Works.
It's a very good and important work -- but it's still Works.

It is not faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

By insisting that Scripture says that you must believe that
all of Creation happened in a 144 hour period in 4004 BC in
order to be saved, you are adding to the Scriptures something
that is not there. There's room for interpretation that
Scripture says that's when the cosmos was created, but there
is nothing anywhere in it saying that salvation is based on
getting that timetable correct.

Period.

Being a believer in the truth of the Bible myself, I would
strongly hesitate, based on the final verses of Revelations,
to presume to add to Scripture, no matter how firmly convinced
I was of the truth of my addition.

--
Tagon: "Where's your sense of adventure?" | Mike Van Pelt
Kevyn: "It died under mysterious circumstances. | mvp at calweb.com
My sense of self-preservation found the body, | KE6BVH
but assures me it has an airtight alibi." (schlockmercenary.com)
 >> Stay informed about: Science and God