E
edwest2
Guest
Why was Jesus born? To deal with Original Sin. The sin committed by our first parents, the parents of all.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
O
OraLabora
Guest
Some here are confusing a “literal” interpretation of the Bible with a “literalist” interpretation of the Bible.
E
edwest2
Guest
No confusion here. Interpreting the Bible correctly begins with the literal. The only confusion involved is this:
OK. God can do this, this and this.
But, God cannot do this, this and this.
That’s it.
Peace,
Ed
OK. God can do this, this and this.
But, God cannot do this, this and this.
That’s it.
Peace,
Ed
S
stephe1987
Guest
There are arguments for both sides on the Noah’s Ark issue. Go to some creation ministry’s website and see for yourself. There is science on both sides. I’m not sure either side is completely honest, though.
- On the creation side, you have people stretching evidence to prove the Biblical stories happened as it said, even though it is possible that the flood was local and although many people did die, the scale was exaggerated to demonstrate the power of God when he is displeased with us humans.
- On the secularist side, you have all the relativists who are trying to disprove the Bible as “fairy tales” and “superstitions” at all costs so that people can live in sin and not feel bad about it (at least while they buy the stuff… later it’s just more money for the counselors). As I said in another thread, it’s a lot easier to make money if people live in sin because they wouldn’t be buying certain things if they lived as Christians. People seem to care a lot more about their pocketbooks than leading moral lives these days.
W
Warrenton
Guest
I cannot understand what is hard to believe about either Noah’s ark or Adam and Eve.
Evolution must occur one animal at a time, because according to Darwin, each individual pursues its survival for itself. If a given mutation confers an advantage, it does so with respect to the individual bearing the mutation. That individual passes its beneficial mutation to its offspring, who then have the benefit of the mutation.
Applying Charles D. to Genesis: let’s say there were a bunch of apes who had been hanging around rather aimlessly since day 3. One had a mutation, which made him look like a Ken doll instead of Roddy McDowell in Planet of the Apes. Armed with this decided reproductive advantage, he catches the eye of Miss Eden Day 3 (also an ape). They have a son called Adam.
Adam is still the first man.
Time passes, and we come to Noah.
According to the story, everything and everyone gets washed away - except Noah and his kin.
What can we infer from this? For starters, anything we know about what happened before the flood comes from …Noah and his kin, because all pirates know, dead men tell no tales.
So when we talk about all the animals and all the people being killed, we must be talking about this from Noah’s viewpoint.
If Chief Crazy Horse said “We scalped all the white men,” who would point to Woodstock, say there are plenty of white people with even longer hair, and call him a liar? He’s telling the story of Little Big Horn, not Crosby Stills Nash and Young (not that their story should be told).
There is nothing incredible about a man who lived a very long time ago building a very large ship, even the largest ship. We know - the proof has been there for all to see for ages - that a man who lived a very long time ago built a very large pyramid, even the largest pyramid. And another man built the longest wall that ever was built. And another built the biggest statue that ever spanned a harbor, and …you get the picture.
I have no truck with those who say the pharoahs began pyramid building by making three inch tall pyramids for use with their electric trains, or that the emperors of China began by making very modest walls, perhaps a foot or so long and 1 inch tall, to restrain the nomadic tendencies of mice.
They had a big time, back in the day.
Evolution must occur one animal at a time, because according to Darwin, each individual pursues its survival for itself. If a given mutation confers an advantage, it does so with respect to the individual bearing the mutation. That individual passes its beneficial mutation to its offspring, who then have the benefit of the mutation.
Applying Charles D. to Genesis: let’s say there were a bunch of apes who had been hanging around rather aimlessly since day 3. One had a mutation, which made him look like a Ken doll instead of Roddy McDowell in Planet of the Apes. Armed with this decided reproductive advantage, he catches the eye of Miss Eden Day 3 (also an ape). They have a son called Adam.
Adam is still the first man.
Time passes, and we come to Noah.
According to the story, everything and everyone gets washed away - except Noah and his kin.
What can we infer from this? For starters, anything we know about what happened before the flood comes from …Noah and his kin, because all pirates know, dead men tell no tales.
So when we talk about all the animals and all the people being killed, we must be talking about this from Noah’s viewpoint.
If Chief Crazy Horse said “We scalped all the white men,” who would point to Woodstock, say there are plenty of white people with even longer hair, and call him a liar? He’s telling the story of Little Big Horn, not Crosby Stills Nash and Young (not that their story should be told).
There is nothing incredible about a man who lived a very long time ago building a very large ship, even the largest ship. We know - the proof has been there for all to see for ages - that a man who lived a very long time ago built a very large pyramid, even the largest pyramid. And another man built the longest wall that ever was built. And another built the biggest statue that ever spanned a harbor, and …you get the picture.
I have no truck with those who say the pharoahs began pyramid building by making three inch tall pyramids for use with their electric trains, or that the emperors of China began by making very modest walls, perhaps a foot or so long and 1 inch tall, to restrain the nomadic tendencies of mice.
They had a big time, back in the day.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church does not support the unproven assertion that men were once apes. Also, it is forbidden to believe that God just picked a few apes-just-turning-into-men and dropped souls into them.
Peace,
Ed
W
Warrenton
Guest
The Church does not support the unproven assertion that men were once apes. Also, it is forbidden to believe that God just picked a few apes-just-turning-into-men and dropped souls into them.
/QUOTE]
Slow down, Ed, we are on the same side
I am using our opponents’ own mindset to show why they are wrong.
I am saying that even for a Darwinist, there has to be a “first man.” According to Darwinism, there cannot be an infinite regression of proto-men or a spontaneous eruption of men from goodness-knows where. That’s not how his theory works, but his “followers” don’t seem to get it.
Even if to the evolutionist, the ape-man has to be evolving toward something, a man. There has to be a point at which specification occurs, whether its on day 5 or April 14 during the eocene era.
Careful with that friendly fire
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Nobody contends that, except those who rely on strawmen and misrepresentations to badly argue a losing cause.
A
archangel04
Guest
And again no one is denying original sin, it’s just for me personally it’s hard to belive the univers was created in a literal 24 hour 6 days. Althoug it is possible for God, the way we’ve seen other stars and planets in the prosess of being created shows how long it takes. God would not give us science to contradict him.
E
edwest2
Guest
Science? I suggest you read what the Church fathers taught.
We’ve seen planets in the process of being created? Do you have a link?
Peace,
Ed
A
archangel04
Guest
Uh have you looked at science magazines and pictures from the telescopes? They show the beginings of stars and destructions of stars and planets. I have read what they thought, so I ask you give me proof that the earth was created in literal 24 hours, or do you also wan’t to go back beliving the earth is flat? Was is not science that discovered that the earth is not flat? Yeah science that came from the mind of God himself. Once again I don’t deny that God could not have created the earth in 24 hours, but why would he? He is not bound by time, He has dominion over time. Some scientist have tired to use science to disprove God, but it always results with more questions or evidence that points to a supreme being. Original sin came from the first humans if it was adam and eve than so be it I have no problem beliving this, and in case you care I do bealive in the story of Noahs ark and the great flood.
E
edwest2
Guest
It is a myth to believe that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth was flat. Knowledge that it was not existed long before that.
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Peace,
Ed
christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
Peace,
Ed
T
Timothysis
Guest
No one has said that a figurative reading of biblical texts implies that "God cannot do this, this and this."
The Church does not hold your position; to propose that we should accept your position would mean that we should abandon the teaching authority of the Church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Here’s an interesting take:
But FWIW, I’ve also heard Adam is Hebrew for “man” and Eve is “life.”
ldswomenofgod.com/blog/?p=121
But FWIW, I’ve also heard Adam is Hebrew for “man” and Eve is “life.”
W
Warrenton
Guest
Of course, the language of the turn of the last century was more colorful and evocative. Now we try to cover up amusing ideas with scientific sounding names, such as Australopithicus.
The “recreation” of that worthy little fellow still looks like an ape.
was it Cicero who quipped, “how like us, that ugly little beast, the monkey?”
W
Warrenton
Guest
Part of the problem, Angel, is that you are not using your scientific abilities to evaluate the question fairly.
Fist of all, there is no such thing as “science” in the sense that there is a thing like the “Church.”
To say “science has discovered the sphere” is like saying “lust discovered the girl.”
When you say “science,” you mean a modern scientific community that has set itself up as a psuedo church. Let’s agree to call them “scientists.”
They did not discover the spherical earth, that distinction probably goes to sailors, good old working stiffs who believed in the flood and Adam and Eve. How? Because they noticed that the first part of a ship that appears on the horizon is the mast, followed by the sail, and then the hull. Just like if you are looking a your pal coming over the crest of a hill, you see his head, then trunk, then legs and feet. Thus, this place has got to be round.
See how easy this is? We’re smarter than the scientists give us credit for!
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is very interesting: you have two things to consider: the picture, then what “they [the scientists] thought.”
If we took a trip together to Rome, visited the sistine chapel, and looking at the ceiling, I exclaimed “It is astonishing, Michealangelo painted my uncle Alf doing the hand jive with my grandfather!” would you believe me to be correct?
If not, why would you credit the scientists with their explanation? You know from your own observation that they change their opinions continualy.
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Argument from ignorance is an error.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but those who believe in Greek Mythology think they’re smarter still.
I always wondered why the Catholic schools were making us read those things.
W
Warrenton
Guest
You mean like positing a vast series of unknown forebearers via an unseen evolutionary process to get to what we can observe today, or something else?
- Status