|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 193 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-12-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <alpha: I guess you're being sarcastic but I think you've got cause and effect backwards here.> I think not, but that's what makes a horse race.
<Exactly because so many churches and Christians explicitly reject a well-established scientific theory, it stands to reason that when people find out that in fact this theory has been correct all along, they will feel cheated by the church, which may lead to them dropping their belief system. > I think it's more the teenage rebellion. Kids who want to sow their wild oats need an excuse to cast aside their morality, and an appeal to science does the job. I think churches in general have been rather naive about the problem. I think though, it's patently unfair for kids to hear only the science side of it and not hear what the apologists have to say in rebuttal. I attribute that more to their excuse seeking instead of truth seeking, but anyway. Proverbs 18:17, NIV: The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. I make an effort in my church to address the matter quite often. While I don't picture a church spending a whole lot of time with sermons about evolutionary theory, I think the issue should be addressed. <Especially if the theory is vital to understanding life on earth.> There is nothing vital in Darwinism to understanding life on earth. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | cormier: http://www.usccb.org/nab/081210.shtml |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | playground player: <alphastar> I'm well aware of Ehrman's inability to come to terms with the evil in the world, to which he contributes by exhorting people to reject Christ. I'm also aware that there is no "perfect text" of the Bible: that's why I put my trust in the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible. <whatthefat> Sorry, atheistic "science" simply is not truth. I stand with St. Paul: "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4). |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Those guys lived around the turn of the last century and were born and raised conservative Christians. They were basically preachers. Such "scholars" rarely said anything against the Church. The vast majority of today's scholars reject all examples of "hell" and "eternal" in the scripture which is why those words are being dropped from the newest editions of the Bible. Do you want me to give you a list of names? Do you want me to give links to articles that refute the interpretations of Vine, Lenski, and Robertson? Would it make a difference? |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<playground player>>>> "It works for me" is no substitute for truth.> Ok, let me rephrase. Universal salvation was the truth for the first Christians and it is still the truth today. |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: <The vast majority of today's scholars reject all examples of "hell" and "eternal" in the scripture which is why those words are being dropped from the newest editions of the Bible.> Baloney. The vast majority of left wingers, maybe, though I doubt it. One of the links I posted raised a relevant question, something along the lines of "Does the Hebrew language have a word that means eternal in the sense we understand it or not?" You can link all you want, but that simple question won't be addressed anywhere. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | whatthefat: <playground player: <<whatthefat> Sorry, atheistic "science" simply is not truth.>> What is "atheistic "science""? Science is agnostic. It is nothing but the search for truth. You may need to invest some time in first unlearning what you think science is, and then learning what science actually is. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | Alphastar: <OCF: I think it's more the teenage rebellion. Kids who want to sow their wild oats need an excuse to cast aside their morality, and an appeal to science does the job.> Except that the vast majority of people who accept science, still remain religious. And there is no correlation between (lack of) morality and (lack of) religious affiliation. <I think though, it's patently unfair for kids to hear only the science side of it and not hear what the apologists have to say in rebuttal.> I wouldn't know why. Apologists are by definition dishonest. They take authority as truth, whereas scientists take truth as authority. <There is nothing vital in Darwinism to understanding life on earth.> Ofcourse it is. It is a truism. The fittest produce the most offspring, of which again the best adapted to the circumstances will produce the most offspring. It's a recurrent theme for all life on earth. <playground player> Can you please cite Ehrman on where he "exhorts people to reject Christ" because I have read most of his books and as far as I know he nowhere does so. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | whatthefat: <Alphastar: <OCF: I think it's more the teenage rebellion. Kids who want to sow their wild oats need an excuse to cast aside their morality, and an appeal to science does the job.> Except that the vast majority of people who accept science, still remain religious> Not to mention that kids who end up being scientists tend to be focused on things other than sowing oats (wild or otherwise) during high school. |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: <alpha: Except that the vast majority of people who accept science, still remain religious.> That depends greatly on how you define "religious".
< And there is no correlation between (lack of) morality and (lack of) religious affiliation.> I think I can find evidence to the contrary. Before I start, could you define "morality"? <I wouldn't know why. Apologists are by definition dishonest. They take authority as truth, whereas scientists take truth as authority.> I guess we don't agree on that point. |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OCF: There is nothing vital in Darwinism to understanding life on earth.> <alpha: Of course it is. It is a truism. The fittest produce the most offspring, of which again the best adapted to the circumstances will produce the most offspring. It's a recurrent theme for all life on earth.> So in the world of humans, the most offspring are produced when the female is not fertile about half the normal life span, can not be impregnated over three fourths of that half, has no genetic predisoposition to multiple births, and must have an available and fertile male to seal the deal? Seriously, this is the "best circumstances"? |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | cormier: ocf time is part of eternity ... the Eternel stay the same .... soul spirit body of pure love ..... tks |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Not to mention that kids who end up being scientists tend to be focused on things other than sowing oats (wild or otherwise) during high school. > LOL Maybe it's the lab coat wardrobe and formaldehyde cologne that makes them unattractive to the other gender. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: LOL Maybe it's the lab coat wardrobe and formaldehyde cologne that makes them unattractive to the other gender.> Wait, sorry, what is this "other gender"? Is this something I missed in grad school? |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: On second thought, Dilton looks like he is doing okay:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresource... |
|
Aug-12-10
| | OhioChessFan: "Other gender"? I'm not sure what that would be. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: <OhioChessFan> The majority of Biblical scholars favor Universal Salvation. Here is an incomplete list of the more recent scholars who support Universal Salvation from a scriptural stand point. Some are doctors, some are theologians, some are professors, some are former clergymen of various positions who upon examining the evidence have rejected the old translations. Some have started their own church and continue to teach Christianity the way it was first taught. Professor Keith DeRose from Yale University
Thomas Allin
Canon and Doctor F.W. Farrar
Doctor and missionary Gerry Beauchemin
Gary Amirault
Grady Brown, MTh., DLitt.
Professor Tom Talbott
Dr. John Wesley Hanson
A.P. Adams
John Gavazzoni
Mark T Chamberlain
J. Preston Eby
E.W. Bullinger
Ernest Martin, PhD
Samuel G. Dawson
Dr. Loyal Hurley
Mercy Aiken
Erasmus Manford
Dr. John Wesley Hanson
clergyman Thomas B Thayer
Reverend Lewis Abbott
Former pastor Dr. Marvin R. Vincent
Author G. T. Stevens
Dr. Edward Beecher
Doctor and Minister Thomas Whittemore
Dr. Ken Vincent
E. E. Guild's book
Andrew Jukes
Tony Nungesser
Hosea Ballou
Rev. A. St. John Chambre
Rev. Eric Stetson
Rev. Kalen Fristad
Rev. Rhett Ellis
Rev. Rich Koster
Rev. Susan Smith
Charles Slagle
Charles Pridgeon
Stephen E. Jones,
Bill and Elaine Cook
Tony Salmon
Thomas Allin
John Bovee Dods
George Peter Holford
John Bray
Philip Mauro
Flavius Josephus
John Dokas
Zac Poonen |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: Here is a link that gives a partial list of some of the most eminent sources of Universal Salvation throughout history. http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Uni...
The evidence is so overwhelming that it is causing complete revisions in the scriptures. All one has to do is compare the new versions of the scripture to the KJV. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<playground player>>>> It comes down to a question of trust--not in the translators, but in the Holy Spirit> <<<<<playground player>>>> It's not about the believer's personal happiness, but about his service to God--love of God, obedience to God, fear of the Lord, and service to God.> Fear is the opposite of trust. It's impossible to trust what you fear. You claim that we are to love God. <<<<<1 John 4:18>>>> There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.> It's impossible to love what you fear. The whole "fear of God" doctrine basically tells us to love God otherwise he'll torture us for all eternity. Such "love" has nothing to do with true love and it is based on a profound mistrust. <<<<<1 John 3:11>>>> For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.> Anybody who loves a God who will burn most people in hell forever must really hate people. There's no real difference between that and what Hitler did. Christians joyfully condemn Hitler, but for some reason believe that God is the ultimate Hitler. Hitler was not loved he was feared, and such is the fear of God. Perhaps that explains why you don't think Christianity is about happiness. |
|
| Aug-12-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<Isaiah 45:22-24>>>> Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. <23> I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. <24> Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.> |
|
| Aug-13-10 | | Alphastar: <The Chess Express: Here is an incomplete list of the <more recent> scholars who support Universal Salvation from a scriptural stand point. ...
Flavius Josephus>
Made my day. :P |
|
| Aug-13-10 | | Travis Bickle: <The Chess Express> I think your smoking too much funny cigarettes. |
|
| Aug-13-10 | | cormier: http://www.usccb.org/nab/081310.shtml |
|
| Aug-13-10 | | cormier: He answered, “Not all can accept this word,
but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so;
some, because they were made so by others;
some, because they have renounced marriage
for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven.
Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” |
|
| Aug-13-10 | | Alphastar: <OCF: That depends greatly on how you define "religious".> Religious: belonging to a religion. I would define religion as an organisation with rituals, stories, beliefs, doctrines and other traditions, all of which usually pertain to the supernatural and fundamental claims about reality. <OCF: I think I can find evidence to the contrary. Before I start, could you define "morality"?> Morality: A code of conduct regarding actions and behaviour distinguishing between right or wrong in a societal context. How would you define it?
<alpha: Of course it is. It is a truism. The fittest produce the most offspring, of which again the best adapted to the circumstances will produce the most offspring. It's a recurrent theme for all life on earth.> <OCF: So in the world of humans, the most offspring are produced when the female is not fertile about half the normal life span, can not be impregnated over three fourths of that half, has no genetic predisoposition to multiple births, and must have an available and fertile male to seal the deal? Seriously, this is the "best circumstances"?> "Best" relative to the rest of the species, not in an absolute sense (nature is limited in that it can only build up on previous structures, bit by bit). Anyway, most if not all of the things you mention are trade-offs. Being fertile the entire lifespan costs much more energy, besides which conceiving babies at either a young or old age is much more risky to the health. Same thing for being multiply pregnant at the same time or producing twins/triplets/etc. Sexual reproduction has the obvious advantage of producing much more diversity than asexual reproduction, besides which only in extreme cases there would not be a fertile male around. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 193 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...
