Faithful Centurion

i am told by acquaintances that should know that the Smithsonian Institution regularly destroys anything that would contradict evolution.

thats not hard for me to believe.

Nor I. It's sad but God said it Himself:

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I was going to add my two cents, but I see it so well stated already! This man isn't discriminating against anyone, anymore than a parking spot set aside for disabled folks is! It's a special discount for folks who probably frequent his establishment! I remember when I was the assistant manager at a NASCAR simulator, that we once ran a special for father's day where if a dad brought his son, one got to race for free. We're we discriminating against mom's? No, of course not! Our business had a stronger male demographic, so we used that! I pray the FfRF is disbanded for being the hate group that it is!

It truly is sad, the lengths those whom hate God will go to, to suppress the truth of His word! Though it is even sadder the number of people the lie of evolution has pulled away from God... I pray for them, and I actually debate them on another forum. It's the only way to reach them, to meet them on their own "turf"...

http://www.abc15.com/news/national/pd-man-pulling-stolen-safe-behind-his-car-passed-police-cruiser

In this OP I wish to challenge an assumption. In several threads I contended that much of the early chapters in Genesis were of mythic material and not to be taken as strict history—whether or not there was a massive flood in the remote past, a Christian is not obliged to assume that it was global, nor that a single vessel once carried two of every species (excluding fish) for nearly (or just over) a year. To this contention I (and others) were met with the accusation that I have subjected Scripture to my own authority; the implication being that one can (and should) be wholly submitted to Scripture. I have thought long about the accusation and have come to two conclusions: yes, I do; and so do you. I will take another controversial topic to make my point.

Well I must stop you for a moment. You have an assumption here that isn't quite correct. Noah took two of every "kind" not species. (Kind being fairly close to Genus or Family.) Also, it involves a logical direction of thought. If the mountains of the earth (high hills) were covered by water, then this eliminates the idea of a local flood.

In Genesis 1 beasts are clearly created before man and woman on the sixth day. But when we turn to chapter 2 it appears they (as well as birds) are created after man but before woman: that is, the Hebrew and the logical sequence of the narrative all suggest this—so much so that if all we had were chapter two, there would be no question as to the order in which beast, bird, and mankind were created. Now, if one held Scripture as the sole authority for one’s beliefs, he would conclude that both were true. I do not mean he would dismiss the two as contradictory accounts—I mean he would maintain that contradictions were completely reconcilable with his conviction that Scripture were inspired.

This is another mistake in what you've been told. It's ok, it's very common. Genesis 1 is a general overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is focused on the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. It isn't another account, but a more detailed account.

If such a person actually I exists, I have never met him; for one of the few philosophical maxims that remains today is the principle of non-contradiction—if the Bible is truly inerrant, then it must be free of contradiction: hence the several maneuvers made by pious Christians to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. Some conclude that, despite the Hebrew and the narrative sequence, the beasts and birds mentioned in chapter 2 are referring to creatures already made. Others, like myself, maintain that the two accounts are chiefly thematic, rather than historically chronological (obviously there is chronology involved: wherever there is a narrative there must be sequence. But the point of Genesis 1 and two is not to give an historical account of creation). Whichever is right (if either) is not the point of this OP. The point is that both readers feel the need to reconcile the two chapters of Genesis with the principle of non-contradiction; but whence does this principle derive? It cannot derive from Scripture. Even if we found a Hebrew or Greek (or Aramaic) word corresponding to the English “contradiction” within a proposition condemning the concept, still this would merely be one more proposition at odds with certain other propositions. The fact is that the principle is derived not from Scripture but from Reason. The shortest reflection on this discovery will show that very few Bible readers truly embrace Scripture as their sole or even highest authority. Wherever there is a discrepancy in Scripture, it is reason which has exposed it; and wherever there is felt the need to resolve it, it is reason which issues this demand. Wherever a solution is offered, it is reason which has discovered it. Both the threatened principle, the need for a solution to the threat, and the solution itself all find their source in Reason, not Scripture. But this is just another way of saying that Scripture is obligated to something other than reason. If Scripture is truly inspired, it must meet certain criteria; criteria imposed upon it from without.

The practical result of this thesis is small but important. The answer to such rhetorical outbursts as, “Who are you to determine which parts of Scripture are literal and which are not;” or “Who are you to question Scripture?!” is, “I am a thinking person, endowed by God with Reason.” But it would be better to drop these accusations altogether: for, as the old saying goes, wherever a finger is pointed at someone else, three are pointed at one’s self. We are all demanding of Scripture certain characteristics to meet our own definition of “inspired”. I do not require of it inerrancy; some do. But the principle of non-contradiction is, to some degree, always operating.

clb

A lot of what I've read in this section seems to derive from a few misconceptions you have about scripture, rather than actual problems with scripture. I'd be happy to help you get through a few other misconceptions or confusing points with you if you like, and help you understand them.

A man was taking it easy, lying on the grass and looking up at the clouds. He was identifying shapes when he decided to talk to God. "God", he said, "how long is a million years?" 

       

      God answered, "In my frame of reference, it's about a minute." 

       

      The man asked, "God, how much is a million dollars?" 

       

      God answered, "To Me, it's a penny." 

       

      The man then asked, "God, can I have a penny?" 

       

      God said, "In a minute."

That's pretty hysterical!

CNN reported something different in 2011. Click link to hear it in President Obama's own words.

Fri October 21, 2011

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Friday announced that virtually all U.S. troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year -- at which point he can declare an end to America's long and costly war in that Middle Eastern nation.

"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," Obama said. "The coming months will be a season of homecomings. Our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays."

Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales, a U.S. official told CNN. The rest will be out of Iraq by December 31.

The president said he was making good on his 2008 campaign pledge to end a war that has divided the nation since it began in 2003 and claimed more than 4,400 American lives.The announcement also came after talks that might have allowed a continued major military presence broke down amid disputes about whether U.S. troops would be immune to prosecution by Iraqi authorities.

Obama spoke with Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki in a video conference Friday, after which he said both nations were comfortable with the decision on how to move forward.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/

Good ol' president double speak! He talks out of both sides of his mouth so often I don't think he knows which teleprompter to look at!

To think this guy got two terms....

Iirc, this is the same network that also aired the "evolution of mermaids" "documentary".