Intelligent Design and Creationism. Why they cannot co-exist

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
ID.
I've seen it mentioned by darwinists. They dont like it.
Most christians I talk to think I.D. is just a fancy way of saying creationism.
Its not.

Creationism takes the book of Genesis at face value. God said he did it in 6 days, He confirmed it again in Exodus in the 10 commandments, and thats what he meant. This is the view i subscribe to. When you get away form the literal word of God, you have a million interpretations that are relative to individual beliefs. The only sure way is to take God at His word. Its the means to salvation.

If God didnt mean what He said, then why didnt He say what he meant?

Intelligent Design is an attempted comprimise with evolution by people who want to believe in God, but do not have enough faith to take Him at His word. ID says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It says that God created the first 'single cell life form' and that life evolved from that point on. After that point, you walk the many interweaved theories that make up evolution and then come back to the bible circa 2,000 BC.


The problem with Intelligent Design for the christian

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Those verses are just two of many that point out that death entered the world through sin. To us it seems so natural that everything that lives shall die. That is not the way God made us. God made us to live.
ID says that there were many deaths over billions of years. The bible says death entered through Adam.

Theres more to that story

Jesus Christ came and died for our sin. ID says that death is natural and was here all along.
Jesus came to restore us. Redeem us and the whole world. If death was already here then Genesis is a lie.
If Genesis is a lie then so is salvation because there is no sin.
(unless you think the first single cell creatrue ate of the tree in the garden).

ID is not compatable with the bible.

Here are a few more verses

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

2Pe 3:4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

and finally, God tells us

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

He made it complete. Not still needing work.

When you comprimise one part of Gods Word, the rest will fall apart as well.




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
ID.
I've seen it mentioned by darwinists. They dont like it.
Most christians I talk to think I.D. is just a fancy way of saying creationism.
Its not.

Creationism takes the book of Genesis at face value. God said he did it in 6 days, He confirmed it again in Exodus in the 10 commandments, and thats what he meant.

There are actually some variations of Old Earth Creationism that disgree with this, stating that the 6 days were not necessarily 24-hour periods, and that, while god created everything, he did it millions of years ago and over a longer span.


. When you get away form the literal word of God, you have a million interpretations that are relative to individual beliefs.

The "Literal" reading is an interpretation tho.


ID says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It says that God created the first 'single cell life form' and that life evolved from that point on. After that point, you walk the many interweaved theories that make up evolution and then come back to the bible circa 2,000 BC.

ID advocates don't state that god was only invovled at the origin of life, they state that god has also intervened at points throughout the evolution of organisms, and directed the creation of things that, according to them anyway, are immpossible (the usual example is the bacterial flagella). Its part of a programme that attempts to identify and detect design. The idea is that if god made the universe, forget the bible, nature itself will demonstrate this be exhibiting features that can only be explained by direct, intelligent, sentient, fore-thinking and design. So, theoretically anyway, Young Earth Creationism and ID work together, ID is saying 'we're a science, not biblical interpretation, and we can scientifically prove that god exists via the demonstration of design", whereas YECism is saying 'and genesis is the full story'. Of course, the people that actually advocate for ID apparently beleive that organisms evolve, and that they can even evolve totally new traits, and that even that man has evolved from ape.

Those verses are just two of many that point out that death entered the world through sin

Adam and Eve ate, eating is killing, therefore death existed before sin. With life, there is death, there's cells lining the gut that are constantly slaking off and dying, the process by which skin is keratinized causes cells to die, indeed, the very process of development involved the creation of new cells, and then the programmed death of many of them, especially the processes in the brain. You cannot have life without death.

If Genesis is a lie

Evolution, nor ID, nor Old Earth Creationism, does not state that genesis is a lie. Jesus told parables, we don't necessarily have to beleive that they literally happened. A samaritan didn't have to literally help out a hurt man on the road in order for the moral of the story to be true. Indeed, the story is more meaningful as a story, because the samaritan is chosen because samaritans are ostracized from the mainstream jewish community. In that way the story is showing the rich, the self-reighteous, the contemptuous, all passing along the hurt man, and who helps him but a wretch of all wretches, a dirty samaritan. The parable, in fact, isn't meaningful at all when taken literally, as an actual event. But taken as a parable and a story, we can talk about how Christ is the hurt man on teh side of the road, and all of us are the ones who pass him by, or that christ is the samaritan, and we're the one hurt and forsaken by others, and even that the 'others' are the vaguries and tribulations of the world, not literally a rich man, a mugger, etc etc. In the same way, genesis is like a parable that jesus told everyone about. It would be useless for god to recount a series of chemistry equations and geological conditions to impart morality to man. The actual scientific events are utterly irrelevant, because its a religious text with religious implications and intentions, there's no reason at all to think that its supposed to be an account as if it were written by a journalist on the scene.


When you comprimise one part of Gods Word, the rest will fall apart as well.

Thats a good reason to reject any kind of creationism, Yecism, Oecism, or IDism. Because its comprimising the bible, its stating that god is just some 'thing' out there in the natural universe, something that was created, just created before the 'big bang' and superior to it because of a technicality, and it forces very weak faithed christians to come up with things and add them to the bible, like 'vapour-canopies' and the like. Its mucking with the biblical text and reducing god to mere experiment, that can be supported by naturalistic evidence. Its actually a real perversion of faith to reduce it to a crude logic-of-man methodology.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I guess through everything we both said, it comes down to interpretation.

I say, Let the bible interpret itself. It always does. If it doesnt say that a day is a billion years...then its just a day as it says in exodus.
Let us take out the 'my interpretation' ... 'My view' ....'I feel that it says..."...and just let it say what it says.

BTW...
My interpretation of your last post shows that you agree with my first post 100%, and that you whole heartedly believe in and Love Jesus Christ. Thank you for finally opening up. I can see you feel much better now.
I never would have guessed that you were a fundamentalist christian.

Nice to finally meet the real u.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I guess through everything we both said, it comes down to interpretation.

I say, Let the bible interpret itself. It always does. If it doesnt say that a day is a billion years...then its just a day as it says in exodus.
Let us take out the 'my interpretation' ... 'My view' ....'I feel that it says..."...and just let it say what it says.


I agree with you on Judao-Christian Creationism versus ID Jake. They are at complete odds, with ID being little more than a focus group derivative for making excuses to fit modern times and scientific understanding. It's a covert apology for centuries of overt Young Earth Creationism dogma.

And Fundamentalist Christians should be offended by it. Not because of the belief, but that those that hold it call themselves Christians.

I realize most Americans like to call themselves Christian, but the fact is the overwhelming majority are simply F.O.S. (I trust I don't need to expand that acronym) and don't know enough about Christianity to know they aren't Christian at all except in the most superficial of labels and affiliations.

The evolution of creationsm is but one example of how people have evolved their own brand of christianity (small 'c') to fit how they want to live and believe. It's frankly a joke. The "I just think you need to be a good person" approach is humanism, not Christianity. And the way some poseurs talk about non-Christians is particularly amusing since they themselves are but pitiful imposters.

I don't believe in creationism, and certainly not young earth creationism, as I'm not self centered enough to think reality is a matrix built merely to deceive me. But there's no point in arguing with those that do. That's a position with at least integrity (assuming they've done the alternative research and made the decision for themselves). But ID is hardly a position at all. It's a contrived response to evolution theory not adequately either quite scientific or religious. What's the point in watering down both? There's no upside or point whatsoever. It's a cult of it's own creation. And it's every bit as much anti-Christian as it is anti-Scientific.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   


If I had any way aboves left , you would have it.

There is scripture to support 99% of what you said, and Im still working on the POS comment with the focus being in the vicinity of Mat 15:17

Lock this thread....put it up someplace high so everyone can see.
I'll go pray and thank God for you right now. (really)



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I guess through everything we both said, it comes down to interpretation.

I say, Let the bible interpret itself.

You are saying, 'interpret these sections literally, and these sections non-literally'. You can't read it 'objectively', it has no 'natural' reading. Revelation is almost universally taken to be read symbolically, there's no reason why genesis has to be read literally.


et us take out the 'my interpretation' ... 'My view' ....'I feel that it says..."...and just let it say what it says.

That is not possible, however. There's allways an interpretation, just like with the parables that jesus tells, just like with Revelation, and just like with any of the poetic language in the bible. You allways bring your own interpretation to it. Is it just a coincidence that baptist children grow up to have a baptist reading of the bible? Or that catholics read the bible with a catholic interpretation?

RANT
But ID is hardly a position at all. It's a contrived response to evolution theory not adequately either quite scientific or religious

Sometimes I wonder at it tho. If you think of ID as an attempt to detect design, it seems reasonable, you'd think that you can detect design in things like planes, so why not be able to detect them in livign organisms? But a consideration of whats perhaps initially a promising idea results in the conclusion that you cannot detect design in nature. I think that thats where the IDists (not the guy on teh street advocating it, nor the schiester Johnson) started, and it ends up where they go wrong. They affirm that yes design can be detected and we have indeed detected it, but infact are incorrect and have, literally, only demonstrated that they don't know how some things could've evolved.

So the initial idea, can design be detected and can one create a biological research programme around that, is 'worthy', but the execution has been piss poor, and sticking with it when its been shown to be baseless is silly.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   


You are saying, 'interpret these sections literally, and these sections non-literally'. You can't read it 'objectively', it has no 'natural' reading. Revelation is almost universally taken to be read symbolically, there's no reason why genesis has to be read literally.


Hold on a sec my christian friend. What IM saying is let the words speak for themselves. Take out a dictionary if needed and let the words speak. Dont add words into it.
Sure, there will be some parts of the bible that wont make sense because they are allegory. I cant believe you went for the parables tho. What is a parable?

As for Revelation. Take it literal, unless otherwise explained by the bible itself.
"Now I will tell you the meaning of the woman on the scarlet beast with 7 heads and 10 horns"

In your last post...because, in your view, all words are subjective to ones own interpretation...I noticed you coded in the plans for ending the war on terror, and curing cancer. Might I suggest you make that public my christian friend? As a public service even.




Sometimes I wonder at it tho. If you think of ID as an attempt to detect design, it seems reasonable,...


ID is an attempt to 'backdoor' God into the life of darwinists. That is all.

In order to do that, several things are removed from the God of the bible and His Word

1.) Original sin
Removing that also removes the need of sacrifice because the human flesh is not now corrupted by sin. There is no cure for the death that has always been. All of this is contra to the bible.

2.) 6 day creation

This makes Jesus a liar. The bible says 'nothing was made that was not made by Him."
It does not say
"Let us make man in the image of a single cell life form"
It says
"Remember the sabbath and keep it holy for in 6 days God created the heaven and earth and all that is in it and rested on the 7th day."

Q.) Is God still resting? Must be.
Bible key word search 'enter' 'rest'
Final conclusion , The coming Millinium Reign of Jesus Christ is the 'rest'. The sabbath is a shadow of that.

Now we no longer have that because ID has removed the 6 day creation.

Im serious when I say that everything falls apart.
Dont push ID in this direction. If you think its a fair idea...then you keep it with evolution. It is certainly not in the bible.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
*Ahem* *Ahem* Listen up class (the teacher starts tapping on the chalkboard to get the class’s attention. Now that I have your Attention,
Nygdan, since we have been over this before, you have no excuse. I do take umbrage against it. for the below post, I want you to clean the erasers out back during recess. LOL



ID being little more than a focus group derivative for making excuses to fit modern times and scientific understanding. It's a covert apology for centuries of overt Young Earth Creationism dogma.
And Fundamentalist Christians should be offended by it. Not because of the belief, but that those that hold it call themselves Christians.
I realize most Americans like to call themselves Christian, but the fact is the overwhelming majority are simply F.O.S. (I trust I don't need to expand that acronym) and don't know enough about Christianity to know they aren't Christian at all except in the most superficial of labels and affiliations.
The evolution of creationsm is but one example of how people have evolved their own brand of christianity (small 'c') to fit how they want to live and believe. It's frankly a joke. The "I just think you need to be a good person" approach is humanism, not Christianity. And the way some poseurs talk about non-Christians is particularly amusing since they themselves are but pitiful imposters.


ID is not a solely (c)hristian phenomena. ID actual is an attempt to bring into alignment many of the world’s creation beliefs with what science has discovered. The problem here is that the (c)hristian proponents of it are the most outspoken.
For sake of argument, as well as brevity I will speak towards the Christian / Biblical creationism.
Gen 2:7 and the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Do you deny that the body of man is in anyway different from the dust of the ground? Are we at all different chemically than anything else that this world / solar system / universe? No. we are of the same material.

Gen 1:26 And God said; Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

If you take this literally, then you, I, jake1997, every Tom, Dick Harry, Mary, and Esther would all look exactly the same. We would all have the same height, weight, hair color, eye color ad nauseum. This would be extremely boring and of course luckily for us in not what we have in reality. We are all different. The Bible as well as most of the world’s religious texts and teachings deals with the inner self and not the shell that we abide in whilst on this Earth. Whether you call it a soul, your chi, your spirit, your ID or your EGO, this is what God of any religion is worried about. This is what God created in his / her image. Not the physical manifestation that we have today or at the beginnings of time.

Why is the above important to understand? As good Nygdan as provided as an example, there is a misconception of those who support ID. Since ID’ers belief that God is interested in the spirit and not the flesh, the beliefs of ID do not prohibit evolution since evolution deals with the physical world and not the (I hate to use the term but it does fit the best here) spiritual world. There is no reason that Fundamentalist Christian to be offended nor is ID an attempt to apologize for anything. To question the faith of someone who calls themselves a Christian just because they believe in ID is hypocritical and Nygdan, it is beneath you which surprises me that you would have said such a thing.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
There is no reason that Fundamentalist Christian to be offended nor is ID an attempt to apologize for anything. To question the faith of someone who calls themselves a Christian just because they believe in ID is hypocritical and Nygdan, it is beneath you which surprises me that you would have said such a thing.


It may be beneath Nygdan, but not me. Which is lucky since I'm the one that said it.


Obviously, I was talking about the Christians merely using ID as a prop (as many do). Some even overtly believe in actual literal biblical creation, but just argue ID as an attempt to speak to the darwinist in his or her language. It's an insincere effort at best, and only serves to dilute the actual position of the creationist in the long run. Frankly, creationism (and fundamental Christianty as a whole) has been mortally wounded by ID IMO, and obviously at least some fundamental Christians share my perspective.

To expand on my thinking here, there's really two distinct ID rationales (and they don't communicate any better than Darwinists and Creationists). In fact, it's rather dangerous for either camp to "compromise" at all.

ID is an either/or that smacks in the face of both religion and science. It's merely Creationism Light and/or Alien Intervention.

ID will never find God anymore than science will prove creationism. At best, a "scientist" sympathetic to ID may open up the possibility for alien intervention. And that's the best a creationsist sypathetic to ID can hope to achieve also. In other words, ID takes God out of the equation altogther, and to the extent some may try to backend Him back in, that's just Creationism around the elbow. What ever happened to faith?

The sheer audacity of anyone that thinks a scientific endeavor will ever transcend or offer a *proof* of the metaphysical is astounding. The paranormal is only paranormal until proven. Then it's explained and rather common, if not pedestrian. You either have faith in your creation beliefs and just let the scientists and modern world go about it's business, or you are a scientist and do your job leaving philosophy to the metaphysicians, but you don't bastardize both in the process of some lame compromise.

The arangement of the "universe" in the example of a gold fish bowl is easily explained by intelligent design. It all just got there by another "superior" life form. That's neither creationism (as goldfish owners aren't God) nor science in any real sense, since the minute the origins of a gold fish bowl are explained, you've sucked the paranormal right out of it. Oh, we're just goldfish. Some alien human thingy put us, the rocks and the castle here, bred me to be red and pretty, and drops food flakes from the sky.

The end result of ID does NOT bode well for Creationists, but to each his own. And it's a waste of time for the rest of us to think of it as pointing to anything metaphysical whatsoever (giving any credit to "Creationsim light" as that's all it is). It's paranormal theory, ending in either no answers or "God" being from Zeta Reticula or Atlantis. Poppycock. We've come a long way since believing Zeus sat on Mt. Olympus and made us, but that's exactly what ID entails. Feel free to prove it if you can, but then Zeus isn't a god (and there probably isn't one at all according to ID). Our ID creator is just a goldfish enthusiast sharing the same plane of reality as the rest of us.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
And kenshiro2012, every time Christian dogma changes every century or so to catch up with science and society that is an apology. In fact, that's what it's called when the Pope issues apologies to people executed for contradicting scripture, but were later proven right. When a church changes any of their bylaws, it's basically admitting it was wrong. Like allowing women to be pastors or gays to marry. It's why they don't change much. Religions hate to be wrong about anything.

The formal Chuch has a long embarrassing history of being horribly wrong about alot of things (from a scientific standpoint). And ID (when embraced by neo-Christians) is an attempt to apologize for young earth creationism.

Whether recognized or not, it's casting shame on Fundamental Christianity and an insult to strict creationists. They expect that from everyone else, scientists, darwinists... But Christian "Creationists Light" are pretty much just sell outs.

And I'm not cleaning any chalk boards for saying so.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
First off, I apologize to Nygdan. As I mentioned I was surprised to have seen such comments comming from him.
That being said, RANT......
thanks for basically stating that I am a hypocrytFirst off, I apologize to Nygdan. As I mentioned I was surprised to have seen such comments coming from him.
Those being said, RANT......
Thanks for basically stating that I am a hypocrite. That I am wrong for believing myself to be a Christian yet also believe in the possibility of ID. I do not see how they would be mutually exclusive but to use your words “to each his own”. I do not subscribe to any organized religion be it Methodist, Episcopalian, RCC whatever but it does not forestall my belief in what the Bible has to teach.
As for the sheer audacity of anyone that thinks a scientific endeavor will ever transcend or offer a *proof* of the metaphysical is astounding. Where did you see that in my post? I did not propose that nor have ever said anything of that nature. What I did say was that in accordance to the Bible, God created Man in his own image, Since the Bible is dealing with the metaphysical I have posted that the soul is what is being referred to and not the body / shell that we inhabit today. If you somehow believe that to be a challenge to science or even a philosopher to prove or deny, well you definitely read way too much into what I posted. Again “to each his own”.
Every time Christian dogma changes every century or so to catch up with science and society that is an apology. The same for science.
Religions hate to be wrong about anything. As does science

But back to the thread, RANT, other than throwing ridicule around, how does what I post negate the ideal of ID?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

I want you to clean the erasers out back during recess

Yummy, chalk dust.


To question the faith of someone who calls themselves a Christian just because they believe in ID is hypocritical and Nygdan, it is beneath you which surprises me that you would have said such a thing.

I do, however, think that it is an example of 'weak faith'. At least that creationism is necessary. The entire 'scientific creationism' movement is an example of faith that needs to but supported by a strong foundation, and the creationists turn to science, not god, for that support. They see that science is 'powerful', and latch on to that power. Not all creationists of course, but I think that a person who needs for there to be geological evidence of the flood, by definition, has weak faith, whereas a person who has faith in the bible but isn't fazed by the lack of scientific support for it has strong faith.

Also, I do think that considering creationism to be a type of apologetics is a good idea and pretty accurate. Apologetics aren't necessarily a 'bad' thing and christian theology has a long history of 'apologetics'.


And ID cannot be considered a science. I sometimes think that the modern founders were honestly trying to see if they could detect design in a scientific way, and if thats the case, well, good for them. But the problem is that the studies that have come out of it have shown that, perhaps not too surprisingly, they can't detect design nor miraculous intervention of a powerful intelligence in the world, at least not in a scientific manner. ID's 'big' advantage over 'regular creationism' is that it doesn't name the designer nor strictly invovle jesus, but the major advocates of it are christers, and the overall goal of the movement, as documented by the wedgedocument, is to get ride of 'naturalistic' science and replace it with what amounts to the natural theology of the pre-Darwinian era.


That I am wrong for believing myself to be a Christian yet also believe in the possibility of ID.

Lets keep in mind that thats the basic premise of this thread, that ID isn't compatible with christianity, because only biblical literalism and young earth creationism is christian. Its the 'true christian' arguement. The more reactionary fundamentalists don't consider catholics to be christians, and similarly they don't consider anyone who beleives evolution to be a real christian, and often Old Earth Creationists, who beleive in the ad hoc creation of the different 'kinds' of animals but also beleive that the earth is 'obviously' millions of years old, are un-saved non-christians, and here we see that even IDists are considered non-christians. Used to be that beleif in christ as saviour was enough to save a person. Now, with the fundamentalists, there are a whole set of rules and practices and other ancilliary beleifs that you must follow in order to be saved. The claim is that fundamentalism is christianity stripped of heresey and worldiness, but, in reality, its a re-introduction of worldiness and non-biblical ideas.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I guess through everything we both said, it comes down to interpretation. I say, Let the bible interpret itself. It always does.

How do you interpret the passage where God kills thousands of innocent Egyptian children?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I interpret that passage (u mean the 10th plague?) as...the egyptian children did not live past that point.
Plain and simple.

Now...How do you interpret this passage?

Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:

Verse 9 is our context.
It 'calibrates the clock', so to speak.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How long does this passage say it took God to create everything?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
RANT......
Thanks for basically stating that I am a hypocrite.


You're welcome.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I interpret that passage (u mean the 10th plague?) as...the egyptian children did not live past that point. Plain and simple. Now...How do you interpret this passage?

It is plain and simple that God killed them and caused their parents immense grief, punishing them for a crime they didn't commit as pharaohs weren't democratically elected. On top of that, God himself admitted that he had turned the pharaoh's heart into a stone, thus that God's crime of killing thousands of children was premeditated. In short: I take it as direct and undisputed evidence God is - besides an obvious misogenic and supporter of slavery - a mass murderer of children.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Does this mean you intended to not be on topic at all?

I understood from your name and your first post that you hated God. This is not the place to discuss it. Now that you have exposed it, was that where you plan to end your participation?

Concerning interpretation, I'd like to get an answer to the question.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I am on topic, this is about taking the bible literal. You use that concept to undermine a coexistence of ID and creation by picking verses at will that you believe support your position. Since we are taking the bible literal, you might also want to address some of the issues in the bible you'd rather hide from the message of "peace" and "love your enemies" christians like you generally want people to believe is in there. This is the perfect place to address it. If you wish to take the bible literal, than you also have to accept that on some occasions in the bible your God is murderous and quite evil. You can't just pick out the passages you like in the NT and the OT to support whatever backward views you have - like on the origin of earth - and try to avoid the passages where your God is evil. Or worse, to try to justify them by thinking somehow it was right because it fitted in God's masterplan and accepting the notion that God is good without thinking twice. Think twice and you'll see that if you wish to take the bible literal, in that passage for example God caused death to thousands of innocent children and immense grief to their innocent parents in a premeditated fashion.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
there are plenty of literal interpretations to the bible that dont support 6 literal day creationism.

the first is the word WAS in gen 1:2. (it should be translated became, the earth became void and without form. it was finished in gen 1:1. everything past gen 1:2 talks about now).

and also, the sun and moon were not until the 4th day, this would contradict 6 literal day creation.

there is also job 40, which talks about a dinosaur (elephants dont have tails like cedar trees, and crocs dont breathe fire).

as far as the eygptian children, maybe you forgot the part where pharaoh ordered all the hebrew males thrown into the river.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuTroll
as far as the eygptian children, maybe you forgot the part where pharaoh ordered all the hebrew males thrown into the river.

Oh sure, that would justify taking it out on the Egyptian children, killing them and causing their parents immense grief. After all they are to blame for electing the pharaoh. Ooops, pharaohs aren't elected. Oh well, kill them anyway, they are inferior maggots as they aren't jews by birth lineage. The bible is pretty racist as well.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Simon666]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join