In free.christians I read this message from "Piorokrat"
<piorokrat@autograf.pl>:
>
>> In free.christians I read this message from "Piorokrat"
>> <piorokrat@autograf.pl>:
>>
>> >
>w
>> >> In talk.origins I read this message from "Piorokrat"
>> >> <piorokrat@autograf.pl>:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >My view of God is that he can simply call things into existence in an
>> >> >already completed and mature state.
>> >>
>> >> I thought this was what you meant, but I could not believe it.
>> >> You actually believe in a God who deceives people. That is what
>> >> you have said. God makes things look like they have a past, a
>> >> history. They look like they had gone through events that had not
>> >> taken place. So, for instance, God could have created the world
>> >> Last Thursday and just made it look old. How could you tell if
>> >> you have a God willing to deceive people like that?
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >
>> >There is so much deceit in this world that if we are going to start
>blaming
>> >God for deceit we'll get nowhere regardless of what we think about
>evolution
>> >and creation.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> >The point is he TOLD us that it was made perfect, ie. mature.
>>
>> How do you go from "perfect" to "mature"? Perhaps you can argue
>> that since the world is perfect it does not change. That would
>> make some sense even though it is contradicted by observation.
>> But I see nothing that says perfect is mature. And God does not
>> say the world is perfect, he ways it is good.
>>
>> >If you chosse to believe otherwise, up to you.
>>
>> Believe you and your understanding? No, I don't choose to do
>> that. Otherwise please do not confuse yourself with God.
>>
>> >It's obvious that when Adam was made at creation, he already was made say
>33
>> >years old, he didn't have to wait 33 years of earthly life like Christ
>did,
>> >who was never created but was made flesh in this world a baby.
>>
>> So Christ was not perfect, right?
>
>He was perfect, according to scripture his being fathered by the holy spirit
>and only having a human mother meant that he was not an heir of original
>sin.
So you are going to change what "perfect" means to suit your
needs. It means "mature" in one case and not in another.
>From this we learn that the father passes down the original sin, and
>not the mother. The mother passes the mitochondria, which is life. Eve, the
>name of the primordial mother of makind, means life.
Mitochondria is not life. Eve does not mean life but Adam does
mean dirt.
>Like ancient Hebrew science knew about the mitochondria.
>
>A person's mother gives them the inheritance of life, their father gives
>them the inheritance of death.
Wow?!
>But Christ had no human father.
>
>> >He and Eve were created already grown up people, with a language that
>they
>> >could speak normally learned for years from parents. Some people say Adam
>> >would have had no navel, but I see no problem with him even having been
>> >created with a navel. Everyone else has one.
>>
>> Did they have navels? (This is a serious question.) Did they have
>> scars from childhood accidents that never occurred? How about
>> memories?
>
>Scars in the pre-fallen world would have been unlikely.
Unlikely? We all have them, they are part of what it means to
have aged. Did Adam have calluses? Where his muscles used and
strengthened? You are the one who claims that God made the world
looking old, how come you stop here?
>Memories would probably have been inappropriate, but you could counter me
>hear and say that language and thought and memory are so bound up that we
>cannot have language without it.
So he had language and context, but no memories.
>All I can say there is that we don't know what the pre-Babel language
>sounded like, or what the thoughts of Adam were like.
>
>Maybe there were notional default memories, maybe not. I cannot say.
>
>> >I don't see the deceit there, it only looks like deceit if you've been
>> >believing the humanist version of the world, which really is a deceit.
>>
>> The deceit is making the world look old, making it look like
>> events had occurred that had not occurred.
>>
>
>But if you tell people plainly enough that they didn't occur, then they have
>a real choice as to what they believe.
Plainly enough? Where does it say that the world was created
looking old? How about this, instead. God plainly tells us that
Genesis is not a history lesson but a theological one. Genesis
tells us about God's relationship to the world, not about the
history of the world. So we get things like a man named Dirt
created from Dirt. We get a version of a well known Babylonian
creation story changed to explain God's real relationship to
things. For the history lesson we have the world itself to look
at.
>If it were made obvious to you what happened, you would have no choice but
>to believe and your faith, which is what it's all about, would be of no
>value.
Let me see if I understand this. God made the world itself look
old to test our faith. We see an Earth that looks 4.5 billion
years old, a Universe that looks about 12 billion years old. But
we are supposed to reject what the world itself says and just
take your interpretation of the text of Genesis.
>Here we are, however, in a world where both a creationist and an
>evolutionary view exist. All other views about origins, such as Ra sneezing,
>are pretty much museum pieces and no-one is campaigning for the Sneeze of Ra
>to be put forward as a serious option in the classroom.
>
>So you are effectively offered a choice of two,
Nope, there are multiple interpretations of Genesis. Even your
waving of your hands does not make them go away.
> do you want to believe in
>evolution,
It is not a question of my desire.
>and listen to the words of so-called science,
You don't get a free pass with this. Either it is science and you
are rejecting the science or it is not. If it is not you have to
defend that statement.
> when they are not
>actually able to prove the non-existence of God
Science does not attempt to prove the non-existence of God.
Newton did not do it when he explained orbits with gravity,
Darwin did not do it when he explained biological history with
evolution.
> despite the fact that they
>claim to be able to work on proof,
Actually scientists make a big point that they don't prove. Proof
is for math, not science.
>or do you want to go down the route of
>faith and accept what the Bible says about origins,
Don't confuse yourself with the Bible. Don't confuse your
interpretation of the Bible with God.
> bearing in mind that we
>cannot prove our claims any more than the other side can disprove them.
Science has observations of the world. You claim, which you seem
to be trying to avoid discussing, is that God made the world look
one particular way when that was not so. He made the world look
like billions of years of evolution had occurred when, in fact,
it had not. That was your claim but now you seem to want to step
back from that rather dangerous precipice and claim that science
is wrong about the world. Which is it?
>This
>is the test of faith. I believe there is a reward for people who are able to
>utilise faith in this dilemma, and go against wordly wisdom;
Do you know the Bible from the world or not? Do you read the
Bible as a physical object in the world or have you received it
directly from God? If the former, then you accept the authority
of worldly wisdom.
> they are well
>on their way to understanding many more things from the Bible, and can hope
>to meet the Saviour in its pages, the most important meeting of their lives.
>Belief in evolution and in the God of creation will lead to a greater
>popularity with men, but it is harder then to believe in the other things in
>the Bible, and not many of them will ever really have that meeting with
>their Saviour while they are still breathing and there is hope of salvation.
And, yet, I know of evangelical Christians (and Catholics and
Orthodox Jews) who accept both the Bible (as they understand it)
and evolution. You claim one has to choose between your
understanding, which includes a deceptive God, and denial of God.
People like you turn others from God.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|