Tubal-Cain

LOL. I guess it is now "arrogant" to try an implement a policy which saves lives.

Hey, everyone;

Lately, I've been reading through the writings of Paul, and find myself struggling to fully comprehend them. Instead of enjoying a fluid reading of these texts, I find myself having to stop 2 or 3 times and re-read what it was I had just read, with little increased understanding.

Now, I realize that Paul was an intellectual man, but for some reason, I have trouble deciphering what it is that is behind many of his thoughts. I have tried reading the commentary, and referring to other passages, but I still find myself struggling for illumination.

Has anyone else here had this problem? Can anyone recommend a good commentary? Would this help?

Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks so much

You are not alone. Paul's Letters are very complex and even scholars debate his theology. If you are like me, you find Paul's views on soteriology and the Law to be the most confusing aspects of his theology. Some (long) books that I have found helpful are:

Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion by E. P. Sanders

Paul the Law and the Jewish People by E. P. Sander

The Theology of Paul the Apostle by James D. G. Dunn

In Hebrew, the word for breath of God is Ruah. However, it's pronounced like YHWH (yahweh). When writing this...are you to use Hebrew letters YHWH...are you supposed to use the letters RUAH...or is there a specific symbol for this word?

According to the Blue Letter Bible the words would be as follows:

ruwach = רוח

Yĕhovah = יהוה

Myco, you will want to look here for Gee's response to the Discovery Institute (where HE gets many of his quotes and ideas from what I can tell): http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._10_15_2001.asp

Gee believes in evolution and common descent. His words, when understood properly, do no harm to the theory of evolution. Essentially all Gee would be saying is that you cannot be sure that horse fossil A is a direct ancestor/descendant of horse fossil B merely by looking at the fossils. However, he does not deny that there are transitional fossils and that they appear in the proper chronological order predicted by common descent.

If you ask the following questions before reading a book/passage of the Bible you will be in a good position to understand things correctly:

1 - Who wrote the book/passage and why did they write it?

2 - Who was the original audience?

3 - In what socio-historical context was the book/passage written and read?

4 - What is the genre of the book/passage?

5 - What meaning did the author intend to convey? How would the original audience have understood the writing?

#5 is what truly matters. If you can answer that correctly then you can say you understand that book/passage. #1-4 merely help you answer #5. Since different passages/books will have different answers to those questions it is perfectly reasonable to expect different parts of the Bible to be interpreted differently.

Regarding the historicity of the resurrection I recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. His argument can be summarized as follows:

1) Second-Temple Jews were familiar with the concept of resurrection. But "the striking and consistent Christian mutations within Jewish resurrection belief rule out any possibility that the belief could have generated spontaneously from within its Jewish context" (p. 686). So we have to ask where Christians got their ideas from. The early Christians say that they found the tomb empty and met the resurrected Jesus.

2) The resurrection belief would not have developed unless the tomb was empty and Jesus appeared to them. If the tomb was empty but there were no appearances the disciples would be puzzled. If Jesus appeared to them but the tomb still had his body then those appearances would be called visions but not a resurrection which involves a physical body.

3) However, an empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances would have presented a powerful reason to believe in the resurrection.

4) "The meaning of resurrection within second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive again" (p. 686).

5) "The other explanations sometimes offered for the emergence of the belief do not possess the same explanatory power" (p. 686).

6) "It is therefore historically highly probable that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive" (p. 687).

His first term was good. What about his first term would give a clue that he would support this?

Here's a link to Bush on the issues. Here are his views on immigration over time (almost all of which are dated to before Nov 2004 and many of them dated to before Nov 2000):

Well, I voted for Bush, but at the time I had no clue that he would take leave of his senses and support this, and I'm sure most others who voted for him got the same surprise. He turned around in his second term and became a person totally different than the person I voted for. It's been a shock to me.

Or perhaps you were just ignorant of the signs given in his first term

The kid was a westboro baptist nutcase.

I dont consider them Christians.

My reading of the article says that he made the bombs to stop the protests of Phelps and company ("The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.").

Where's the Christian outrage? Isn't that what we say about the Muslems when the moderate and liberal Muslems are silent over such things in their religion?

I used to post regularly at a Muslim board. Usually threads where a Muslim did some act of terror would include many Muslims who support the terrorist. The comparison is not apt since everyone here condemns such behavior.

Looks like that student really understand the gospel

Oh, so now it's Bush's fault AND the Republican's fault?

Obviously Republicans are to blame for blocking Democratic agendas. I'm not surprised, I'm just saying that Democrats do not have the power to change things (as you said) if the president vetoes their ideas.

According to Wikipedia (take it or leave it), the following documents are ex cathedra:

* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

* Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and

* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

If you're going to criticize papal infallibility it would apparently have to be with those documents and nothing else.

That thread title is confusing. The 2nd paragraph claims that 48% of Americans support Roe v Wade even after they learn of its wide reach and 43% oppose it. Thus they want abortion to be legal at some level (keep in mind that not all 43% who oppose Roe oppose all abortions).

What the poll suggests is that Americans oppose abortions for the sake of convenience. It goes on to say, on the basis of a different study, that 86% of abortions are done for this reason. Hence the other conclusion to draw is that most Americans think such women who have abortions (86% of them) make bad decisions (decisions they think should be illegal).

So Congress can't override a veto?

The Democrats alone cannot override a veto.

So it's Bush's fault that people don't like the new Congress?

I was objecting to your claim that "they have the power to change things" by pointing out they have restrictions.

Agreed. My hope was that being elected to the majority would make Pelosi and Co. grow up. Instead, we keep getting complaints and more complaints...when they have the power to change things.

Actually they still have to deal with presidential vetoes.

I think a logical first step to overpopulation is to ban abortion. You said a one child policy would make people more careful with sex. Actually it would just make abortion appear a lot more inviting.

I said a one child policy might make people more careful with sex. The means of controlling reproduction would open a huge can of worms regarding freedom and privacy since such a policy would seemingly require us being sterilized after having one child.

Because overpopulation is quite plainly the root of the environmental crisis, and solving it is a long slow process.

I don't think overpopulation is the only root of the problem. Man has been known to pollute the earth and drive species to extinction well before this century.

Environmentalism is quickly becoming a "religion" of sorts and I have heard it referred to as such in a few places.

Although there might be some people who hold up environmentalism as a religion, I think they are very small minority of those who would call themselves environmentalists. Most of the time when I come across someone decrying environmentalism as a religion it is so they can avoid addressing environmental problems.

So in comes the moral issues. We have to promote a huge increase in awareness of environmental issues, while at the same time presenting a 100% Christian viewpoint.

If by "100% Christian viewpoint" you mean a moral movement that is compatible with Christianity then I agree. Of course we need to work with non-Christians as well.

The Christian world view is quite advantageous for such an approach:

- It promotes sex within marriage

- It says being a eunuch for the kingdom is better than marriage (no children)

- It frowns on materialism, selfishness and greed

- It promotes kindness and self-sacrifice for others

Of course the world is not made up of perfect Christians.

And the idea of universal health care or universal anything also scares me. I suspect a "global community" will be followed quickly by the antichrist.

If that happens then we won't have to deal with these thorny issues

Personally, I would think this speaks against evolution/naturalism.

How come? And note there is a difference between evolution and naturalism, not that this affects either as far as I can tell.

Wouldn't 65 million years be long enough for this creature to mutate into something else?

The theory of evolution does not require all organisms to evolve or to evolve at a specific rate.

I realize this specimen hasn't been studied yet, but they did identify it as a species they thought was long extinct. So that tells me they recognize it right off from fossils.

Coelacanths were first found in 1938 so this is not a first. Moreover, the coelacanths that have been caught are Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae, while the fossilized coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae.

What arguments are evolutionists using to explain why ferns, mullosks, clams, etc remain unchanged from the fossil record?

An organism that is fit for its environment can stay on the earth for a long time.

And I hope you're right about hybrid's coming down in price. I'm starting to wonder how long my car has left in it, and I want to buy a hybrid once it dies on me. Hopefully five or six years will see some used hybrids priced around $5000.

You initially said a hybrid would be $40,000 but I see the Toyota Prius is at $22,795 right now. A $5000 car would be very cheap.

I don't claim any education in these fields and the majority of my global environment crisis knowledge comes from high school biology courses. Perhaps you have answers to what I think are the two main problems that would have to be overcome before population controls could work.

I have no expertise in such fields. I'm just throwing ideas out there like you are.

1. We would essentially need to eliminate poverty. Many people have many kids because they need free labour to keep their families alive. Population controls would kill these people, and we are trying to avoid bloodshed.

There would probably need to be some type of social security as well as universal health care. Good economies also seems to correlate with lower birth rates.

2. Radical reform in the general viewpoint on premarital sex. This likely won't happen anytime soon. But many children are born from people sleeping around, and the general method to get rid of them is abortion. Again, we want to avoid bloodshed. So how do we ensure that children arn't accidently born in a society that loves sex while at the same time removing abortions? I don't even have a guess on how to handle that one.

Suppose each woman was limited to one child. Under such a scenario, perhaps people would become much more cautious about how their one child was conceived and about sex in general. It's certainly a tough one.

And of course there is the issue of everyone going crazy because of their freedoms being violated. Humanity as a whole is generally reactive rather than proactive.

This is the biggest issue. Somehow people have to understand that they do not have the freedom to harm others and that harming the environment does harm others. Most of your suggestions aren't harsh but when it comes to reproduction I can't imagine a solution that would be popular by the vast majority.

So perhaps something will happen soon that will push us all over the edge.

As you said, it is not man's nature to be proactive. We also have to fight selfishness, greed, and materialism. I fear we will continue on our way until a major environmental catastrophe strikes.

HE, there's not much point continuing the discussion as you perpetually interject Darwinism/naturalism into the discussion when I don't subscribe to such beliefs. Moreover, you aren't even dealing with the evidence at this point but just quoting people (which doesn't prove anything). I've presented my evidence so the reader is free to read it for themselves.

Mankind certainly is acting like a virus. But that is a little radical. A population under 1 billion? No. Call me crazy, but seeing as 6.6 billion is above 1 billion... that would involve mass slaughter.

Lowering the human population would help though and killing is not necessary to do it. Many parts of the first world already have birth rates below replacement levels. If, for example, each woman only had one child the population of earth would go down over time and no one would be killed. Clearly such a policy would be quite unpopular (at least now) but if you had to choose between having only one child or living in an overpopulated world where millions or billions die because of our maltreatment of the environment I think the solution is obvious.

Ban lawns. Yes, you heard me right. Our beautiful green water guzzling lawns. Plant natural plants so we don't have to spray valuable water all over them.

Banning lawns would also remove the need to run lawn mowers and other such machines.

All new cars produced must be hybrids. Obviously people can't all afford hybrids now. But if we start making nothing but right now, then in 10-15 years the used cars everyone can afford will be hybrids. We have to get that one into effect NOW as not everyone can afford a $40,000 car.

The price of hybrids will go down over time though as we will learn to build them more efficiently.

Anyways, I have so many ideas for this.

I like your platform. When will you be running for office?

HE, I have a question. Earlier you said that if scientists could create life from inanimate matter that it would not effect your faith. On the other hand, you seem to think that theistic evolution is somehow problematic.

If you were convinced that ToE and common descent were true and that there was not a literal Garden of Eden and global flood how would that effect your faith? Why?

Neo-Darwinism goes well beyond the boundaries of science and maintains a religious-like dogma that evolution fueled by random mutation and guided by blind natural selection has the power to create new and complex information that result in new organs and new body parts that can morph one species into another species over a long period of time. It is this assumption that removes Darwinian evolution from science and transfers it into the metaphysical zone.

But the ToE is not based on an assumption. It is based on the observations of mutations, natural selection, and the fossil record.

Any theistic view of the world is fundamentally at odds with the mind-set and worldview of evolutionary biologists, thus when you foolishly believe you can endorse some vague

As many as possible in addition to the Greek and commentaries on the Greek. Some translations that have not been mentioned yet that I like include:

Young's Literal Translation

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible

Green's Literal Translation