Rebmilc

Forgive me I haven't as yet figured out how to cut out pieces of a thread to reply to so I will have to quote you the hard way.(Perhaps I will evolve into it one day). Quote: "Infantilism, to use your word" Now where did you get that from? I never used the word infantilism in my thread, thats your word. The term I used was "Infantile Helplessness". Quote: "Further I Think there might be some trade off" You think? can't you do better than that? It sounds suspiciously like many other evolutionists who use the same term we think this is what happened! that's probably the reason it's still a theory. Quote: "30 or 40 pounds and fairly self-reliant". Do you think this as well? I'm sorry but this is pure supposition on your part. Quote: "Not all mammals are born helpless". But surely Jukia, the whole point is that after millions of years of evolution ALL should be born self-reliant for your theory to be viable. Quote: "The phrase survival of the fittest is catchy but misses the evolutionary point". Interesting statement to say the least! Does this mean that you don't believe in the concept of 'survival of the fittest'? Quote: "And you get to populations by not just surviving, but surviving long enough to breed and pass your genetics on". But according to evolution the babies born within each species with the 'better genes' that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, and pass on their 'better genes' to their offspring, therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit untill the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth. Why don't we see this happening? You still haven't explained why, after 4 billion years or so of evolution we still end up with helpless babies. Surely for the theory to work, after all these millions of years of evolution there shouldn't be any species left that give birth to helpless offspring? By the way any help would be appreciated from members telling me how to cut out parts of someones thread and paste them into my reply.

In Matthew 19:14 when Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: For of such is the kingdom of heaven" Perhaps he was trying to teach us something about evolution and darwinism. Okay! for a moment or two let's forget about flood evidence (or lack of), Fossil evidence (or lack of) the Geological column etc...etc.. and concentrate on something that many of us have had experience with. What's that? Why Babies of course. 37 years ago I delivered my youngest son at 2:30 in the morning. After bawling for a while he snuggled up, nestled down in my arms and promptly went to sleep. Safe, secure and totally reliant on his Mum and his Dad. Now leaving aside all the darwinian and evolutionary jargon don't babies like my son prove that the theory is seriously flawed? Doesn't every baby born throughout the world shake a finger at it? Don't mammals & birds give birth to helpless and reliant young instead of strong, fit self-reliant young? And according to Darwinism and it's very essence "survival of the fittest" aren't these young unfit to survive? If evolution worked, after "Millions of years" wouldn't the result be that all "Higer life forms" would produce offspring that were fit and self-reliant rather than fragile and helpless like my son? Wouldn't Darwinism predict that mammals offspring should be totally fit, self-reliant and not in need of help from good old mum and dad? Who taught me to love my helpless totally reliant son? Who taught me to be protective and gentle towards him? And most of all who taught me along with millions of other parents that self-sacrifice for our kids works. It certainly wasn't Darwin. It seems to me that Infantile helplessness leaves the theory of evolution up the creek without a paddle. Which really, at the end of the day is the best place for it. Oh and by the way! My son is a Lawyer now so probably I was to self-sacrificing

This is so true! Thank you for pointing this out. And I hope people understand. Good Morning to all my American Brothers and sisters in Christ. I read with interest this thread but I woukd like to point something out. I come from the UK, I have been a Christian for 30 years plus and I attend and have always attended a Pentecostal Church where, over the years I have been involved in various capacities such as Youth Leader, Deacon, Church council Member, Sunday school teacher, Preacher, councillor, exorcist and many other things too. Over twenty years ago I set up and ran untill recently a " counter cult" ministrt called Broadsword Ministries this was aimed at rescuing people from cults such as the mormons, J.Ws, moonies etc and also training christians in how to deal with the occult and how to share their faith with people involved in the cults. Much of this revolved around teaching the basics of our faith such as the Trinity, The Deity of Christ, the substitutionary atoning death etc... I have personally debated JW elders on the doctrine of the Trinity and the practices and beliefs of the watchtower bible and tract society on many occasions. To the extent where our local JW's were warned not to speak to me, in fact they used to carry a photograph of my wife Peggy and myself around the doors warning people about me. One of the topics that I was asked to speak on most around churches in the UK was not the JW's as many of you may believe, but the Word Faith Movement and its excesses, along with the Church Growth Movement, the (so called) Toronto blessing and many other abberations within the Church. I wholeheartedly agree with, and have taught on many occasions the heresies of the word faith doctrines that are exposed in this thread and would add to these also the purpose driven nonsense, and the alpha course. The reason I am saying all this is to show you that not all pentecostals are taken in by these false teachings, some of the pentecostal churches here in the UK do believe the lie but not all of them by any means. Just thought that I would point that out. Love & Grace Neil

1. Humans, as history is only too able to tell us, are quite creative when it comes to religion, ethics, morality, human nature, gods and mythology. So in my mind, the purely doctrinal parts of the Bible (i.e. the non-historical parts) could most certainly have been man-made. 2. There would have been no need for humans to 'orchestrate' or fake the historical parts of the Bible, such as the reign of various kings or the times of the exile - it is just as reasonable to suppose that these aspects were recorded, by and large, accurately, although given the fact that much of the OT was transcribed from oral tradition hundreds of years after the events it describes, it's no small wonder that some dates and times are confused, or that some stories have different versions or are repeated in multiple books. 3. Yes. If you're saying it's impossible for humans to intertwine real history and historical events with false gods and divine occurences, then you're pretty much ignoring the early histories of (for example) Greece. Gods were recorded to have taken a prominent role in many actual events in Greek history, and kings could and did trace their lineageback to Zeus. What differentiates the Bible is that these beliefs were codified in a holy text - and while this cannot be said of the Greek pantheon and its antics, the principle of humans imposing gods over real events for thousands of years is the same. From there, it's only one small step to writing it down. And none of this is inconsistent with the archaeological aspects of the Bible being true. The fact that Delphi exists does not mean Apollo handed out prophecies there; the fact that a spring on Mount Helicon exists does not mean Pegasus created it. Or, as perhaps a better example, the fact that a political commentator can describe the relevant cities, places and protagonists in their work does not mean that, were they to throw in a few remarks about aliens, we would be obliged to trust the latter because we could confirm the former. Just because a writer is correct in one area does not mean they are accurate automatically throughout. 4. Belief. Look at other religions. The fact that Allah doesn't exist hasn't stopped any Muslims from glorifying him lately, has it? You're presupposing that people were actively inventing a God they didn't believe in, when the opposite it true: they were writing about a God they did believe in, but who didn't exist. And at least from an athiestic perspective, people who believe have a tendency to put pretty much anything which happens down to God's will, be it good or bad - whereas without God, those things could still happen. By which I mean: the fact that you wanted your army to win a battle could not only be achieved by divine intervention. Human skill could be solely responsible, and yet to someone who believes in God and who prayed for victory, the same outcome is seen as a sign of divine intervention. 5. Again, the fact that someone can write about what's in front of them and get cities right doesn't mean that their other assumptions are all correct, too. Look at the above example about the battle. Imagine two historians recorded the same event: one thought it was the will of god, and the other made no mention of religion at all. If archaeological evidence proved that the battle took place when both people said it did, that isn't actually proof that historian who mentioned God was right - it just means that, regardless of whether or not there is a god, the battle took place and had a certain outcome. 6. There are unfulfilled and seemingly false prophecies in the Bible. Also note that no interpretation has been agreed on for many of them, and that in more than one instance, we're only told that a prophecy was fulfilled, not given a prophecy which we can see has subsequently come true. And for those instances, really - stating (for example) that an empire will fall is hardly prophetic. It's a fact: nothing endures forever. Sooner or later, you're going to be right. Making a claim that blah enemy will be destroyed eventually is, sooner or later, going to be true. And apart from which, name me one set of non-vague prophecies in any religion, and by 'non-vague' I mean 'unable to be twisted and applied to any old event which sort of resembled the prophecy.' No. Not specific enough to seem even halfway miraculous. 7. You're ignoring belief again. Once people believe, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong: they'll perpetuate it. If they are wrong, it isn't a conspiracy theory - just a falsehood. Imagine I tell you that I have a sister. You tell ten other people, who tell their friends, too. But if I lied or was wrong myself, the fact that you're all telling a falsehood isn't a conspiracy theory. And if I never correct you, then the fact taht people 200 years later think I had a sister is hardly a great feat of deception on behalf of everyone who took me at my word - it was just that they, too, were decieved, with nobody left to unveil the deception. 8. Imagine I make a prophecy about someone who'll save my people, and someone comes along claiming to be that person. If I hadn't written the prophecy, would they ever have shown up? The fact of the matter is that when prophecies exist, they can seem to come true because people work to fulfill them, but that doesn't mean anyone ever saw the future. Man cannot make up someone that is holy in all His actions! Man doesn't know holy from a hole in the ground! No one but Jesus Himself could answer all the requirements in the prophecies foretelling His arrival! A man cannot plan His own birth and parentage, and fulfill all the other prophecies on His own! Plain folly to think that one can, and laughable too. But the gospel authors very well could have placed their savior god's birth in a certain city or town. The insertion of this census is ridiculous in itself. Why would an emperor make people go back to the land of their ancient ancestors? This would cause mass chaos throughout the land. Not including on how some of the people would know these distant relatives... They were called to make a stupid journey, no telling how long it would take. And what is the purpose? Why not just take a census of the people in the town they live in? It doesn't make any sense? Can you see any fabrication here? And you're right. We cannot make up someone who is holy in all his actions. Is jealousy a holy action? Why would God have a chosen people? This doesn't seem fair. There are so many illogical things I could bring up, but I will stop there. It's a common instance of painting the bullseye around the arrow. Systemstrike. I find your argument against the census never having taken place totally illogical . Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean it never happened. Archaeologists have made great progress in discovering how and when a Roman census was taken. Ancient papyrus census decrees have been found for the years 20, 34, 48, 62 and 104. These show they normally took place every 14 years, although local counts at times were taken more frequently. A papyrus in the British Museum describes a census similar to Luke's account, taken in 104, in which people were ordered to return to their birthplaces. It reads: "Gaius Vibius Mazimus, Prefect of Egypt: Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments" (Frederick G. Kenyon, Greek Papyri in the British Museum, 1907, plate 30). You say "It doesn't make sense". Well as this papyrus shows it clearly did to them.

Amen, Amen & Amen again Leonard

I agree that according to the Bible they are distinct entities on the level that Jesus was in physical form on the earth, while God still remained in the heavens (in whatever spiritual form he there resided). Yes, for all definitional purposes the two beings were distinct enough to be considered separate even if connected via some divine supernatural umbilical. Also, you can't really go on the depictions of God and Jesus, since they are only just that, human depictions of how they fantasized their God and their Lord, invented years after the claimed Biblical accounts. Hi Joel. When you have been on worthy boards for a while you will come to appreciate that when one makes statements others have a right to ask for the proof. You made a general statement in this post i.e "Also, you can't really go on the depictions of God and Jesus, since they are only just that, human depictions of how they fantasized their God and their Lord, invented years after the claimed Biblical accounts." My question is simply Give us the Historical proofs to back up this claim. Hope you don't think that is to much to ask. Regards Reb

Well, the original poster stated that we should assume mankind is still around in 100 million years. Even so, I doubt we are killing people off faster than the Holocaust, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc. Well what about Kosovo, Rwanda, the darwinism inspired murder of millions of her own people by russia? etc etc Should I carry on with the sad story. Open your eyes CW.

Could you tell me which roads they follow across the sea?

Ten years or so ago I was debating a Jehovah's witness on the trinity doctrine, and to help his understanding I used the room in which we were sat. I said this room is made up of threefold space, Height length and width. Height can say I take up all the space in this room and he does, length can say I take up all the space in this room and he does, and width can say I take up all the space in this room and he does. Yet they are all seperate components of space. That helped him tremendously in understanding the Doctrine of the Trinity. Just thought I would share that.

Hi there Mutrein. I was surfing the web a while ago and I came across the following link to another Christian forum board on the internet link I was suprised to see you there having exactly the same debate as you are having here, last September. On that board you were using the same name as you use on here, and you were using the same arguments to try to disprove the deity of Christ (without sucess) over a year ago. For those of you answering Mutzreins threads on here stop wasting your time, to be frank its not worth the time or the effort. he has heard it all before. If you follow the link you will see that Mutzrein is using exactly the same arguments now as he did then, and refused to answer the same questions put to him from the word of God by the debaters at that time, questions I hasten to add that he has also ignored in this thread. It would seem that mutzrein makes a habit of visiting Christian forums and trotting out the same unscriptural nonsense time after time, and when he cannot answer the truths put to him from the word of God he retreats into self -righteousness as he has done on this thread. I have sat up for whole nights sharing Jesus with members of cults and have never regretted a moment of it, but when faced with someone who really doesn't want to know and is just there for the sake of the argument, and has no intention of searching the scriptures then I am sorry but I have to draw the line. There are genuine people out there who need my time and effort.

Hi MeCajunboy. I expect the ones to ask are my loved ones. What I can tell you for sure is that I was a Atheistic Motor Cycle racer that lived for thrills, spills and women untill My Lord Jesus saved me over thirty years ago. I have never once doubted my salvation, in the words of the old hymn "The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows". And the older I get my friends become more and more important to me.

Hi there Brother Joe, I will SOON be putting the kettle on like I promised.