< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 418 OF 418 ·
|Nov-27-15|| ||optimal play: <Bill Nye's epic debate with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum continued the ongoing debate about the earth's origin.|
While young earth creationists like Ham point to the Bible and place the earth's age at 6,000 years old, others rely on scientific evidence that say it's several billion years old.
However, the debate does not need to pit science against religion.
Plenty of scientists have deeply held Christian beliefs while still agreeing with mainstream scientific beliefs about evolution.>
In short, fundamentalism is on the way out!
You blokes need to get with the program!
|Nov-27-15|| ||playground player: <optimal play> Get with your program? No, thanks. |
Not interested in "liberal Christianity," quite possibly an oxymoron, and its repudiation of the Bible in favor of politically-driven "science"--to say nothing of its alliance with social-engineering Orcs on the Left.
|Nov-27-15|| ||optimal play: <playground player> <... quite possibly an oxymoron ...> ??|
An oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
"liberal" is derived from "liberty" meaning freedom.
"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
- 2 Corinthians 3:17
So it's more accurate to say that "liberal Christianity" is complementary (ie combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another.)
<... its repudiation of the Bible ...> ??
As I have clearly explained on your and my forum on numerous occasions, there is no repudiation by 'Science' of an intelligent, insightful and discerning reading of the Bible.
<... alliance with social-engineering Orcs on the Left.> ??
Isn't that what Pope Urban VIII accused Galileo of when he proposed heliocentrism?
The Pope also said "That's impossible, Galileo since the Bible says that Joshua stopped the sun!"
And Galileo replied "Get with the program, Your Holiness!"
|Nov-28-15|| ||OhioChessFan: The innate dishonesty of the evolutionist side is rampant. One more bit of evidence:|
<Scientists had expected that heat to be lost if Pluto was an old object. But New Horizons revealed an active surface on an old planet, and internal heating is the best current guess for what's driving that activity—even if scientists don't quite know how that heat has lasted over 4 billion years.>
They have <all> the answers, except for when they don't, and those don'ts are just mysteries, which they somehow never admit to in the textbooks they use to brainwash the next generation.
|Nov-28-15|| ||playground player: <optimal play> So somehow Galileo, then, is the moral equivalent of same-sex "marriage" and transgenderism, and all the rest of the Left's social engineering, now? Gee, I don't follow that at all.|
And Science--which has become a kind of pagan religion--has no problem with <an insightful and discerning reading of the Bible>? The kind of reading, I suppose, that always renders the Bible subservient to the "truths" of a politically-driven Science.
Liberal Christianity craves the approval of the ungodly.
If that's the approval you desire... well, you have your reward.
|Nov-28-15|| ||cormier: Gospel: " Stay awake , praying at all times: so you will have the strength to escape all these things that must happen"|
|Nov-28-15|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Nov-28-15|| ||optimal play: <OhioChessFan> When I initially read your copy-and-paste regarding Pluto, I was at first skeptical. But when I clicked on the link and found myself at the "Institute for Creation Research" well then of course I immediately knew that we could rely on such a reputable and prestigious cabal of eminent 'scientists'!|
I'm sure the "Institute for Creation Research" is chock-full of Nobel Prize recipients who are undertaking the rigorous and meticulous research necessary to confirm the true age of the universe as only 6,000 years ... oops ... excuse me ... I mean 10,000 to 11,000 years!
And btw I notice they have a link to the "Dallas Museum of Science and Earth History"!
Can't wait till that gets built -- their prime exhibit will be a replica of the Garden of Eden replete with Adam & Eve living alongside tyrannosaurus rex!
At last, a real centre for education which will finally stop the brainwashing of the next generation with all that evolution nonsense!
<playground player> I'm sure that the "Dallas Museum of Science and Earth History" will debunk Charles Darwin thereby disproving evolution, but what I'm really looking forward to seeing is how they debunk Galileo, and thereby disprove heliocentrism!
Anyway, I'm not sure how Galileo got tied in with same-sex "marriage" and transgenderism, but my point was simply that his astronomical discoveries showed that the Bible could not be relied upon as a scientific or historical manual.
I read the Bible, not because I want to know details of how the universe was created, but because I believe in God and desire to understand His will.
"Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."
- Galatians 1:10
|Nov-29-15|| ||SugarDom: <It's important to inclusive them, because they were driven to ISIS due to British/American/Russian/French/Belgian colonialism.>|
I never thought "inclusive" can be used as a verb.
I need a lecture from the English teacher. :)
|Nov-29-15|| ||Big Pawn: <Liberal Christianity craves the approval of the ungodly.>|
Very well said.
You know, is Maslow's Hierarchy, social acceptance is shown to be of great importance to most people. Liberals tend to have a huge need for acceptance and it seems to drive their decisions.
Then, liberalism is the word we use to describe all of the ad hoc rationalization of said decisions or willful point of view.
<optimal play: <Big Pawn> <Since the moment of the origin of life, life has been evolving on the evolutionist view. So on day one life appeared, but a fraction of a moment later life began evolving.>
Not quite as simple as that.>
But then your copy & pastes show that it is quite as simple as that.
You cannot escape this on evolution:
If you follow it back to the beginning, you have single cell organism (no evidence, just imagination we call science).
The way that single cell organism got there is like this:
It rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life.
Now, you can try to dress that up with some fancy words and a quote from a .edu site, but no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
It rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life - yet there was no life in the rain and no life in the rocks.
That is the absurdity you have to face.
Unless you believe that God created the single celled organism one day, but then you would have to have an argument for that claim.
What I see with your argument is the same old tired "use your imagination and just believe evolution is true" evidence.
You do realize that all of the evidence is in the imagination, right? Even if you point to a book written by a man with a fancy title, he's describing the imaginations of Darwin.
One man from the 1800's that had doubts about darwinism himself.
So there is no proof but the imagination.
You believe it rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life.
You believe this even though there was no life in the rain or the rocks or anywhere else at all whatsoever.
Explain that without resorting to basically saying "I have 'faith' in science".
|Nov-29-15|| ||playground player: <optimal play> Darwin was more open-minded about darwinism than you are.|
You say you believe in God and want to do His will; but your actions also speak, and they say something different.
You consistently and predictably mock your fellow Christians and side with atheists against them, thereby winning the atheists' approval. I can't think of any time when you failed to do this, but if you can remember an exception, please mention it: I have no wish to do you an injustice.
I've asked you this before, and you didn't answer. Let me ask you again--not to show you up, but so I can understand.
The miracles and works of power attributed to Jesus Christ in the New Testament--are these facts, or not? Was He in fact born of a virgin? Did He do some of the works, but not others? Was He without sin?
What I'm getting at is, if you don't believe in any of the miracles listed in the Old Testament, why would you believe any in the New?
But at the same time, it seems you believe anything and everything that Science says.
|Nov-29-15|| ||playground player: <optimal play> P.S.--You were so busy mocking the Institute for Creation Research that you never noticed they were quoting conventional science sources.|
You can easily find articles all over the Internet about Pluto's craterless plain and its possible internal heating, neither of which finding was predicted by conventional science.
NASA et al at least had the integrity to say these discoveries were unexpected.
I'm sure they'll soon think of some explanation that doesn't upset the apple cart.
|Nov-29-15|| ||cormier: Gospel: " Your redemption approach"|
|Nov-29-15|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Nov-29-15|| ||optimal play: <Big Pawn> <It rained on the rocks and the rocks came to life.> No, that's not right.|
It seems you haven't quite grasped the basic concept of evolution.
May I direct you to the following link...
<Evolution for Beginners>
Hope that helps!
<playground player> <You consistently and predictably mock your fellow Christians and side with atheists against them, thereby winning the atheists' approval. I can't think of any time when you failed to do this, but if you can remember an exception, please mention it: I have no wish to do you an injustice.> I'm afraid that you have indeed done me an injustice!
Select any post of mine at random and you will see that my mockery is aimed at the silliness of biblical fundamentalism. Sure, there's a bit of banter with you and <OCF>, but there's no need for you to be so sensitive. I know that <OCF> just laughs it off!
<I've asked you this before, and you didn't answer ...> Didn't you read my post about the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?
As a believer in Christ's resurrection, I of course don't doubt the power that Jesus manifested during his earthly ministry, but are you seriously equating the signs Jesus displayed with Joshua literally stopping the sun?
Let me ask you to compare and contrast Joshua 10 with Luke 23
Joshua's prayer is for the destruction of his enemies; God stops the sun from setting.
Jesus's prayer is for the forgiveness of his enemies; God stops the sun from shining.
How do you understand each of these Biblical passages in relation to the other?
Is there any theological meaning behind these accounts or are they just recordings of exactly what took place?
Do you insist that both of these accounts stand or fall together?
<P.S.--You were so busy mocking the Institute for Creation Research that you never noticed they were quoting conventional science sources.> I did notice that, but what I was mocking was their rush to judgement that it proves the universe is only 6,000 years old!
|Nov-29-15|| ||OhioChessFan: <First, we wish to highlight the fact that Nye inadvertently revealed some of the weaknesses and even impenetrable barriers that prohibit the naturalistic evolutionary model from being true. Keep in mind that, regardless of the legitimacy of any attacks on the Creation model, if naturalism contradicts the evidence, then the evidence remains in support of some form of supernaturalism. In truth, however, the evidence supports the Creation model.|
Evolution is a Historical Science
While Ham did not adequately address many of Nye’s points, Nye was eloquently treated to a lesson on the difference between observational and historical science, proving that naturalistic evolution and origin studies fall under the historical science category. Nye was unable to refute this claim. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution (i.e., inter-kind evolution), abiogenesis (i.e., life from non-life), the spontaneous generation of natural laws (i.e., scientific laws that write themselves), a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—all of which are necessary under the evolutionary model. This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Evolutionists are notorious for reasoning that the Creation model should not be taught in schools since it cannot be observed and, therefore, is not “science,” based on the naturalistic definition of the term. The fact that naturalistic evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental tenets. Instead of refuting that argument, Nye’s response was, “Mr. Ham, I learned something. Thank you.” Our response: if you do not have an adequate response to that argument, and if Creation does not belong in the science classroom because many of its fundamental tenets were not observed, then evolution does not belong in the classroom either.>
|Nov-30-15|| ||cormier: Gospel: " Immediately they left their nets and followed him"|
|Nov-30-15|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Nov-30-15|| ||playground player: <optimal play> <"the silliness of biblical fundamentalism"> Well, maybe I am overly sensitive, but that phrase kind of sticks in my craw--especially when it comes from those who believe in incredibly silly things like Global Warming and socialism, atheism, darwinism, and the rest of the liberal smorgasbord.|
Is there any doubt in your mind that Jesus Christ believed that the events described in the Old Testament were real events?
Are you tending toward the Gnostic heresy--that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament, whom Jesus addressed as My Father?
You may remember that I do not insist that the meaning of the Bible text is, literally, that God stopped the sun in its tracks for Joshua. If He had, astronomers in China would have noticed it. But whatever God did do, it was perceived and interpreted as stopping the movement of the sun (even if the sun's apparent movement is actually caused by the earth's movement).
That is not the same as saying nothing happened. We are sure the sun did not "dance" at Fatima: but no one can deny that something extraordinary happened then and there, even if no one can say what exactly it was.
As for Reputable Bible Scholars Inc.--their aim is to deny the divinity of Christ, and has been since the 19th century. So I ignore them.
And now I've got to leave the rest of this undone, and hit the road. If you've been following my blog, you know I've got family difficulties to manage. Say a prayer for me!
|Nov-30-15|| ||Jim Bartle: Different subject, <pgp>. Did you see the movie "Shadowlands" with Anthony Lewis as C.S. Lewis? I thought it was outstanding, very moving, and delivered a compassionate vision of Christianity as I understand it.|
|Nov-30-15|| ||SugarDom: There are some articles i read that say the sun really moved backwards for Joshua.|
|Nov-30-15|| ||playground player: <Jim Bartle> I love C.S. Lewis, so it seems kind of odd that I've never seen <Shadowlands>. But movies can be disappointing. When I saw what they did to his story, <The Voyage of the Dawn Treader>, in that last Narnia movie, it kind of put me off Lewis-themed movies. Still, I've always meant to see <Shadowlands>. I will, someday. Thanks for the tip.|
|Nov-30-15|| ||Jim Bartle: I was very moved by it. I hope you can see it so we can discuss it, though I probably saw it 20 years ago. I'd see it again if I had the chance.|
|Dec-01-15|| ||cormier: Gospel: " Jesus rejoiced with joy under the action of the Holy Spirit"|
|Dec-01-15|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 418 OF 418 ·
from the Chessgames Store