OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 07:26:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: What would best describe your beliefs about how the universe and man came to be?
Young Earth Creationism (e.g., earth is less than 10,000 years old) - 16 (13.1%)
Other Creationism (e.g., the "days" in Genesis could each signify very long periods) - 22 (18%)
Theistic Intelligent Design (e.g., we were created by a God, and I *know* which God) - 17 (13.9%)
Deistic Intelligent Design (e.g., the universe was created by God, though I'm not sure which version of God most accurately describes Him) - 1 (0.8%)
Vanilla Intelligent Design (e.g., there was some type of designer, though I don't know if it was a supernatural entity) - 1 (0.8%)
Neo-Darwinian Gradualistic Evolution - 10 (8.2%)
Other Evolutionary Theories - 0 (0%)
None of These - 2 (1.6%)
A Mixture of These - 10 (8.2%)
Theistic Evolution - 33 (27%)
Not Sure - 10 (8.2%)
Total Voters: 122

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!  (Read 23236 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #270 on: May 20, 2014, 07:06:42 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #271 on: May 20, 2014, 07:12:10 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Nobody who follows Evolution is contradicting the Bible, only contradicting a certain view which holds the Bible in isolation outside of any historical, scientific or traditional contexts.

Let's be very clear here. You are a person who doesn't even follow the Bible as you claimed before. And you don't even really care about the Bible.   Therefor arguing with you is really pointless. When you change your awful views toward the Bible and start look at it and treat it the way it supposed to be looked at and treated, THEN we can talk.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #272 on: May 20, 2014, 07:14:29 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

I don't like to use the word "heresy" that much and I think it is very very strong term that should be used carefully. But is Darwinian Evolution false ? Yes! Darwinian Evolution is false, it is a BIG MASSIVE LIE.

And the nonsense you claimed about the Hebrew cosmology, read about it instead of making such false accusation against the Bible.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 07:17:51 PM by Raylight » Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,398



« Reply #273 on: May 20, 2014, 07:17:42 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Nobody who follows Evolution is contradicting the Bible, only contradicting a certain view which holds the Bible in isolation outside of any historical, scientific or traditional contexts.

Let's be very clear here. You are a person who doesn't even follow the Bible as you claimed before. And you don't even really care about the Bible.   Therefor arguing with you is really pointless. When you change your awful views toward the Bible and start look at it and treat it the way it supposed to be looked at and treated, THEN we can talk.

Let's be very clear here. I never said I don't follow the Bible. I said I didn't claim to follow the Bible. I try, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the Bible to say unequivocally "I am right, you are wrong" which is what you're claiming.

How the Bible is "supposed to be treated" is not as a golden calf, but as a book. Do you know how a book is treated? You read it, critically, and you don't accept everything it says. Like all books. The Bible may be the word of God, but that doesn't mean you just shut off your mind to any criticism of it.

I might as well be done here because clearly you don't understand the point, and you never will. And I'll probably be criticized again by other posters.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 07:19:39 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,941


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #274 on: May 20, 2014, 07:24:51 PM »

Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #275 on: May 20, 2014, 07:26:36 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Nobody who follows Evolution is contradicting the Bible, only contradicting a certain view which holds the Bible in isolation outside of any historical, scientific or traditional contexts.

Let's be very clear here. You are a person who doesn't even follow the Bible as you claimed before. And you don't even really care about the Bible.   Therefor arguing with you is really pointless. When you change your awful views toward the Bible and start look at it and treat it the way it supposed to be looked at and treated, THEN we can talk.

Let's be very clear here. I never said I don't follow the Bible. I said I didn't claim to follow the Bible. I try, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the Bible to say unequivocally "I am right, you are wrong"

How the Bible is "supposed to be treated" is not as a golden calf, but as a book do you know how a book is treated? You read it, critically, and you don't accept everything it says. Like all books. The Bible may be the word of God, but that doesn't mean you just shut off your mind to any criticism of it.

I might as well be done because clearly you don't understand the point, and you never will.

Read the Bible the way you want. And I will read it the way I want. Who am I to criticize the word of God. My soul and all my being bow down when I read the word of God, I read it in reverence, knowing that this is the word of almighty God and I can trust it like a baby trusting his mother. It is NOT shutting down my brain like you claimed, it is simply trusting what God said. Period.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 07:27:21 PM by Raylight » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #276 on: May 20, 2014, 07:47:53 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

I don't like to use the word "heresy" that much and I think it is very very strong term that should be used carefully. But is Darwinian Evolution false ? Yes! Darwinian Evolution is false, it is a BIG MASSIVE LIE.

And the nonsense you claimed about the Hebrew cosmology, read about it instead of making such false accusation against the Bible.


This isn't a false accusation.  If mankind can look at the world and perceive it in the manner they wrote it on Genesis, it's as if a 2-year-old can make his father proud by being able to record his Nick Jr shows on a DVR.  The Holy Spirit used this and fulfilled in it a beautiful poetic view of the universe with prophetic undertones of Christ.  It has nothing to do with dogmatically following exactly what is taught.

The author of Genesis chapter one is very clear about the cosmology.  He talks a God who created four elements: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and a "roh" of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light'."

So you have earth, roh (wind or spirit), waters, and light/fire.  And then poetically, Genesis separates the 6 days into two parts, the first 3 days and the second 3 days.  And there's a pattern, light, water, earth, light water earth.

The first 3 days is when you have separations:  light from darkness, water in sky from water in ground, water from earth (and then poof! plants).  The second 3 days is when you have living creatures that move around.  So the creatures of light, the creatures of water, and the creatures of earth (and then poof! humans). 

Plants were sort of a "non-living sustenance" from the highest of foods around, made in the "image of life" so to speak, so the author wanted to allude to the only natural thing man was to eat was plants among all other non-moving creation, and they are the pinnacle of the first half of creation.

Humans were living animals that were different from everyone else by having the Image of God in them, so they are the pinnacle of the second half of creation.

And here comes the prophecy:  Man eats plants in Eden now, but in the incarnation, man eats the flesh and blood of God.

The issue is this.  If you are to truly be "true to the Bible", you need to believe this cosmology.  A stationary earth, with moving lights, moving sea creatures, and moving earth creatures (animals and birds) around you.  Modern day chemistry with 100+ elements is all man-made knowledge, and there's really four elements as is clear from the Bible.  The element of light made the bodies of light.  The element of water made the sea creatures.  The element of earth made the land animals, with birds able to navigate the winds.

Unless, you're true to the prophecy intended in Genesis, that's different.  Then you can't claim evolution is false.  You can only claim the Bible is true because it proclaims Christ, not because of the cosmology that the writer believed in.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 07:50:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #277 on: May 20, 2014, 08:20:36 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

I don't like to use the word "heresy" that much and I think it is very very strong term that should be used carefully. But is Darwinian Evolution false ? Yes! Darwinian Evolution is false, it is a BIG MASSIVE LIE.

And the nonsense you claimed about the Hebrew cosmology, read about it instead of making such false accusation against the Bible.


This isn't a false accusation.  If mankind can look at the world and perceive it in the manner they wrote it on Genesis, it's as if a 2-year-old can make his father proud by being able to record his Nick Jr shows on a DVR.  The Holy Spirit used this and fulfilled in it a beautiful poetic view of the universe with prophetic undertones of Christ.  It has nothing to do with dogmatically following exactly what is taught.

The author of Genesis chapter one is very clear about the cosmology.  He talks a God who created four elements: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and a "roh" of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light'."

So you have earth, roh (wind or spirit), waters, and light/fire.  And then poetically, Genesis separates the 6 days into two parts, the first 3 days and the second 3 days.  And there's a pattern, light, water, earth, light water earth.

The first 3 days is when you have separations:  light from darkness, water in sky from water in ground, water from earth (and then poof! plants).  The second 3 days is when you have living creatures that move around.  So the creatures of light, the creatures of water, and the creatures of earth (and then poof! humans). 

Plants were sort of a "non-living sustenance" from the highest of foods around, made in the "image of life" so to speak, so the author wanted to allude to the only natural thing man was to eat was plants among all other non-moving creation, and they are the pinnacle of the first half of creation.

Humans were living animals that were different from everyone else by having the Image of God in them, so they are the pinnacle of the second half of creation.

And here comes the prophecy:  Man eats plants in Eden now, but in the incarnation, man eats the flesh and blood of God.

The issue is this.  If you are to truly be "true to the Bible", you need to believe this cosmology.  A stationary earth, with moving lights, moving sea creatures, and moving earth creatures (animals and birds) around you.  Modern day chemistry with 100+ elements is all man-made knowledge, and there's really four elements as is clear from the Bible.  The element of light made the bodies of light.  The element of water made the sea creatures.  The element of earth made the land animals, with birds able to navigate the winds.

Unless, you're true to the prophecy intended in Genesis, that's different.  Then you can't claim evolution is false.  You can only claim the Bible is true because it proclaims Christ, not because of the cosmology that the writer believed in.

The Genesis account of creation is never meant to be poetic, it is very well known which books of the Bible are poetic, which are historical and which are prophetic. And the book of Genesis is very clearly not a poetic.

The rest of what you said doesn't really change my views.

I'm going to end it here.

It was nice talking to you Smiley
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #278 on: May 20, 2014, 08:27:06 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

I don't like to use the word "heresy" that much and I think it is very very strong term that should be used carefully. But is Darwinian Evolution false ? Yes! Darwinian Evolution is false, it is a BIG MASSIVE LIE.

And the nonsense you claimed about the Hebrew cosmology, read about it instead of making such false accusation against the Bible.


This isn't a false accusation.  If mankind can look at the world and perceive it in the manner they wrote it on Genesis, it's as if a 2-year-old can make his father proud by being able to record his Nick Jr shows on a DVR.  The Holy Spirit used this and fulfilled in it a beautiful poetic view of the universe with prophetic undertones of Christ.  It has nothing to do with dogmatically following exactly what is taught.

The author of Genesis chapter one is very clear about the cosmology.  He talks a God who created four elements: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and a "roh" of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light'."

So you have earth, roh (wind or spirit), waters, and light/fire.  And then poetically, Genesis separates the 6 days into two parts, the first 3 days and the second 3 days.  And there's a pattern, light, water, earth, light water earth.

The first 3 days is when you have separations:  light from darkness, water in sky from water in ground, water from earth (and then poof! plants).  The second 3 days is when you have living creatures that move around.  So the creatures of light, the creatures of water, and the creatures of earth (and then poof! humans). 

Plants were sort of a "non-living sustenance" from the highest of foods around, made in the "image of life" so to speak, so the author wanted to allude to the only natural thing man was to eat was plants among all other non-moving creation, and they are the pinnacle of the first half of creation.

Humans were living animals that were different from everyone else by having the Image of God in them, so they are the pinnacle of the second half of creation.

And here comes the prophecy:  Man eats plants in Eden now, but in the incarnation, man eats the flesh and blood of God.

The issue is this.  If you are to truly be "true to the Bible", you need to believe this cosmology.  A stationary earth, with moving lights, moving sea creatures, and moving earth creatures (animals and birds) around you.  Modern day chemistry with 100+ elements is all man-made knowledge, and there's really four elements as is clear from the Bible.  The element of light made the bodies of light.  The element of water made the sea creatures.  The element of earth made the land animals, with birds able to navigate the winds.

Unless, you're true to the prophecy intended in Genesis, that's different.  Then you can't claim evolution is false.  You can only claim the Bible is true because it proclaims Christ, not because of the cosmology that the writer believed in.

The Genesis account of creation is never meant to be poetic, it is very well known which books of the Bible are poetic, which are historical and which are prophetic. And the book of Genesis is very clearly not a poetic.

The rest of what you said doesn't really change my views.

I'm going to end it here.

It was nice talking to you Smiley

I appreciate you listening.  I hope you do the research of the "science" of the time Genesis was written, how it correlates quite nicely with the cosmology believed by many other ancient religious communities, and how Genesis was used also as a way to refute particular parts of those other communities (for example one God creating all elements, and not multiple gods creating each element).

And Genesis Chapter 1 was very poetic.  It always repeats a chorus:  "So the evening and morning was the blank day" and forms a pattern.  That's poetry.  It doesn't have to rhyme to be poetry.  But it does have an inner beauty and pattern.  Later chapters of genesis were not poetry, but this first one was.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 08:30:44 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,623



« Reply #279 on: May 20, 2014, 10:43:58 PM »



She looks awfully unhappy and she appears not to be in control of her own emotions. Why don't you make her stop? The cure has to begin somewhere.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,623



« Reply #280 on: May 20, 2014, 11:10:04 PM »

I asked this question in a more direct fashion once every year or two without response.

I am going to do it piecemeal this time.

Does anyone know somebody or somebody who knows somebody that knows the extent and the limitations of Hebrew vocabulary at the time of Moses.

I would like a name that ultimately results in a contact.
Logged
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 596


"If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola."


« Reply #281 on: May 21, 2014, 12:16:05 AM »

Try this!

I asked this question in a more direct fashion once every year or two without response.

I am going to do it piecemeal this time.

Does anyone know somebody or somebody who knows somebody that knows the extent and the limitations of Hebrew vocabulary at the time of Moses.

I would like a name that ultimately results in a contact.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,623



« Reply #282 on: May 21, 2014, 12:51:59 PM »

Try this!

I asked this question in a more direct fashion once every year or two without response.

I am going to do it piecemeal this time.

Does anyone know somebody or somebody who knows somebody that knows the extent and the limitations of Hebrew vocabulary at the time of Moses.

I would like a name that ultimately results in a contact.

Thanks, I do not have javascript right now (very old computer) but I will make use of adding the + signs to every term of my google search.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #283 on: May 21, 2014, 12:52:34 PM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #284 on: May 22, 2014, 01:24:19 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #285 on: May 22, 2014, 01:33:20 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.
Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #286 on: May 22, 2014, 01:57:38 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 01:58:43 AM by Raylight » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #287 on: May 22, 2014, 02:58:56 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:01:19 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #288 on: May 22, 2014, 03:13:01 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

http://creation.com/6000-years


Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:15:46 AM by Raylight » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #289 on: May 22, 2014, 03:17:51 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:19:09 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #290 on: May 22, 2014, 03:24:31 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.

See, that is why I don't want to keep going on and on about it.

You will never accept my claims, I will never accept yours. Life is goooood, let us focus on the one who is uniting us and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. Smiley
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #291 on: May 22, 2014, 03:31:34 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.

See, that is why I don't want to keep going on and on about it.

You will never accept my claims, I will never accept yours. Life is goooood, let us focus on the one who is uniting us and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. Smiley

I don't accept cop-outs. You made a claim that you need to back up. If you can't back it up, then don't make it.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:32:13 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #292 on: May 22, 2014, 03:40:48 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.

See, that is why I don't want to keep going on and on about it.

You will never accept my claims, I will never accept yours. Life is goooood, let us focus on the one who is uniting us and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. Smiley

I don't accept cop-outs. You made a claim that you need to back up. If you can't back it up, then don't make it.

I can back it up. Believe me I can. But I really don't want to do it here now because it will go crazy and we will go into a very long rough arguments. and my problem and you maybe know it already that when I go into argument online I take it personally and it will effect my life outside the forum, and I'm heading to a very important week which I don't want anything to effect me.

And I still insist on my claim that The Bible Teaches Young Earth Creationism. God willing, we may have thread about it later, but not this time.  Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #293 on: May 22, 2014, 03:51:35 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.

See, that is why I don't want to keep going on and on about it.

You will never accept my claims, I will never accept yours. Life is goooood, let us focus on the one who is uniting us and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. Smiley

I don't accept cop-outs. You made a claim that you need to back up. If you can't back it up, then don't make it.

I can back it up. Believe me I can.
Then do so.

Quote
But I really don't want to do it here now because it will go crazy and we will go into a very long rough arguments. and my problem and you maybe know it already that when I go into argument online I take it personally and it will effect my life outside the forum, and I'm heading to a very important week which I don't want anything to effect me.
Then why are you even on the Internet making claims you don't want to go to the trouble to back up? Don't you think that rather rude?

Quote
And I still insist on my claim that The Bible Teaches Young Earth Creationism. God willing, we may have thread about it later, but not this time.  Wink
Insist all you want, but without proof it's nothing but hot air.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 03:53:03 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #294 on: May 22, 2014, 03:58:55 AM »

In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus says:

‘That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias …’.


It is very clear that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.
No, it is not at all clear from the text of Luke 11:50-51 that the Lord Himself associated the time of foundation of the word with the time of the first blood shed.

I do know that you have another explanation for what Jesus Christ said, and it is going to be the type of taking it "symbolically". But I'm just going to take what the verse says very clearly without going further and coming out with some other ideas.
Your interpretation of the above passage hinges on your definition of "foundation", the fact that you insert time into the equation and believe Jesus to have been talking about time. I will assert that that's not clear from the text itself and is dependent on the preconceived notions you bring to your reading of the text.

To you it is not clear. To me it is very very clear. Agree to disagree Smiley
I'm sorry, but there is no room for "agree to disagree" here. The Bible is not to be subject to such private interpretation as you have just engaged in here. Either Jesus said what you attribute to Him or He did not. You don't get to read your YECism back into His words.

That is not my private interpretation only, it is the interpretation for all YEC and many others. Just like Orthodox have their own interpretation, Catholics have their own interpretation...etc. So, we all have our own interpretation. Wrong or right interpretation is something I don't want to go into an argument about. Smiley
So you admit that you read out of the text the YECism that you bring to the text. You admit to some sense of YEC orthodoxy. There's only one problem: the Bible doesn't teach YECism, as it does Orthodox Christianity, for YECism is merely a product of 19th and 20th century fundamentalism.

The Bible does teach YECism in the Old Testament. There are plenty of websites and articles prove such thing. You have Answers in Genesis. Creation International Ministries. Institute for Creation Research. and many others.

Peter Smiley I'm going to end it here.

 
Saying that the OT reaches YECism doesn't make it so. Besides, merely saying that a bunch of web sites agree with you doesn't prove your point. They could all be wrong.

See, that is why I don't want to keep going on and on about it.

You will never accept my claims, I will never accept yours. Life is goooood, let us focus on the one who is uniting us and that is The Lord Jesus Christ. Smiley

I don't accept cop-outs. You made a claim that you need to back up. If you can't back it up, then don't make it.

I can back it up. Believe me I can.
Then do so.

Quote
But I really don't want to do it here now because it will go crazy and we will go into a very long rough arguments. and my problem and you maybe know it already that when I go into argument online I take it personally and it will effect my life outside the forum, and I'm heading to a very important week which I don't want anything to effect me.
Then why are you even on the Internet making claims you don't want to go to the trouble to back up? Don't you think that rather rude?

Quote
And I still insist on my claim that The Bible Teaches Young Earth Creationism. God willing, we may have thread about it later, but not this time.  Wink
Insist all you want, but without proof it's nothing but hot air.

Peter, please understand me. Firstly I voted and then posted that I'm Young Earth Creationist. Then I went into discussion with other members here.

Secondly, because the evidence I will post here will take some time, because it is really so much. And because I know what will happen right after that. Therefor I promise you and every member here that I will ( God Willing ) in less than 2 weeks post a thread where I will prove that the Bible teaches Young Earth Creationism. But not now, I'm actually going to have few days off because as I said I'm heading to a very important week, and that is called Final Exams Week.
Logged
JGHunter
Settling dust
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Kingdom of Heaven
Posts: 300



« Reply #295 on: May 22, 2014, 07:15:55 AM »

I voted Theistic Intelligent design but some may disagree depending on what people think it means. I am wary to support evolution in its current form because too frequently, today's facts become yesterday's ignorance. I would not fall off my chair if God used a method which slightly resembled evolution but that mankind, in its attempt to reason away God, totally missed the mark on the mechanisms involved. I remain unconvinced that evolution, as it currently is taught, is truth. In humility I cannot possibly say I know enough. But at the same time, I just don't care. If evolution is true in its current understanding and God used it, is my salvation in jeopardy because of it? No, but for some they think it is, let their conscience push them. Do the treasures I store up in heaven become worthless because God's mechanism of creation is not mentioned in the scriptures? I don't think so.  If we assume a super literal understanding of Genesis, why did God spread it over six days? Why not make it happen all in the smallest natural unit of time? I can't help but this philosophising is what we're taught not to waste our time on. As long as peopke are not taking each other's beliefs to heart there can be healthy debate. Is that happening?
Logged

Lord Deliver Us.

I no longer use this profile for conversation, only news, PMs and prayer requests.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #296 on: May 22, 2014, 08:24:24 AM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!




 As an Orthodox Christian and an Evolutionary Creationist I need to take issue with this, "if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear."

 The first thing to note is that we don't BELIEVE in evolution, we understand it and accept it along with 99.84% of all the scientists in the relevant earth and life sciences.

 On the second point, evolution only contradicts the opening chapters of Genesis if those chapters are intended to be read like a factual newspaper report of what happened. Genesis was written in the Bronze Age and there was no such thing as what we would call historical writing back then. These chapters are a completely different literary genre, we know, we have many examples of similar works in other ANE cultures of the time such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish with which Genesis shares many similarities.

 Science tells us the "hows" and "whens" of God's creation, the Bible tells us the "Who" and "Whys". They are asking and answering completely different questions.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #297 on: May 22, 2014, 11:50:46 AM »

I voted Theistic Intelligent design but some may disagree depending on what people think it means. I am wary to support evolution in its current form because too frequently, today's facts become yesterday's ignorance. I would not fall off my chair if God used a method which slightly resembled evolution but that mankind, in its attempt to reason away God, totally missed the mark on the mechanisms involved. I remain unconvinced that evolution, as it currently is taught, is truth. In humility I cannot possibly say I know enough. But at the same time, I just don't care. If evolution is true in its current understanding and God used it, is my salvation in jeopardy because of it? No, but for some they think it is, let their conscience push them. Do the treasures I store up in heaven become worthless because God's mechanism of creation is not mentioned in the scriptures? I don't think so.  If we assume a super literal understanding of Genesis, why did God spread it over six days? Why not make it happen all in the smallest natural unit of time? I can't help but this philosophising is what we're taught not to waste our time on. As long as peopke are not taking each other's beliefs to heart there can be healthy debate. Is that happening?

Thank you! That is a view I feel is Orthodox and respectful!

On your question: "If we assume a super literal understanding of Genesis, why did God spread it over six days? Why not make it happen all in the smallest natural unit of time?" St . Augustine believed actually everything mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 was created in an instant, and that all these days are just organizational techniques for the mind of a human.  But, quite intuively, he teaches that creation is on three levels that interests anyone who always wishes to understand how to theologically understand creation while maintaining scientific integrity:

1. Ex deo, particularly in the thought of God, but of course not in existence, so not pantheistic
2. Ex nihilo, particularly all principles and matter that was required to be made was first made
3. Ex materia, particularly all things that are still being created until today out of all things that were created in an instant

Some scholars have seen this as a great benefit theologically to find that this form of exegesis can help those who are in the scientific field.  The source of this is Dr. Matthew Levering, in a lecture I attended and heard, which I'm summarizing based on my notes.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 596


"If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola."


« Reply #298 on: May 22, 2014, 12:10:10 PM »

So, was Lazarus dead, or wasn't he? How about Christ?

Seems like the "I *heart* science crowd" would have to apply this sort of reasoning to all phenomena explained in the Bible, no? If science informs how we should understand Genesis Chapter 1, maybe it should also inform how we read the Gospels?



Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!




 As an Orthodox Christian and an Evolutionary Creationist I need to take issue with this, "if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear."

 The first thing to note is that we don't BELIEVE in evolution, we understand it and accept it along with 99.84% of all the scientists in the relevant earth and life sciences.

 On the second point, evolution only contradicts the opening chapters of Genesis if those chapters are intended to be read like a factual newspaper report of what happened. Genesis was written in the Bronze Age and there was no such thing as what we would call historical writing back then. These chapters are a completely different literary genre, we know, we have many examples of similar works in other ANE cultures of the time such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish with which Genesis shares many similarities.

 Science tells us the "hows" and "whens" of God's creation, the Bible tells us the "Who" and "Whys". They are asking and answering completely different questions.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #299 on: May 22, 2014, 12:31:41 PM »

So, was Lazarus dead, or wasn't he? How about Christ?

Seems like the "I *heart* science crowd" would have to apply this sort of reasoning to all phenomena explained in the Bible, no? If science informs how we should understand Genesis Chapter 1, maybe it should also inform how we read the Gospels?

Are their credible scientific models that have explored the deaths and resurrections of Lazarus and Christ? If so, I am not aware of any.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 12:32:04 PM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 596


"If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola."


« Reply #300 on: May 22, 2014, 12:35:50 PM »

I would assume there are "credible scientific models" that explain how dead people don't come back to life.



So, was Lazarus dead, or wasn't he? How about Christ?

Seems like the "I *heart* science crowd" would have to apply this sort of reasoning to all phenomena explained in the Bible, no? If science informs how we should understand Genesis Chapter 1, maybe it should also inform how we read the Gospels?

Are their credible scientific models that have explored the deaths and resurrections of Lazarus and Christ? If so, I am not aware of any.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #301 on: May 22, 2014, 12:39:57 PM »

I would assume there are "credible scientific models" that explain how dead people don't come back to life.



So, was Lazarus dead, or wasn't he? How about Christ?

Seems like the "I *heart* science crowd" would have to apply this sort of reasoning to all phenomena explained in the Bible, no? If science informs how we should understand Genesis Chapter 1, maybe it should also inform how we read the Gospels?

Are their credible scientific models that have explored the deaths and resurrections of Lazarus and Christ? If so, I am not aware of any.
We aren't talking about people in general, we are talking about Jesus and Lazarus. They are specific situations.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #302 on: May 22, 2014, 12:43:28 PM »

Question: can a mod do some forum magic and change the creator of this thread to Matthew777? I suppose not...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
JGHunter
Settling dust
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Kingdom of Heaven
Posts: 300



« Reply #303 on: May 22, 2014, 12:45:17 PM »

If a miracle could be explained as a natural phenomenon, it wouldn't be a miracle. Should we treat the creation of the universe with equal mystery?
Logged

Lord Deliver Us.

I no longer use this profile for conversation, only news, PMs and prayer requests.
Raylight
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,714



« Reply #304 on: May 22, 2014, 12:48:12 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!




 As an Orthodox Christian and an Evolutionary Creationist I need to take issue with this, "if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear."

 The first thing to note is that we don't BELIEVE in evolution, we understand it and accept it along with 99.84% of all the scientists in the relevant earth and life sciences.

 On the second point, evolution only contradicts the opening chapters of Genesis if those chapters are intended to be read like a factual newspaper report of what happened. Genesis was written in the Bronze Age and there was no such thing as what we would call historical writing back then. These chapters are a completely different literary genre, we know, we have many examples of similar works in other ANE cultures of the time such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish with which Genesis shares many similarities.

 Science tells us the "hows" and "whens" of God's creation, the Bible tells us the "Who" and "Whys". They are asking and answering completely different questions.

I myself used to be an Evolutionist and so anti-YECism. And I know all about The Bible tells us "Why" and Science tells us "How"...etc.

And what you said about the events written in Genesis and what other cultures had. Do you really think that should let us take Genesis symbolically ? NO! To me that is how I look at it. God told Adam what He happened and then Adam told his sons and daughters...etc until Noah, and from him goes the same including the Flood. and with all these years and new communities the story gets more and more complicated and people add to it and take off it UNTIL Moses come and the Lord Himself tells him what exactly happened and gives him the original story, which we have it in Genesis.

Also, I don't really care if 99.84% or even 100% of what so called "scientists" believed in Evolution. What would you do if 99.84% didn't believe in Jesus Christ ? Would you also don't believe in Christ because who so called "scientists" don't believe in Him ?! Do you remember that in Noah time only 8 people believed followed God and were godly in his eyes, doesn't that tell you something ?

Peace.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 12:50:01 PM by Raylight » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #305 on: May 22, 2014, 12:53:24 PM »

Evolution is a scientific model. A useful model, but just a model. You don't "believe" in it any more than you "believe" in quantum mechanics or astrophysics. Evolution and Religion are for two different things.  Religion is our connection with the Divine. Evolution helps man understand biological changes as it relates to speciation. There is no overlap there.  They are not in competition.  They aren't even in the same arena despite what "Answers in Genesis" tries to say.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 596


"If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola."


« Reply #306 on: May 22, 2014, 12:56:49 PM »

Then 'no.'  Lolz. I am unaware of any "credible scientific models" that explain, specifically, how Jesus and Lazarus rose from the dead.

What's your point? Does the lack of a published journal article on Jesus' & Lazarus' resurrection mean it's OK for science lovers to believe the dead came back to life or does it mean it's not OK for science lovers to believe the dead came back to life?

****

Also: lolz @ "credible scientific models." Last Friday, I just defended a dissertation at a university you've heard of, and everyone here would laugh their rears off at the idea of "credible." But hey, if R-squares of .1 really have a profound influence how you see the world, rock on with your bad self.





I would assume there are "credible scientific models" that explain how dead people don't come back to life.



So, was Lazarus dead, or wasn't he? How about Christ?

Seems like the "I *heart* science crowd" would have to apply this sort of reasoning to all phenomena explained in the Bible, no? If science informs how we should understand Genesis Chapter 1, maybe it should also inform how we read the Gospels?

Are their credible scientific models that have explored the deaths and resurrections of Lazarus and Christ? If so, I am not aware of any.
We aren't talking about people in general, we are talking about Jesus and Lazarus. They are specific situations.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,725


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #307 on: May 22, 2014, 12:59:55 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!




 As an Orthodox Christian and an Evolutionary Creationist I need to take issue with this, "if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear."

 The first thing to note is that we don't BELIEVE in evolution, we understand it and accept it along with 99.84% of all the scientists in the relevant earth and life sciences.

 On the second point, evolution only contradicts the opening chapters of Genesis if those chapters are intended to be read like a factual newspaper report of what happened. Genesis was written in the Bronze Age and there was no such thing as what we would call historical writing back then. These chapters are a completely different literary genre, we know, we have many examples of similar works in other ANE cultures of the time such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish with which Genesis shares many similarities.

 Science tells us the "hows" and "whens" of God's creation, the Bible tells us the "Who" and "Whys". They are asking and answering completely different questions.

I myself used to be an Evolutionist and so anti-YECism. And I know all about The Bible tells us "Why" and Science tells us "How"...etc.

And what you said about the events written in Genesis and what other cultures had. Do you really think that should let us take Genesis symbolically ? NO! To me that is how I look at it. God told Adam what He happened and then Adam told his sons and daughters...etc until Noah, and from him goes the same including the Flood. and with all these years and new communities the story gets more and more complicated and people add to it and take off it UNTIL Moses come and the Lord Himself tells him what exactly happened and gives him the original story, which we have it in Genesis.
Where do you get the seed for this theory? I don't see it in the Scriptures.

Also, I don't really care if 99.84% or even 100% of what so called "scientists" believed in Evolution. What would you do if 99.84% didn't believe in Jesus Christ ? Would you also don't believe in Christ because who so called "scientists" don't believe in Him ?! Do you remember that in Noah time only 8 people believed followed God and were godly in his eyes, doesn't that tell you something ?
Scientists are not qualified to make scientific proclamations regarding the existence of Jesus Christ, but they are qualified to construct theories to explain phenomena they see in nature.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #308 on: May 22, 2014, 01:03:49 PM »

Then 'no.'  Lolz. I am unaware of any "credible scientific models" that explain, specifically, how Jesus and Lazarus rose from the dead.

What's your point? Does the lack of a published journal article on Jesus' & Lazarus' resurrection mean it's OK for science lovers to believe the dead came back to life or does it mean it's not OK for science lovers to believe the dead came back to life?

****

Also: lolz @ "credible scientific models." Last Friday, I just defended a dissertation at a university you've heard of, and everyone here would laugh their rears off at the idea of "credible." But hey, if R-squares of .1 really have a profound influence how you see the world, rock on with your bad self.

Did it involve YEC?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #309 on: May 22, 2014, 01:05:02 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

are you saying the Bible(essp OT) is static flat earthish?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #310 on: May 22, 2014, 01:21:23 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

are you saying the Bible(essp OT) is static flat earthish?

Yes if you really want to take it as he way the author wrote it
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #311 on: May 22, 2014, 01:23:44 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

are you saying the Bible(essp OT) is static flat earthish?

Yes if you really want to take it as he way the author wrote it

do you really think that was the cosmology of the jewish authors of the Bible?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,296


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #312 on: May 22, 2014, 01:54:50 PM »

Let me remind you what you said again:  "I choose to follow the word of God. Not man's thoughts and beliefs."

That's great, but so do we.  Evolution or no evolution, we all as part of the Orthodox Church follow the word of God.  What you are implying is that you are following it better than most, which I'm contending you're making standards for which the Orthodox Church hasn't.

I don't choose to follow the word of God because I believe or disbelieve evolution.  I choose to follow the word of God because of the Church, as you say.  But earlier, you said you choose to follow the word of God because of Young Earth Creationism.  That means that those in the Church who believe otherwise are not following the word of God.  You are essentially condemning as outside the Church, or using a standard that's not in accordance with the Church.

So which is it, do you follow the word of God because it teaches young earth creationism?  Or do follow the word of God regardless of whether we have a young or old earth?

It is getting kind of complicated here but I'm going to say what I already said more clearly.

YEC is Biblical idea, Evolution is mankind idea. Following YEC is following the Bible on that matter, following Evolution however, is following mankind on that matter.

So, if you are Christian who believes in Evolution, then you are contradicting what the Bible says on that issue which is very clear. But does that mean you are NOT Christian ? NO!



Okay...so next question.

Is evolution heresy?  Or do you just simply feel more comfortable with ancient Hebrew cosmology? (for example stationary, non-spherical round earth; sun, moon, and stars move around; the four ancient elements, fire, water, wind, and earth; etc.)

are you saying the Bible(essp OT) is static flat earthish?

Yes if you really want to take it as he way the author wrote it

do you really think that was the cosmology of the jewish authors of the Bible?

It was the common cosmology even of the earliest church fathers. So yes!
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Porter ODoran
Erst Amish Appalachian
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,000


Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy. Lord have mercy.


« Reply #313 on: May 24, 2014, 06:29:01 PM »

I expect evolutionism in time to be anathematized as a very important heresy.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,892



« Reply #314 on: May 24, 2014, 06:33:50 PM »

I expect evolutionism in time to be anathematized as a very important heresy.
I do not expect that ever to happen.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 74 queries.