Hold on...

[apothanein kerdos]

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. My apologies. PM me anything you would like.

It wasn't harsh to me at all. Mike is a good guy, but often misrepresented.

I'm currently working on a short little paper that deals with the FAQ's of Intelligent Design. When I am done with the rough draft, I'll send it to you in a PM. I'm developing it for when I speak to high school and college students/groups, so it might be beneath your level, but I still think it'll offer an excellent introduction into what Intelligent Design is.

Let me begin by saying that by your admission that God was involved in the process of Creation, even if this involvement was minimal, you fall into the ID camp. Theistic evolutionists, 6 day creationists, etc, are all in the ID camp. The only way to reject ID is to really be an atheist.

What exact involvment did God have in the process of Creation - in your opinion.

He was there for every step of the way. The natural law works the way it does, and evolution functioned the way it did, because He Willed it to.

[The Lorax]

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. My apologies. PM me anything you would like.

It wasn't harsh to me at all. Mike is a good guy, but often misrepresented.

I'm currently working on a short little paper that deals with the FAQ's of Intelligent Design. When I am done with the rough draft, I'll send it to you in a PM. I'm developing it for when I speak to high school and college students/groups, so it might be beneath your level, but I still think it'll offer an excellent introduction into what Intelligent Design is.

Let me begin by saying that by your admission that God was involved in the process of Creation, even if this involvement was minimal, you fall into the ID camp. Theistic evolutionists, 6 day creationists, etc, are all in the ID camp. The only way to reject ID is to really be an atheist.

What exact involvment did God have in the process of Creation - in your opinion.

He was there for every step of the way. The natural law works the way it does, and evolution functioned the way it did, because He Willed it to.

Amen.

[Guest]

Hello Brothers

Al Radka died!

He has been sick the last twenty years or so.

Sure do miss him!

Interpreting Genesis literally is a very unfortunate choice; one with grave intellectual consequences. I pray you will come around, Horizoneast.

Mister Dragons, you do have a way with words!

The Bible versus The mighty boastful religion of death!

The Bible clearly tells us there was an original fall of mankind and The Bible teaches us, we and all of creation are under the curse of death because of sin.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:19)

Through "the survival of the fittest" dogma, this religion makes the curse into their idol.

They worship death as the beginning of all life and the hope of all life.

The salesmen of this religion hate the Biblical teaching of the original fall of mankind!

Men who worship this idol of death hate God!

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." (Proverbs 8:36)

Interpreting Genesis symbolically is a very foolish choice; one with grave spiritual and eternal consequences.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,"

"Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,"

"Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Romans 1:28-32)

I pray God will bless you with His Spirit of Truth, Angry Dragons.

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)

Love, Joe

PS: Angry Dragons are you a worshiper of Mr Moon?

[The Lorax]

Horizoneast, I really don't appreciate being patronized. And I actually already gave you a hint as to my interpretation in the very same post you quoted. It had something to do with hard evidence.

BTW, all Christians pick and choose--out of necessity. Is it fair of me to assume you don't stone people who work on Sundays?

FresnoJoe, what do you mean about Mr. Moon? Are you talking about Mr. Moon of the Unificationists AKA Moonies?

[The Lorax]

Oh, and do you believe God protects the Bible from mistranslation? You never answered that question.

[The Lorax]

You didn't answer the question.

[Guest]

Dear Angry Dragons

What would you advise we read to our children to teach them the Truth about God and about mankind?

Dear Angry Dragons

"..... What think ye of Christ? ....." (Matthew 22:42)

Love, Joe

[The Lorax]

I believe Peter tells us that Holy Writ is preserved perpetually, and this would include the Word that has been preached to us in the gospel writings. “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 PETER 1:25) Does this mean all translations of the Bible are correct – no it does not.

Sounds like we're on the same page then.

You didn't answer my questions.

Of course I didn't. The first questions get the first answers. Well now you have answered mine, so I can get to yours. Hopefully you're OK with this system; it sounds fair to me.

Yes you gave a “hint” but what exactly do you classify as “hard evidence”?

Data which the majority of scientists deem adequate to confirm a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt.

You have been rather vague during this entire exchange. Do you have a religious order that helps you determine the dissection of Holy Writ into acceptable and unacceptable portions or is this entirely your decision?

We live in an age of discovery. Many of these discoveries challenge the traditional interpretations of the Bible. Unfortunately most churches can't keep up. Faith is a very personal thing for me, so the decisions I make regarding faith are personal ones, although both the church and scientists have sway in them. No doubt you will consider this response vague, and it is: I'm generalizing my beliefs here.

I am suspicious of folks who use the phrase “all Christians” do such and such – what picking and choosing out of necessity do you think all Christians participate in? And no I haven’t stoned anyone lately but I did go to the office today to work and it was Sunday the last time I looked.

I just pointed out that no Christians take it upon themselves to stone sabbath laborers to death, as the Bible prescribes. That's something you admit you don't do. (You also admitted you worked today, although that must have been a typo. ) There are other things of course, like the Kosher laws which most Christians ignore. (Are you Kosher?) Then there are Christians with long hair, who ignore l Corinthians 11:14. And Christian women who speak in churches, and the men who let them. (1 Corinthians 14:34) And Christians who give less than 10% of their income to the church. (Leviticus 27:30-32) I could go on, but it's getting late.

[GeneV]

If I can throw in my two cents on the debate as a whole...

If you went to an American High School, you probably had to take some form of shop class. That is, you had to take a class where someone taught you about various tools and how they are intended to be used. You learned that you wouldn't get very far trying to use a phillips head screwdriver on a screw that required a flathead screwdriver, that trying to cut a piece of wood with a drill press would just be silly, etc. Every tool had a purpose, and to use something outside of that purpose usually didn't give you very good results.

The scientific method is a tool. It is not the key to some Universal Truth , the Meaning of Life , or anything else, but rather a tool to understand the physical environment. It can't tell you the nature of the soul, but it can tell you why it rains. It can't tell you why there's suffering in the world, but it can help cure diseases.

Imagine that you, as a mathematician, asked a historian to describe the life of Otto von Bismarck in terms of a mathematical equation. The historian would think you were crazy. If he could fufill your request, his answer would be so convoluted and bizarre as to be useless.

The same goes for someone trying to talk about the supernatural in terms of science. It just won't work, because the scientific method isn't designed to be used that way. It operates on the assumption that there is a natural explaination for everything, and works off of that. Furthermore, if something isn't "testable," it cannot be examined scientifically. But if something isn't "testable," that doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that it doesn't exist. Remember that we as human beings are always going to be limited by our ability to percieve our environment. Without the telescope, we couldn't reach our understanding of the cosmos; without the microscope, we couldn't reach our understanding of atomic theory.

To take the scientific method and apply it as an all-encompassing worldview (as many people do) requires the assumptions that: (1) every force at work in the universe is somehow "testable" by mankind to examine and reach a full understanding of it's properties, and (2) mankind has the capacity to extend its perceptions (through new technology) to the point that we will be able to test all of the forces at work in the universe. Frankly, from my perspective, that's a huge stretch, and a somewhat arrogant one at that.

So should science and religion be seperated? Yes, but insofar as they are two different pieces of one cohesive whole.

Very nice Apropos - I so like it

[The Lorax]

Do you have specific examples of verifiable date that we can review?

A date for what?

Can you provide scriptures to support the requirement for Christians to stone “Sabbath laborers” – I have never seen such instructions for stoning in the NT.

Exodus 31:12-15. Other passages as well, if you need them.

You appear to be rather legalistic in your views – you are not by chance one of the holdovers from Armstrongism? Maybe you can elaborate on where your theology originates.

This isn't my theology; obviously I don't follow any of it--very few people do. That's exactly my point! Christians pick and choose. You've picked to work on the Sabbath and, in doing so, you've ignored the passages of the Bible that say not to work. I do the very same thing. This kind of picking isn't necessarily a bad thing; if we did follow the Bible to the word many of us would find ourselves behind bars, at least in America, since the Bible endorses a handful of felonies. It's good we ignore such verses.

I understand where you are coming from horizoneast. Interpreting the Bible as less than literal and less than inerrant opens up to a very slippery slope. As you asked earlier, do I just flip a coin regarding what they choose to interpret as literal and true? Obviously that was an intentionally derisive caricature of my position, but it serves to remind us that our interpretation of the Bible should be truthful, not arbitrary and self-serving. I try not to interpret parts of the Bible as figurative or just plain wrong out of convenience, but because of the evidence that convinces me it simply can't be literal. That said, there's still a great amount of uncertainty for me; I am well-aware of the slipperiness of my endeavor. I would really prefer to interpret the whole thing literally--it would be much easier--but of course I can't.

I feel you are trying to establish a moral high ground here, but the fact is we each have a high ground--different high grounds. You commit fully to the literal interpretation of the Bible and adjust your views on science accordingly. I commit fully to conventional science and adjust my interpretation of the Bible accordingly. You can look down your nose at me from the literal Bible and I can look down my nose at you from the standpoint of conventional science. So let's spare each other the nose-looking. We've put our trust in different places. So what?

Of course, this isn't to say we are both right.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Angry Dragons