Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

Again: Repeatable and testable facts. That is why I believe science, oh, and of course because it makes logical sence.

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.


You are more than welcome to have presuppositions, just try to leave them behind if you'r into science, mmmkay?

Did I just repeat what was said on page one and two? I think I did...

Why? Reenk Roink did a good job explaining why there's nothing wrong doing science with presuppositions.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.


Oh, but that's the great thing about sciende you know... You dont have to go by your own judgement, that is, if you accept the scientifical method.



Why? Reenk Roink did a good job explaining why there's nothing wrong doing science with presuppositions.


Of course, you have presuppositions whatever you do. You will however have to be objective.

Anyway, have you understood yet that creationism = requires faith and evolution = science?

[Che Roriniho]

Man, do people still argue against science? What idiots, frankly.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh, it's only been 150 years since Darwin... We know the church needs more time than that to adapt ...

Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

[LittleGrizzly]

That's fine, but until people start doing it themselves and not just believing what they are told they should not be calling everyone else stupid.

On those grounds you will have to stop using the word stupid... holocaust deniers can no longer be called stupid, except by those who saw it themselves because as far as the rest of the world knows... the holocaust deniers are right...

Edit: obviously the holocaust deniers are both stupid and wrong...

Or perhaps for a less contraversial one how about calling people stupid for thier lack of geographical knowledge... I can tell you Spain is below france (or perhaps i should say south of france) and any european adult who didn't know this would probably be thought of as stupid... but how many people have walked south through france to make sure... i certainly haven't...

[Rhyfelwyr]

@LG: I'm not suggesting that I'm just saying it's not very nice when people who don't know anything about a subject call other people stupid, because the majority of people agree with them, or an opinion is widely accepted. That's like some ignorant religious guy in the 16th Century calling someone stupid for being an atheist, even if they never thought about the possibility of God not existing themselves. In your example about Spain, the igorant person accepts that the majority are right but that he just doesn't know the answer.


Look at Galileo who got excommunicated... They "undid" his excommunication some hundred years later, when it was found ridiculous to still try and prove him wrong.

I wonder how that worked in effect, he popped up from hell and got into heaven, hm?

FAIL.

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

[Kadagar_AV]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.

One was a result of the other, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

One was a result of the other, no?

He didn't have to start attacking the Pope. Want to make a scientific discovery, fine. Want to be a Catholic and disrepect the Pope... obviously you can't stay in such a church. So now atheists like to use their misunderstanding of this to spread stuff about religioun causing backwardness or whatever.

[Adrian II]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.What nonsense is that? Jezus, can't I turn my back on an evolution thread for a couple hours without somebody starting to talk out of his lower dorsal aperture?


"I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords, Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Republic against heretical depravity having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear, that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches.....Because it has been signified to me that the said doctrine that I held is repugnant to the Holy Scriptures.

Namely that, I held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and is movable. I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Catholic Church;...."

[Banquo's Ghost]

As much as I'm not Catholic, Galileo was never excommunicated for saying the earth revolves around the sun, it was when he started telling the Pope he was interpreting the scripture wrongly that he got into trouble.


One was a result of the other, no?

Actually chaps, Galileo was not excommunicated at all. He was denounced for heresy and recanted, whereupon he was imprisoned under house arrest.

Interestingly (since it got brought up) the Papacy was using the same Biblical authority to which creationists appeal in order to shut Galileo up. In spite of observational evidence, scripture (astonishingly, depending on translation) states that the earth does not move.

Why then does heliocentrism get a free pass where evolution does not?

EDIT: Adrian gets there first again! :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Which is all after he had to go causing controversy.

Really religion wasn't so oppressive as you want it to be. We have this idea nowadays that in the past if you spoke out against the church/general religious norms of the day, then everyone would be jumping in to cut his head off.

It's making the exact same mistake people do with Islam nowadays, saying it is completely anti-progress/whatever, without looking at the bigger picture or taking other factors into account. Most of the time you'll see their bark is worse than their bite.

[Adrian II]

Which is all after he had to go causing controversy telling the truth about his observations.
Fixed it. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Pope had allowed Galileo to discuss his ideas for years, in fact he even gave his approval (the RCC was never big on literal readings of the Bible anyway as we know), it was only when Galileo deliberately misattributed something the Pope said to somebody else that he ended up on trial for heresy.

[Kadagar_AV]

Banquo's Ghost, you are right, he was found "vehemently suspect of heresy". My point, however, remains. Doesn't it?



Rhyfelwyr,
He didn't have to start attacking the Pope.

Oh, he attacked the pope? How stupid of me, here I thought he was presenting scientific research. :wall:

And I do find it humorous that you refer to the bigger picture. What have you learnt about religion vs science browsing through this thread, in reference to the bigger picture that is.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, he attacked the pope? How stupid of me, here I thought he was presenting scientific research. :wall:

Not much to do with religion really. So his theories disagree with the scripture, note how nobody cares and he goes about his business for years. But then he starts writing lies about what the most important man in the world said... yeah power politics and all and disguised in the name of religion he gets made to apologise for heresy.


And I do find it humorous that you refer to the bigger picture. What have you learnt about religion vs science browsing through this thread, in reference to the bigger picture that is.

The bigger picture being that you keep blaming things on religion as if religion is one big bad thing and you never stop to think.. hey, maybe the Pope was really just keeping himself in power, because if you look at the situation its not really about religion. Just like with Islam nowadays... people say its all killings and bombings but any sane person will look at all the cultural baggage etc and only then can it make sense.

[Adrian II]

The Pope had allowed Galileo to discuss his ideas for years, in fact he even gave his approval (the RCC was never big on literal readings of the Bible anyway as we know), it was only when Galileo deliberately misattributed something the Pope said to somebody else that he ended up on trial for heresy.G. was sanctioned for his heliocentrist views, not his satirical Dialogo.

He was lucky he wasn't murdered like Giordano Bruno.

[Rhyfelwyr]

G. was sanctioned for his heliocentrist views, not his satirical Dialogo.

He was lucky he wasn't murdered like Giordano Bruno.

Again, power politics. The whole heliocentric/geocentric debate wasn't a case of poor genius scientist being oppressed by big nasty religious institution. The conflict was well rooted within the Papacy, for that reason the Pope was happy so long as Galileo kept his ideas away from the church, which is not that unreasonable.

In the end the only way the Pope could appear to justly sanction Galileo was on religious grounds, but the reality is pretty clear, I'm sure it was at the time as well.

[Adrian II]

The conflict was well rooted within the Papacy, for that reason the Pope was happy so long as Galileo kept his ideas away from the church, which is not that unreasonable.Not unreasonable?

It would have been reasonable if the Church had kept away from Galeleo Galilei. But they had pestered him since 1615, threatened him with torture and death like they had imposed on Giordano Bruno only thiry-odd years before.

It was power politics indeed, the weight of the institution was cast against an individual at the cost of science, conscience and freedom of expression. How profoundly silly to try and blame that charade on Galileo instead of on the kangaroos, and this nearly four hundred years after the fact.

Phooy! :whip:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not unreasonable?

It would have been reasonable if the Church had kept away from Galeleo Galilei. But they had pestered him since 1615, threatened him with torture and death like they had imposed on Giordano Bruno only thiry-odd years before.

It was power politics indeed, the weight of the institution was cast against an individual at the cost of science, conscience and freedom of expression. How profoundly silly to try and blame that charade on Galileo instead of on the kangaroos, and this nearly four hundred years after the fact.

Phooy! :whip:

I'm not blaming it on Galileo (though he didn't exactly help himself), I'm just saying you can't blame it one the apparently singular evil entity that is religion. It's just power politics, just like when Hitler banned Darwin's works (yes you're getting a Godwin), or when any authoritarian institution bans stuff that threatens its authority.

A reason to moan about religion? I don't think so. You have to look at what was really going on (and you know there's something else going on when I'm defending the Catholic Church :wink:)

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyfelwyr, I was not refering to Galileo and the pope, but creationism and evolution... What the therad was about, remember?

:focus:

[Adrian II]

I'm not blaming it on Galileo (though he didn't exactly help himself), I'm just saying you can't blame it one the apparently singular evil entity that is religion. It's just power politics, just like when Hitler banned Darwin's works (yes you're getting a Godwin), or when any authoritarian institution bans stuff that threatens its authority.

A reason to moan about religion? I don't think so. You have to look at what was really going on (and you know there's something else going on when I'm defending the Catholic Church :wink:)Alright, alright, point taken. But you'll have to forgive me for discerning an emergent parallel between your views on recorded history and those on paleontology...

Proceed. :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Alright, alright, point taken. But you'll have to forgive me for discerning an emergent parallel between your views on recorded history and those on paleontology...

Proceed. :inquisitive:

Very well! Now... what were we talking about? :uhoh:

[Adrian II]

Very well! Now... what were we talking about? :uhoh:Before you spouted off made a subtle and true statement about the Galileo case, you were talking about the difference between faith and (organised) religion. Your point being that disgraceful human behaviour should not be blamed on faith, but rather on the human, and that (organised) religion is the vehicle of human intentions and interests rather than that of God's will.
:2thumbsup:

[Rhyfelwyr]

trolling

Look, my great-grandfather worked at Harland & Wolff before that side of my family moved to Govan, you know there's something up if I'm defending the RCC. In any case, I wasn't so much defending the RCC and pointing out that its flaws weren't due to religion but instead just a typical power-grabbing man-made institution.


trolling

Well he could have kept it in the scientific circles but he didn't. Wasn't really his fault since his views were already taking hold in the Church, he got caught up in Christian in-fighting more than anything.


trolling

:rolleyes:

[RoadKill]

I enjoy the idea of Evolution co-existing with Creationism. Creationism can be shown throughout humanity. Your watch, your laptop, your t.v, all examples of creationism. The parts of a watch have their own function in order for the watch to work. And just like our bodies we rely on the function of several body parts. However we as a species evolve because our body has the availability to do that. (Adaptation). If technology can reach far enough we could make watches reproduce.

That what I don't understand why do people always think there is always only one solution.

[Askthepizzaguy]

To be fair though, technology EVOLVED through the many, many centuries by IMPROVING UPON EXISTING MODELS and allowing obsolete or less functional models to be NATURALLY SELECTED against.

The laptop computer did not appear out of dust one day. It took thousands of years of scientific progress and the evolution of human knowledge.

Even "intelligent design" requires evolution in this, the real world.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Where have I heard that before... :inquisitive:

Ah... the circumcision thread.

I know there's a joke here but I just woke up.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know there's a joke here but I just woke up.

Really? I'm off to bed soon... how on earth do we always manage to be online at the same time with such a time difference? :inquisitive:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Really? I'm off to bed soon... how on earth do we always manage to be online at the same time with such a time difference? :inquisitive:

Because you miss me, buttercup. ~:flirt:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because you miss me, buttercup. ~:flirt:

At least I've got your picture. :uhoh:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

trolling post

I should like to hear how your Natural Philosophy intrudes upon my Theology, in view of the fact that "Science" can only measure and test the former, not the latter.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

[Rhyfelwyr]

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

key part.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

key part.
Of course. Pure scientifical knowledge gives no regard to Theology.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But in today's Science, "Theology" is nothing at all...

Science is merely a method, one confined to Natural Philosophy. Currently the Academy issues (edit: no doctoral degrees) for "Science".

Now, the question is:

How does your natural theology impact on my Theology?

You could ask the reverse question, and it is just as valid.

Natural Philosophy and Theology are not related, except as avenues of human endeavor; Discoveries in one make little or no impact on the other.

If you were ask me "Why was the world created?" that is a very different question to "How". "How" does not answer why, but "How" is all "science" ever does, asks, tests or measures.

Therefore, scientific knowledge has no bearing on the existence of God. Further, if this is so it is possible accept all that has been discovered through the scientific method and still be a "Creationist".

[Adrian II]

"How" does not answer why, but "How" is all "science" ever does, asks, tests or measures.

So tell me, why did God create the earth?

I'm not asking how - in six days or seven, by telepathy or with Polish hired labour. I'm asking why? For what reason?

If religion can answer the 'why' questions, this is surely the number one question on which to test it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So tell me, why did God create the earth?

I'm not asking how - in six days or seven, by telepathy or with Polish hired labour. I'm asking why? For what reason?

If religion can answer the 'why' questions, this is surely the number one question on which to test it.

The basic number one arguement is,

"He wanted kids", of which he has untold millions upon billions

[Proletariat]

Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't keep you from being bored and lonely.

:beam:

[Adrian II]

"He wanted kids"
https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9586/facepalm3.jpg (https://img43.imageshack.us/my.php?image=facepalm3.jpg)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9586/facepalm3.jpg (https://img43.imageshack.us/my.php?image=facepalm3.jpg)

Well, I guess that proves kids actually are worth it. You have a couple, don't you Adrian?

[Adrian II]

Being all powerful and all knowing doesn't keep you from being bored and lonely.

:beam:My next question would have been: why ffs did He have to create woman?
As always, your mere presence answers the question. :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

Well, I guess that proves kids actually are worth it. You have a couple, don't you Adrian?I am tempted to paraphrase Einstein on infinity here, but the mods might take issue.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I know this much. When I have kids, and they misbehave, I'm putting them in an oven for time out, just like God. And, I'm never letting them out of time out, just like God.

:bounce:

[Adrian II]

I know this much. When I have kids, and they misbehave, I'm putting them in an oven for time out, just like God. And, I'm never letting them out of time out, just like God.

:bounce::laugh4:
Jezus Pizzaman, who created you? Now there's a guy I worship! :2thumbsup:

P.S. I'm still waiting for Sigurd to smite me.

[Kadagar_AV]

Roadkill,
That what I don't understand why do people always think there is always only one solution.

Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?


SFTS,
9 million

Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?


Wakizashi, same question.


Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?


Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.






I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.

I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here:wall:

:focus:

[Samurai Waki]

Wakizashi, same question.

Reminding a troll that he's trolling again. And for that matter, now that you bring it up, your entire last post technically counts as being off-topic, since you had to stop and tell us all we're off topic.

:oops:

EDIT: But, I'm a person who doesn't neglect my spirituality, nor the importance of science. I go along with another equally Einsteinian Theory of "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

[Big_John]

Roadkill,

Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?


SFTS,

Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?


Wakizashi, same question.


Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?


Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.






I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.

I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here:wall:

:focus:you are wrong to expect more from a cre-evo thread.

[Ser Clegane]

Wow - what a mess.

I would appreciate if people would indeed stay on topic as the "evolution" of this thread is not going into a very good direction (and in this case I insist on evolution as "intelligent design" would not necessarily be an appropriate description for some of the stuff I had to go through and remove)

[Askthepizzaguy]

I went through the thread again and noticed several smoking craters where there once were words.

People of the Backroom, I beseech you listen! I say that this is physical evidence of the Wrath of the Almighty! Therefore I recommend we all follow the Commandments from On High:

Read and Weep (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=109341)

Beware and be sure to follow these Commandments for if you do not, you shall be surely smoted with teh penalty stick or worse, suffer in the burning pit of Ban-land! The horror! Should King Arthur gallop towards you on an invisible horse with his trusted servant Patsy following behind banging coconuts together, and offers to have you join him at his court at Spamalot, or to find the Troll-y Grail, please politely decline and say you've already got one! And finally, I wish to share a message from the Cattle Gods themselves:


https://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb225/askthepizzaguy/beefy.jpg

Now, back on topic:

If one is to consider the idea of the species coming from two people, and only two people... one wonders where all the brides came from. But even from a scientific standpoint; how does a new species of human being evolve from apes? The answer is, in both cases: They don't; not without magic. So unless we caught us some lucky charms, or some really cute looking babes slid down the rainbow out of the sky, we needed a larger gene pool.

In nature, as we have observed so far, what doesn't seem to happen is that a male and a female example of a new species just pops out of thin air. What happens is that minor changes, mutations, and adaptations emerge from the random and natural process of passing on one's genes and replicating DNA over and over again a trillion times, and then those minor changes get passed on to the next generation. Sure, sometimes a minor change in genes results in, say, a totally different color pigment in the animal, or a major deformity in a limb, let's say. However, the change itself is not usually enough to cause the animal itself to be unable to pass on its genes to its own species. A butterfly with new, different colors doesn't yet have other examples of itself to reproduce with. So it reproduces with its own species, differently colored than itself, and those new color genes get passed on. And then we have a bunch more of those new colors. And if those creatures survive long enough to pass on their genes... now you have a new branch of the overall family tree.

If you consider tribes of proto-humans were already commonplace everywhere, then minor changes and adaptations took place to create what we would consider homo sapiens, and at the time, the changes were so minor you probably couldn't tell the difference. Case in point; the process didn't begin or end there. Even after humans evolved, they continued to change and adapt and now we have different color hair and skin and eyes and we live in different parts of the world and are more suited to some parts than others. And yet, we are all human beings still.

If a virus wiped out the "Caucasian" gene pool, humans would continue to evolve and look nothing like Caucasians, and one day, distant hyper-evolved scientists might observe the changes in humans from now until then and conclude they are so different, they might have been different species altogether. But even with radical changes to the gene pool by parts of the family tree dying off or new adaptations becoming quite popular, you're not really looking at a single "Adam" or a single "Eve" which turned apes into humans. You're looking at many different "Adams" passing on, over the course of millions of years, new and different genes which turned out to be better suited to the environment, like larger brains and less body hair, and more attractive faces. There was no single "Eve" because she had a mother as well, and by that logic, you could call her "Eve". And so on and so on until you get to our great-great-great-(times a hundred billion)-great grandmother, who was a single cell and totally unique, formed from phospholipid bilayers forming naturally around a mass of proteins which were highly reactive and created reactions which allowed self-replication, using the fuel of the natural environment of the planet itself. Not unlike fire spreading or crystal formation, it was a natural chemical reaction... much more highly complicated, but still based upon chemistry and physics.

In the end, that first cell was "Eve" and there was no "Adam" until the adaptation of having two sexes evolved. I guess Eve got lonely or decided she wanted some help spreading her particular DNA in a world filled with competing DNA.

Ooooh... long and rambly. Better spoiler it and hope no one reads it.

There was no "Adam" and "Eve" as we traditionally think of it... because if that were the case, there was severe, severe inbreeding and we are basically a bunch of birth defects gone horribly right.

[Tribesman]

Ooooh... long and rambly. Better spoiler it and hope no one reads it.

Ah but you miss the later injection into the gene pool , the giants from on high . They came down and had lots of sex with humans because they like the food . But humans being humans liked the sex but didn't like the big fellas taking the food so they killed the giants .
But then of course the giants hadn't been killed and were evil and ungodly so when the really big fella got annoyed he killed them all too with his really big rainstorm(together with all the humans apart from a really amazingly good boat builder and his little family) which somewhat diminished the gene pool ever so slightly.
But then the gene pool expanded again because lo it is written there were more giants breeding with humans.
So what we really need to settle this debate is for a cretinist to dig up a fossilised giant.
It should be easy , after all they were all killed along with the dinosaurs in the flood so all the fossils should be together , well apart from those who were around after the flood but I think they must have been illegal immigrants so don't really have any standing despite being very tall.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ah but you miss the later injection into the gene pool , the giants from on high . They came down and had lots of sex with humans because they like the food . But humans being humans liked the sex but didn't like the big fellas taking the food so they killed the giants .
But then of course the giants hadn't been killed and were evil and ungodly so when the really big fella got annoyed he killed them all too with his really big rainstorm(together with all the humans apart from a really amazingly good boat builder and his little family) which somewhat diminished the gene pool ever so slightly.
But then the gene pool expanded again because lo it is written there were more giants breeding with humans.
So what we really need to settle this debate is for a cretinist to dig up a fossilised giant.
It should be easy , after all they were all killed along with the dinosaurs in the flood so all the fossils should be together , well apart from those who were around after the flood but I think they must have been illegal immigrants so don't really have any standing despite being very tall.

I wonder about the two of every animal thing. I assume he also got a bunch of seeds, too, or do the plants on dry land love being submerged by ten thousand feet of saltwater? And what's really cool is that there's not actually that much water on the planet by a longshot so it physically couldn't happen as it says in the Bible to make all the dry land disappear, unless the mountains all crumbled under the sea, and the sheer earthquakes would have killed everyone anyway.

Also, he was very nice to collect two of every species of beetle, because that must have taken him a LOOOOONG time. And how did he collect two of every species from other continents? Like the Panda?

How did Noah collect the Pandas? How about the Penguins and the Polar Bears? Yeah. What about the species native to North and South America? Yeah. He was an elderly dude but apparently, like Santa Claus, he can fly around the world faster than light and visit all the animal species in existence and collect them and put them on a rickety wooden boat. Oh, and he must have also got them food, too. And a place to poo. And fresh water for all those species. And how did he keep the lions from hunting the zebras and the frogs from eating the mosquitoes? And how did he stop the unicorns from having sex with the bubblegum faeries?

[Adrian II]

I did read it, but couldn't find anything that refutes my point on the hundred year old practice of using physical similarities as proof of descent.I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'

Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.

This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.

I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over precious forms

Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.

Transitional features don't necessarily need to be improvements, just differences which accumulate to the point where they make a distinction between one gene pool and another and eventually one succeeds and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.

[Adrian II]

Why is that a problem? One could argue that having different colored eyes has no real evolutionary advantage, but the differences exist. Perhaps one day, those differences could mean the difference between life and death, but for now, it does not.It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.
[..]and the other one gets uber epic fail pwned like a n00b.You are just the tonic that this forum needed. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

I wonder about the two of every animal thing.
Don't be silly , two of every animal would only need an impossibly massive boat , as this bloke was a really amazing shipwright he made one that took a male and female only of certain animals , for all the rest of the animals and all of the birds he took 7 males and 7 females .

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have thought long and hard about this. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Bible and science can be reconciled. It would involve both intelligent design AND evolution, however.

God makes the world, there's the Adam and Eve poofed into existence, then there's the murder and the women that didn't come from Eve, then there's the 2 of every animal thing and there was the flood. Now, obviously the world is covered in seaweed and all the plants are dead, and Noah really only had room for several species, and most of them died during the voyage from lack of food and/or were used as a sacrifice later on an altar. (Man, they prepared for everything!) But the one species which did survive was the bunny rabbit. And they had lots and lots and lots of bunny sex.

Now, there were rabbits EVERYWHERE and they had to eat something once all the other animals starved to death since all the plants were dead, so they ate up all the seaweed and then they left little rabbit poops which fertilized the entire landscape and they had so many litters of baby bunnies that they started evolving and changing and adapting into the many species we have today, like the bunnybear, the bunnychicken, and of course, the bunnybilled-platypus. Some bunnies even laid eggs and turned into reptiles, and that's why the Easter Bunny leaves us colored eggs everywhere. Each egg is a new species. So; with a rapidly mutating bunny species and lots of leftover seaweed, and... I dunno... magic beans which turned into all the existing forests and jungles to this day, which came from the same place Cain's wife came from I suppose... that explains everything.

I present this as the Grand Unified Theory of Intelligent Bunnyvolution. There are still some kinks to work out, but I'd say it's a pretty good work in progress, and the parts we don't fully understand are easily explained away; "God did it, I believe it, and that settles it" which I saw as a bumper sticker, and I have to say, it's a conversation starter. There are so many ways you can go with that, like "I agree" or remaining silent.

[Meneldil]

But it is stretching it to say God created us through evolution. IMO God created quite a lot of people out of dust/whatever and Adam was the patriarch of them.

Oh the irony.

[Sigurd]

I believe we basically agree, my trusted old sparring partner - even though you sound a bit like a 1927 Volvo crying 'I did not descend from a Fiat!'

:laugh4:



Of course there is more than physical similarity. Mutation has been observed both in vitro and in the field, for instance. The main problem besetting neo-Darwinism (gradualism) seems to be that mutation does not add information, hence does not explain the increasing complexity of successive organisms. A second problem for gradualists is that so-called 'transitional' forms of features (such as the eye) would never present an evolutionary advantage over previous forms.

This is why Richard Dawkins was always left speechless (except for gobbledygook or insults) in debates with that great American mind Stephen Jay Gould.

It may, in future. But various proposed transitional forms between reptile and human in particular would have had terrible disadvantages leading to extinction. Of course blindness can be a transitional stage toward human perfection, in which case you and I would be prime examples. In that order, mind you.You are just the tonic that this forum needed. :laugh4:
You are referring to the vertebrate eye or to any Creationist (I was about to write Creationalist :wiseguy:) objection called irreducible complexity. On this I must jump fences a bit because on the eye issue the current science has discovered that each part made the light-detecting apparatus more adaptive, even in the absence of some or all of the other parts. The old theory was that each part of the eye can't function without the other and only the sum of working parts makes it a functional eye, hence it would seem not to fit in with evolution.


I guess I'll drop my question whether you had alternative hypotheses on one or more aspects of speciation. Mind you, I wasn't asking you to explain Askthepizzaguy in one go. That's too tall an order for even the direst evolutionist.I don't really subscribe to any of the theories out there as a true agnostic. But should I once decide that there is a God (edit: ok that sounded a bit cocky - I meant to say: Should I come to the belief that there is a God through personal revelation), I would look more into the watchmaker analogy or Intelligent Design.
There is still some areas which can still be called non sciences.
a few previous non sciences has become science in this century f.ex. geopoetry -> geoscience and cosmology. There were no way of testing hypotheses in these areas in the past and therefore they were non sciences. Today there is one particular which is called origin of cellular life. It seems it is still an irreducible complexity. But hey, someday it might not. Science advances into non science areas all the time as history testifies to. The origin of cellular life could lend an ear to the watchmaker anolgy, but then it becomes a Aquinas fallacy doesn't it?

[Adrian II]

You are referring to the vertebrate eye or to any Creationist (I was about to write Creationalist :wiseguy:) objection called irreducible complexity.About the complexities: yes, some are apparently irreducible - at this moment in time. Complexities that were previously considered irreducible can now be explained because the workings of regulating dna have been gradually explored.

Most of the regulating dna in (all) animals has remained unchanged for at least five hundred million years. It encodes organising principles, not just protein production codes. This insight has resulted in a an emerging school of thought in biology, called 'evo-devo'. You have probably heard of it, but anyway. Evo-devo considers evolution as a competition between opposing and/or complementary organising principles, which find expression in organisms of successively higher scales of complexity. It could explain apparent jump-mutations in ways that gradualism can't.

Speaking of gradualism, regulating dna also explains the evolution of the eye. The regulating part of dna, called 'eyeless', was isolated in 1995 by a Swiss team. In other words, the code for the human eye has been there since five hundred million years ago, but it has found its present expression only in Habilis and his contemporaries.

[Adrian II]

Oh the irony.I had to laugh at that one, too. Sure, the work of generations of evolutionary researchers and theorists is a real stretch, whereas the idea that god created Adam and Eve out of dust is far more plausible. Truly, a no-brainer. :beam:

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.


Roadkill,

Because there is evidence of one but not the other... Might that be it?


SFTS,

Why do you spam this thread? What does 9 million have to do with evolution or creationism?


Wakizashi, same question.


Sasaki Kojiro, I would ask the mods to clear the spam, but as the mods are evidently spaming...? Are you drunk or was that just a REALLY stupid post from you?


Rhyfelwyr and ATPG, save your flirting for PMs.






I've been gone a couple of ours and everyone including a mod have totally derailed the thread. Makes me wonder what level of debate this forum offers.

I'm with Adrian on Einsteinian infinity-theory here:wall:

:focus:

Edit: Too much moderation on these boards.

Oh yeah Adrian/Melendil you know I am talking about the scripture so sorry no irony.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am tempted to paraphrase Einstein on infinity here, but the mods might take issue.

I don't remember that one, I do however, remember:

"God does not play dice"

Quantom theory has refuted this, there is a random element to the universe.

I find it interesting that no one has yet explained how any of this wonderful knowledge has demonstrated that the Universe was not ultimately created by God.

[Tribesman]

the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately.
Is the problem you have that you are having to invent "scripture" because scripture itself is letting you down?

Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.

Really ? how far down the time line does incest become a no-no in scripture? Is it after God created two people or after God created a new world by destroying all humankind except for one special family?
It appears Rhyfylwer that though you are basing your views on biblical stories you are having to rewrite the bible at the same time because your views don't add up

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is the problem you have that you are having to invent "scripture" because scripture itself is letting you down?

Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.


Really ? how far down the time line does incest become a no-no in scripture? Is it after God created two people or after God created a new world by destroying all humankind except for one special family?
It appears Rhyfylwer that though you are basing your views on biblical stories you are having to rewrite the bible at the same time because your views don't add up

Incest is always a no-no God's laws don't change. *awaits people eagerly pointing out how God tells people different stuff at different times, and I tell them to look at covenant theology*

[Tribesman]

Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Incest is always a no-no God's laws don't change.
OK I take it all back , you are not attempting to rewrite the bible , you just havn't read it in the first place and are making your views up out of thin air.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK I take it all back , you are not attempting to rewrite the bible , you just havn't read it in the first place and are making your views up out of thin air.

So in the beginning there wasn't the word, and the word was not with God, and the word was not God?! And Jesus isn't the lamb slain before the foundation of the world because back in the foundation in the world sins didn't count?!

Read the first line before you talk :daisy:

[Adrian II]

I don't remember that one, I do however, remember:

"God does not play dice"

Quantom theory has refuted this, there is a random element to the universe.Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.

[Tribesman]

So in the beginning there wasn't the word, and the word was not with God, and the word was not God?!
Not according to the Hebrews you took the book from:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

Well it just didn't mention it, so what it's not supposed to be a history book.

Would this be something were my line of "down to interpretation" which i used as an argument in favour of evolution earlier, would work in favour of the bible... and your line of "if its put down bluntly" which you used as an argument against evolution, would work against the bible ?

I realise i haven't exactly got your words down there, and the comparison doesn't exactly match up. But can you see where im coming from ?

God doesn't mention all the evolution stuff and he doesn't mention all the other people that were around to breed... (assuming god exists and the bible is accurate) it would probably be done for simplicity...

Edit: to my point, maybe if you can consider the bible doesn't give you all the information with regards to the first humans maybe you should consider it doesn't give you all the information regarding the construction of humans ?

Or maybe rather it gives a very simplified version...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.

Ok, does that refer to my every post in the Backroom? Or just this thread?

As far as Einstein goes, I'm pretty certain my quote is correct, and I know it's generally agreed that he ascribed to a belief in a determanistic universe and a naturalistic God. When I asked the question, "does God play dice" to a physicist at the University here the answer was, "If God exists, he plays dice" I asked why and was reffered to to Quantom theory. Since I don't have the understanding to grasp Quantom theory I have to take his, and the other people I have asked, word for it.

As to Evolution, I have no problem with it, though I do question whether it it strictly Darwinian, or whether there is some other naturalistic force at work.

As to the Bible, the only time I have remotely touched on it was when you asked me why God created the world, and I gave you a somewhat glib answer. More properly, the consensus seems to be that he desired "companionship". Overall though, I am not interesting in Biblical Creationsim. It is crude, theological bancrupt and arguably blasphemous.

I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"

[LittleGrizzly]

ohh and incase anyone is wondering the Einstien quote refered to (one of my favourites) is...

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... im not sure about the universe though...

Thats the general gist of it... unless theres another Einstien Infinite quote i don't know about...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, that one. I do remember that now, I tend to agree. Apparently Einstien was very popular with the ladies as an undergraduate, very witty and pithy.

[LittleGrizzly]

I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"

Edit: oops posted early

I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...

I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge


*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....

[Rhyfelwyr]

@LG: I see where you're coming from, and I don't think evolution is impossible from a Biblical perspective. But it would mean that other passages in the Bible would have to be said to be false, for example the genaologies from Adam to Jesus (whether you take each character as an individual or the patriarch with descendents in between).

Or maybe I just made that up since I don't actually read the Bible according to Tribesman (yeah that was bitchy of me).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I simply asked the question: "Why does scientificly gained knowledge refute the existence of God?"

Edit: oops posted early

I don't think anyone has tried to make the case it does, whatever we discover from here till the end of time cannot rule out a god* what science does do occasionally is rule out widely held beliefs in certain religions by proving them wrong, this isn't a tragedy usually as you can interpret your way out of most corners to make religious teachings fit what we now know...

I suppose if we had some kind of time travelling device we could rule out the existence of certain religions (assuming they were wrong) but a god with no set things which we can say he did if he existed could exsist regardless of our knowledge


*Unless maybe we become some kind of ascended beings... but that sounds a little sci fi anyway....

From what I have read, "Six day Creationsim" was the lunatic fringe before Jesus was born, people were not stupid back then, and they knew their history went back almost as long as the Bible, leaving little time for the Great Flood and the Garden. They also understood about inbreeding, and could see that Adam and Eve were not a very deep gene-pool. Further, they could see the inconsistancies and downright errors in the Scripture for themselves. Augustine complained that the Bible was unsure of Joseph's father, and couldn't agree on the date of Jesus' birth. Philo in the 1st Century AD recognised that Chapter 1&2 of Genesis contradict each other.

Nevertheless, Che, among others here, seems to think that because bits of the story don't fit it must therefore all be rubbish. This was what I objected to and why I entered the debate.

[Veho Nex]

https://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg250/jkarinen/209449.png

"The only definitive place that god exist, is in the human mind" (A guy from the 1700's, even after a google search I still cannot find his name)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A great question, but it assumes the priest was right in order for there to be a problem.

[Tribesman]

Or maybe I just made that up
In keeping with what you have written in this topic eh ?

[Strike For The South]

https://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg250/jkarinen/209449.png

"The only definitive place that god exist, is in the human mind" (A guy from the 1700's, even after a google search I still cannot find his name)


A personal relationship with Jesus is the greatest thing a man can experience.

I don't usually like to enter these debates because my relationship with God is mine and what I do in my personal time is my buisness.

I take the position God has no place in politics, now some would say I am corrupted for simply believing but those people are idoits.

If you truly don't understand why the faithful believe then don't make a snarky quote or .jpg acting like you do. Debate the merits, fight the intolerance, kick and scream when a religon begins to impede on freedom but do not think you can undo thousands of years of faith with two sentences and a cool backdrop. Espacilly when ignorance is the overiding factor in your snarkiness

Edit: Im not attacking you personally Veho but those quotes have as truth as a virgin on promnight

[Rhyfelwyr]

In keeping with what you have written in this topic eh ?

So where did I misunderstand the scripture then. I mean, you tell me I haven't read the Bible because you disagree with something, so then I show with the first sentence in the Bible you are wrong, and then you go back to atheist point of view and just say "you took the book from the Jews lulz".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"I read about an Eskimo hunter who asked the local missionary priest,
'if I did not know what actions were immoral, would I feel guilty?'
'No', said the priest, 'not if you did not know.'
'Then why,' asked the Eskimo, 'did you tell me?'"


...

[LittleGrizzly]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....

Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

No one seems to be arguing for 6-day creationism, If we are just talking evolution with a creator at the start i don't really see the need for a different name... we don't have gravity and godity, godity being the effects of gravity but put in place by god...

[Tribesman]

so then I show with the first sentence in the Bible you are wrong,
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Read your bloody bible , open it on page one and read it , don't give some evangelical text from the late 1st/early 2nd century and call it the first sentance. If you do want to give the evangelical text then perhaps use one of the other greek meanings rather than the one you used .


then you go back to atheist point of view and just say "you took the book from the Jews lulz".
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Atheist view:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No I said what you claimed was the first sentance of the bible is not , that first sentence would have to be from an old Jewish book that is commonly known in the Christian world as Genesis not the non-synoptic gospel of John .

Some people who make a big del about being "christian" really make me laugh .
While on the other hand ...good post Strike:2thumbsup:

[Sigurd]

Thanks for that sasaki... so much easier than opening the spoiler....
Can someone define what creationism we are actually comparing evolution to ?

There is creationism and then there is Creationism. I believe we are discussing Creationism which is the fundamentalists with a political agenda and has invented Creation-science. They are pushing it into school boards and courts trying to get their religious views into textbooks and teaching materials, even into science classes. :rolleyes:
Their literal interpretation of the Bible is used as basis for their weird ideas, dismissals of scientific discoveries and instead appeal to "magic" as answers.
They should not be confused with creationists which are normal people of faith that do not know how God created the world, but believe He was the cause of all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

[Tribesman]

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.
Srry Rhyf , but you are having real problems getting any of your points to stand at all ...oh and gods laws do change , read your bible:wall:

[Askthepizzaguy]

If God's laws don't change, we are SERIOUSLY behind on all those animal and plant offerings and sacrifices.


ATPG, the Bible story doesn't go that we are all descended from Adam and Eve directly. Other people come out of nowhere, so the only answer from a Christian point of view is that God created them seperately. Not to mention the Bible is against incest so they would hardly make the human race through incest plus that's disgusting anway.


Ummm.... That's so DEAD WRONG. It says, explicitly, in the Bible that Eve was the mother of ALL MANKIND. That means everyone in existence (except Adam, supposedly) came from her womb or her children.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/who-was-cains-wife


In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” In other words, all people other than Adam are descendants of Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–24)—this was a unique event. In the New Testament, Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and onetime event as the foundation for the marriage of one man and one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he couldn’t find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, from the beginning. There could not have been a “race” of women.

Thus, if Christians cannot defend that all humans, including Cain’s wife, can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to explain Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

All human beings came from this supposed "Eve", according to the Bible itself and your Christian scholars and "scientists".

You continue to espouse your personal, contradictory views as if they are the only accepted explanation of the Bible, often times directly opposing what is actually written in the scripture. You are free to do this, my faithful friend, but you cannot actually say that you're literally following the word of the Bible, and if so, then WHY must you continually harp on what amounts to a couple lines out of thousands and thousands regarding the gays, for example? If the Bible isn't literal and it's open to such wild misinterpretations (interpretations regarded as false by the religious authorities) then who are YOU to be the authority on what the Bible says? If it's open to interpretation, I'm just as much of a Biblical authority as you are, and one of the bonuses in my favor is that I seem to understand what the Bible actually says, no offense.

One cannot truly criticize religion without studying it in great detail. I understand you feel you must defend your faith, but you simply haven't ever done so convincingly. Your interpretations about hell, for example, are quite unique and aren't found in the Bible. Your interpretation on the lineage of mankind is directly refuted by Biblical passages.

Should I get you the white-out? Apparently you want to make numerous changes and call it what the Bible says. That makes you no different from most Christian denominations though, so join the hypocrisy club. Especially when it's written in the Bible that those who alter the word of God are in some pretty deep doo-doo.

:laugh4:

Believe what you want; but all your arguments to date indicate that basically, you do believe whatever you want, regardless of what the Bible says. So... why bother quoting it? It's not even an authority in your own mind. It certainly isn't in mine, unless you're discussing what it says, in which case I have the Bible handy and we can debate what it actually says all day long.

It's much like your interpretation of the English language. In prior debates, you would come up with definitions of words entirely the opposite and contradictory from the actual definitions found in a dictionary.

There can be no debate until we agree on what is actually written in the books we use as authoritative references on the subjects we discuss, and in the language we discuss them in. Since you refuse to do so, you've conceded the argument by default.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Read your bloody bible , open it on page one and read it , don't give some evangelical text from the late 1st/early 2nd century and call it the first sentance. If you do want to give the evangelical text then perhaps use one of the other greek meanings rather than the one you used .


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Atheist view:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No I said what you claimed was the first sentance of the bible is not , that first sentence would have to be from an old Jewish book that is commonly known in the Christian world as Genesis not the non-synoptic gospel of John .

Some people who make a big del about being "christian" really make me laugh .
While on the other hand ...good post Strike:2thumbsup:

I'm going to have to come down with Tribes on this one, to be honest Rhy.

I'm still waiting for Adrian to demonstrate my extreme hubris, given that I've only written about 200 words.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you scare me in a way.

I mean, anyone can be wrong from time to time, happens to me often enough. No, what scares me is that you have no idea what battle to fight, wich debate is winable. And you have no idea how to win it, or, as it seems, even an interest to learn anything from it.

I have yet to see you change your mind about anything religious even the slightest even after a mountain of proof has swept over you.



What would it take for you to aknowledge that creationism is just utterly wrong? Would god have to come down, smack you on the head saying "Doh!"

Seriosly, given ALL the scientifical research there is on teh subject, what would make you accept you are wrong? Would anything?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think I'm making the Bible contradict itself. :shrug:

1. Laws such as the sacrifices you are referring to are not anything to do with morality or good or evil etc. They are specific customs given to a certain people on an ethnic basis as part of their culture, and these are changed to mark the various covenants God makes with ethnic Israel. They are nothing to do with morality, as Jesus tells the Pharisees.

2. I don't see what's wrong with my position on hell not being eternal. We debated this before and I gave you all the scriptures quite plainly stating that people in hell will be destroyed completely, it is the flame that is eternal, perhaps for Satan but otherwise people will not be there for ever. The consequences of hell for a person are eternal, but it does not make sense for hell to be eternal, and the scripture doesn't actually say it is.

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it? We are all said to be descended from Adam because he was the first patriarch. Look for example at how non-ethnic Jews incorporated into Israel are treated as descendents of Jacob and promised a place by Abraham's bosom.

[Adrian II]

I'm still waiting for Adrian to demonstrate my extreme hubris, given that I've only written about 200 words.I owe you an apology.

I confused you with our friend Rhyfelwyr. :shame:

I could blame it on my doddering old age, my professional bias or my recurrent fits of cynicism, but there is simply no valid excuse. I am sorry, Philipvs. Of course I still hate your guts in a roundabout, Backroomish sort of way, but I promise I will ne'er confuse you with the gentleman from Scotland again.

:bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh great so what did I do now.

EDIT:

Wait, this is what you said Adrian:

Apparently you know as little about Einstein or quantum theory as you do about the Bible or evolution. Your posts contain so many wild, unproven, unwarranted or untrue claims about any of these that I would ask you to consider the notion of hubris. Seriously, it's no use going on like this, you are positively begging for trolls and satire.

So when did I say anything about anything there?

[Askthepizzaguy]

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it? We are all said to be descended from Adam because he was the first patriarch. Look for example at how non-ethnic Jews incorporated into Israel are treated as descendents of Jacob and promised a place by Abraham's bosom.

I am not sure that you even read what I wrote.

We can't have a debate if you don't respond to my points. I already answered this question before you asked it.

But, to be honest, there is no reaching you. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Believe what you want, my friend... but debate is not for you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not sure that you even read what I wrote.

We can't have a debate if you don't respond to my points. I already answered this question before you asked it.

But, to be honest, there is no reaching you. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Believe what you want, my friend... but debate is not for you.

But you are looking at it from a modern perspective, we are talking about a very patriarchal society when the scripture is written. I already gave you another example from the Bible where you do not have to be biologically descended from somone to be considered their descendent. It is another possibility, that is all. What bit did I ignore?

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are looking at it from a modern perspective, we are talking about a very patriarchal society when the scripture is written. I already gave you another example from the Bible where you do not have to be biologically descended from somone to be considered their descendent. It is another possibility, that is all. What bit did I ignore?

The entire part, including the article I quoted, which completely refutes the idea that the Bible says anything besides every human being is descended from Eve, and then of course later on, from Noah.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The entire part, including the article I quoted, which completely refutes the idea that the Bible says anything besides every human being is descended from Eve, and then of course later on, from Noah.

And I said in a patriarchal society you don't have to be biologically linked to someone to be considered their descendent. If you want to understand what the Bible is saying, don't apply your own values, apply those of the scripture seen throughout it. I gave the example of Gentiles which were accepted as descendents of Jacob and incorporated into ethnic Israel despite having no biological connection to Jacob. Just like Jacob was a patriarch, so was Adam. We can be considered his descendents without being biologically related.

[Adrian II]

So when did I say anything about anything there?Evolution, the Bible, homosexuality, history. Your views reflect a lack both of knowledge and of experience.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on someone who valiantly (and without any ad hominems!) defends his views against so many detractors in various threads. Kudos to you for that sang froid.

But I also remember an exchange we had last year, when you told us that your family dissuaded you from reading the Bible and that you had therefore never really bothered to look at it. I impressed on you that you had a right to read anything you wanted and to pursue your own interest and curiosity. I even pointed out to you various angles from which to study the Bible.

Call me a sentimental old cynic, but I supposed that it would make you a wiser man. It is disappointing to see that only a year later you censure other peoples' lifestyles and views in the most scathing terms in the name of the Bible and 'nature', though based on scant knowledge of either. Have your curiosity and will to learn suddenly evaporated? Has one year of reading Scripture entitled you to pass judgment on science, parenting and other peoples' emotional or sexual life alike?

Did it teach you false pride instead of modesty?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I owe you an apology.

I confused you with our friend Rhyfelwyr. :shame:

I could blame it on my doddering old age, my professional bias or my recurrent fits of cynicism, but there is simply no valid excuse. I am sorry, Philipvs. Of course I still hate your guts in a roundabout, Backroomish sort of way, but I promise I will ne'er confuse you with the gentleman from Scotland again.

:bow:

I feel genuinely relieved. Though we have had our disagrements I respect your intellect and integrity. Your apology is most greatfully accepted. :bow:

Now, let us consider Adam and Eve, before I move to refuting Rhy, I should point out something about inbreeding.

Inbreeding is only bad if the two organisms have defective genes, if man and woman 1.0 were perfect they could get away with it.

So, lets start with the first words of the Bible,

"In the beggining when God created the heavens and the earth," (Gen:1.1)

Later:

So God created Adam (humankind) in his
image
In the image of God he created
him (them)
male and female he created them. (Gen:1.27)
The parenthasis is mine. Chapter two contradicts this with the whole rib/penis bone/flank bit about Eve, though. It's a narrative very similar to other Eastern and Mediteranian ones, there's nothing particually special about it. Prometheus formed man out of clay, and when he stole fire (i.e. technology) for them Zeus' punishement was to inflict all the woes of the world upon man via woman.

As to there being other people, that's contradicted by the story of Babel, where God scatters all the previously unified people, and changes their languages from the original common tongue into a cacophony of babbling.

[Incongruous]

Bleh, embarassing mistake. I've been reading a site on ancient Greek which started with John 1:1 and that got me confused with the God created the Heavens and the earth bit, its a while since I read Genesis, I've only been through the OT fully once.

Point still stands though, God's laws don't change.

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

[Tribesman]

3. People come of out nowhere in Genesis, why would they not be mentioned in Adam's bloodline if they are a part of it?
OMG I don't believe it:dizzy2:


I don't think I'm making the Bible contradict itself.
Thats true , the bible contradicts itself without any input from you. What you are doing though is inventing stuff and saying its in the bible

[Askthepizzaguy]

And I said in a patriarchal society you don't have to be biologically linked to someone to be considered their descendent. If you want to understand what the Bible is saying, don't apply your own values, apply those of the scripture seen throughout it. I gave the example of Gentiles which were accepted as descendents of Jacob and incorporated into ethnic Israel despite having no biological connection to Jacob. Just like Jacob was a patriarch, so was Adam. We can be considered his descendents without being biologically related.

Sometimes I think you go out of your way to deliberately avoid my points.

I am weary. Can anyone who was following what I said pick up where I left off and explain to Rhyfelwyr how it says in the Bible that we all came from Eve, yes even the fantasy women that Cain mated with, and that later on, we apparently all came from Noah's family too, because everyone else was wiped out.

So that's not just one, but two Biblical examples of a severe incestuous all-in-the-family sexathon.

[Tribesman]

So that's not just one, but two Biblical examples of a severe incestuous all-in-the-family sexathon.
The OT is full of incest , even "god ordered" incest from after god had set down the incest laws in the 3rd book .
But I suppose thats just one of those contradictions you don't have to make up eh Rhyf

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG, in all fairness, how can you expect Rhy to hold his ground in this debate if he isn't allowed to make up arguments from the bible? :beam:

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, in all fairness, how can you expect Rhy to hold his ground in this debate if he isn't allowed to make up arguments from the bible? :beam:

Oh be niceth. :laugh2:

Rhyfelwyr holds diametrically opposing views from my own on many things, and sometimes I don't feel he argues his points very well, but I try to treat him with respect. Sometimes I show through satirical example how illogical some tenets of religion are from the perspective of an outsider, or how different it seems to be from common sense, but I try not to mock Rhyfelwyr himself, only criticize what I consider to be a poor argument and explain why. As you might see, we have a decent enough rapport outside of these threads, though we sometimes grate on one another's nerves.

[Incongruous]

Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (:clown:), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm fuzzy on Heretical teachings (:clown:), but what?

How is this even justified by the ministry of Jesus? Where on earth did Jesus procalim that?

Calvin decided that since God was all powerful then EVERYTHING must be according to his direct will. Ergo, evil acts must be something God ordained as part of his Divine Plan.

Further, God decides who he wants to save and inflicts upon them his "Special Grace" which compels them to love him, as opposed to "Common Grace" which is what everyone else gets, does not allow them to love God, condemns them to Hell, but makes their Earthly life bearable.

Such is Calvinism.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?

:focus:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I read about Calivinist thought during my Humanities class and I also checked on him during my ethics class. I'm struggling to remember but... wasn't he really into the fire and brimstone kind of sermons? Or am I mixing him up with someone.

You know, I'm going to look him up right now. He was interesting to say the least, and not in a positive way as I recall.

[Samurai Waki]

I read about Calivinist thought during my Humanities class and I also checked on him during my ethics class. I'm struggling to remember but... wasn't he really into the fire and brimstone kind of sermons? Or am I mixing him up with someone.

You know, I'm going to look him up right now. He was interesting to say the least, and not in a positive way as I recall.

Yeah I think you're right, I seem to remember a section on John Calvin when I had to take Theology in School. Even the Catholics thought he was a bit extreme, and this was during the Witch Hunt Era.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Evolution, the Bible, homosexuality, history. Your views reflect a lack both of knowledge and of experience.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on someone who valiantly (and without any ad hominems!) defends his views against so many detractors in various threads. Kudos to you for that sang froid.

But I also remember an exchange we had last year, when you told us that your family dissuaded you from reading the Bible and that you had therefore never really bothered to look at it. I impressed on you that you had a right to read anything you wanted and to pursue your own interest and curiosity. I even pointed out to you various angles from which to study the Bible.

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone. :shame:

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).


Call me a sentimental old cynic, but I supposed that it would make you a wiser man. It is disappointing to see that only a year later you censure other peoples' lifestyles and views in the most scathing terms in the name of the Bible and 'nature', though based on scant knowledge of either. Have your curiosity and will to learn suddenly evaporated? Has one year of reading Scripture entitled you to pass judgment on science, parenting and other peoples' emotional or sexual life alike?

Did it teach you false pride instead of modesty?

Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?


What?!?

Are you a Christian? What on earth do you think Jesus' ministry was about? Good god! The Christ clearly discarded nearly every facet of the OT, all that crap from Deut and Numbers, all that stuff Moses said, thrown away.

I often wonder why the heck the OT is even part of Christian scripture, as far as I'm concerned it is a different God, the Lord God of Christ was in no way the same as the thing which demanded that no covenant be made with an enemy, that the "chosen" destroy utterly all whom stand in their way, men, women and children.

What are you? A Puritan?

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.


Worse a Puritan Calvinist, so his God only loves some people, or loves some more than others.

Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

[Adrian II]

[..] do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?That depends on the arguments you use. If you appeal to nature, the Bible or history in support of your opinion, you better make darn sure you cover those bases.

I remember I was totally delighted the first time my oldest son started talking to me. I mean talking as in: making sense of an issue by using his own brains, his own imagination, instead of preconceived notions handed to him by adults, including me.

I asked him what made Odysseus a hero, expecting the standerd kiddy answer that Odysseus was a winner. Instead, my son said: 'Because he was smart.' So I asked him what made Odysseus smart, expecting something along the line of: because he out-smarted his adversaries. Instead, my son said; 'Because he knew his own limits.'

Boink!

In his eleventh year of life, my son hit the fount of all wisdom. Just like that, between two bites of a sandwich. And thanks to a children's version of Homer, of course. It made him discover something about himself. That's what the good books are for, if they serve any useful purpose at all. Same goes for nature or history: in the end they are sources of self-knowledge for us, not of (natural) history or jurisprudence.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah it was coming eventually. :tongue2:

So, some folks of the EB Tavern think my idea that we humans might not have a common ancestor with apes to be absurd. To clear some things up before people make false assumptions, I think it is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that human life on it goes way back beyond a few thousand years. Also, I do not deny that evolution is a very real thing, and I think the artificial distinction between micro/macro evolution is not really based on anything.

So, you all know I'm a religious fellow and I put my faith in the good book, and from my understanding of it it is hard to see where Darwin's ideas on humans origins fit in. However, if the evidence for us sharing a common ancestor with other creatures is truly overwhelming, then I will consider changing my position.

I never really took Biology beyond the early years of secondary school, it is one of the few subjects I dropped at Standard Grade level. So, when people have been having the good old evolution v creationism argument I have to admit I mostly don't know what they are talking about.

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys :tongue2:).

From what little I have looked into this, I wouldn't say that genetic similarities are enough to suggest we are related. It's not surpising they exist, we live on the same planet and need to exist in the same environment after all. So, what I need to see are the links, that are clearly actual bridges between the species, and not just similarities.

Now, I'll await the barrage...

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?

:focus:

:wall:

PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear :book:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, by now you have seen what the "Darwinist side" aka scientists has to offer. Sure it might do you good to spend some time reading up on the fineprints.

So have you changed your mind, and if not, what part of evolution is it that you still don't believe in / haven't understood?

:focus:

:wall:

PS: Second time I post this. I am still intrigued by what part of evolution still remains unclear :book:

Stop trolling.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not so much that they dissauded me, more it would have been embarassing, yeah I know I need some backbone. :shame:

I didn't come here to argue about creationalism, for now I'll just hold my hands up and say I'm not sure, if you re-read the first post you can see I'm not taking an argumentative tone. The only time I ever presented any sort of argument on the matter was when I asked (not stated) if it is possible that DNA similarties equated to common descent, something Sigurd also asked in more detail.

I started arguing more when things got off topic and people started telling me I don't know the Bible. I dind't read the whole thing and works of lots of other theologians to get told that. In fact, things like ATPG has said that I have made up are not actually my ideas. Take for example the non-eternal hell issue. I didn't come up with that, the Jehovas Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists did - two of the scrictest fundamentalist sects of there (with the former of course adding a word here or there).

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.


Who's views did I censure? If I wasn't trying to learn I wouldn't have made a thread asking for other people to present their views. And on the original topic of evolution, I didnt' even argue against it, I just questioned if it could fit with the Bible! As for the thread on homosexuality... that is something I have always believed, that children should be raised by heterosexual parents. I'm not judging them, I'm not doing a Fred Phelps, I'm just saying that I don't think that such an environment would be good for a child. That's just what I think, a gut feeling, do I have to be an expert on stuff just to give an opinion?

It's your tone, not your content.


I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.



Is there any other kind of Puritan (if we're using capital P's)?

You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

[Kadagar_AV]

Stop trolling.

Huh?

You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your therad start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Incongruous]

I'm a puritan with a small 'p'. Please don't go down that road of calling all non-Catholics/non-close-to-Catholics as non-Christian, its not very nice and I could do the same to Catholic views but it's not what this thread is for.

Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't interpret though, you just absorb. I've said this to you before, if you aren't willing to make your own judgements just don't ever touch theology, don't read the Bible, don't ever think about it. As to reading Theology, JW SDA are not reputable. Read Augustine, Boethius, Aquinus, Wesley, Hooker, Crammer, Wyclif, Luthor, and for some modern flavour try the last and current Popes, Rowan Willians and Alistair McGrath for starters.

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.


It's your tone, not your content.

On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.


You look like a Puritan, not a puritan (what ywould hthat be anyway). As to the link with Calvinism, that is what the rest of Christianity finds disturbing, not your mode of worship.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.


Not what I did, I just replied to a post of yours which I found astounding, that is all, so keep the "omg Catholic heretic hunter" in the bin.

I was interested is all.

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhy, you seem to have made it an art to avoid direct questions. It's not a debate technique that leads very far, you know.

let me remind you:


You opened up the thread asking about evolution, saying you were ready to change your mind if enough spoke in favour of evolution vs creationism.

Now some hundreds of posts later you've been hit with a ton of facts trying to explain.

So question remains, what part is it that still is unclear?

Or if nothing is unclear, what makes you still believe in creationism? What make it more believable?

It is contraproductive to call those question "trolling", as they relate to the very reason of your thread start. If you want us to help you understand evolution, you must of course point to the areas yet unclear to you.

warm regards :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

And you make an art of of not following threads properly.

Generally speaking I think the evidence is quite stongly in favour of evolution, although it is not completely beyond dispute, as Sigurd showed. Obviously as a Christian I see if I can reconcile it with my faith and specifically the Bible, and if you'll read you can see that I say it is possible that theistic evolution is what happened, although I am not quite comfortable with how such an interpretation sits with the scripture.

So for the moment I'm just going to hold my hands up and not take an opinion, I think I can still get on with life that way.

[Incongruous]

OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

Cathar?

Perhaps simply a Catholic whom wishes the Church to go back to what Jesus and the Apostles preached? It is not heretical at all to suggest it and is the spirit of the modern church, in the West at least. I do not believe that YHWH in the OT is the same as The Lord God Heavenly Father that I give thanks and praise to. YHWH in the OT seems to be a Hebrew version of the generic god of war and takes on much of the same features as most Near East war gods, however the religious extremism of the Hebrews is exceptional. I believe that the Covenenat of Israel was proved false with the ministry of Jesus, I believe he made it quite clear that God intended a covenant with all people. Whether it was through the friendship of Publicans or his attacks on the way the Temple had been used. the YHWH who called for slaughter, I think was merley the political tool of Hebrew leaders.

Jesus was fulfilling the messianic prophecy, but that does not mean he agreed with the OT, he clearly did not agree with most of if we look at his sermon on the mount. The thing reads like a history of war in Israel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What makes you say that I don't interpret any theology? Generally speaking I agree with certain strands of Christian belief, because that is what I have felt compelled to believe in.

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.


On reflection that's maybe fair enough, although its also maybe something to do with constantly coming under siege.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.




I could be wrong, but I always thought that a "Puritan" referred specifically to dissenters within the Church of England following the Reformation. I remember reading something about the Pilgrims, and how that because of this they were not actually "Puritans", just a "puritanical" sect, since they never attended the Anglican services and had their own seperate church polity.

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.


OK fair enough, sorry for being so harsh, I'm getting a bit frantic with this these days. Also calling certain branches of Christianity non-Christian is a pet peeve of mine. The Old Testament is also important to Catholicism, Jesus always referred to how he was fulfilling the scriptures after all. Of course, Jesus is the only example of how to act for any Christian, even the Puritans believed this. The way you talk about the OT almost makes you sound like a Cathar!

You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

[Tribesman]

If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....
buy it an island and claim it on expenses:2thumbsup:

[Rhyfelwyr]

You yourself have said you are not willing to make private interpretations, or to conduct your own exegesis.

You might want to consider why the other Christians here find your views objectionable, it has to do with the content of them.

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.


If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck, sounds like a duck and floats....

In any case dissenter is the wrong word, Puritans fell into two groups. Those willing to work within the Church and respect others, now the Low Church, and those not. The latter are largely extinct, though their ilk has recently resurfaced in the modern "Evangelical" Churches.

OK, I won't start an argument over semantics.


You called a Roman Catholic a Cathar, that frankly is absurdly foolish to say the least.

I'm with him, and so is the Pope, and Canterbury, and the Methodists, a lot the Baptists, the Pentacostals.... Jesus clearly rejected much (not all) of the OT.

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.


As to Calvinsim not being a form of Christianity. Argueably the conception of God is completely different, and the "Reformers" believed that only the "Elect" that is, Calvinists, entered heaven.

So maybe Calvinism isn't a form of Christianity, personally, I have seen that theology do more harm than good on and individual and collective scale.

Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well that's what the scripture warns against. Obviously everything we ever learn we interpret, information can't really enter our brains without first passing through our own biases, understandings, and generally our own framework of storing it. I just try not to go overboard with fanciful interpretations, and reading my own values into things.

As for my views being objectionable, that's fair enough. Obviously we will take issue with each other's views for various reasons, doesn't mean we can't still accept each other as Christian though.

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.


He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.


Maybe Arminianism isn't a form of Christianity, since it prominises Christ as a saviour, yet he saves noone. It says that Christ died to redeem a sinful world, and in doing so failed even to pay for the sins of one soul. It says that we are born sinners, and yet not so sinful that we cannot reform ourselves, as if our hearts of stone happily remove themselves in anticipation of a heart of flesh. And perhaps the greatest insult to the Christian religion of all, certain Arminians happily boast of their good use of their free will in bringing them to salvation. As Grevinchovius says “I may boast of mine own, when I obey God’s grace, which it was in my power not to obey, as well as to obey". What a sickening thing to say.

Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your views are objectionable for reasons which make it difficult to accept you as Christian, most potently your refusal to see God as Universal Father.

And yet, in its efforts to extend God's grace to all men, Arminianism raises mankind to such a level that it would seem we hardly require God in the first place. Though it glosses over the morbid reflection Calvinism gives of mankind, Arminianism still suffers from the same fundamental issues, in that a loving God would create a creature with the capacity to sin, and punish them for it. Ultimately, their sins are still a product of what they are - imperfect beings, created as such by God.


This just demonstrates your ignorance of scipture and the state of things outside your own denomination. The Gideons society, and the Army, issue a special NT, Psalms and Commandments Bible to children, and serving soldiers. It does a more than an adaquate job as a spiritual comfort and communicator of the basics of the Gospel. Additionally, unless I miss my guess I would say Magyar is reffering to the Israelite interpretation of God, not the person of God Himself.

That is a perfectly valid point, and the opinion is held by Theologians of many denominations.

If that is what Magyar was suggesting, then he should have said so. I also do not understand your comment about my denomination, do we read the same scripture or not (generally speaking of course, at least as far as the parts about Yahweh being a "war god" go)?

Also, just because we can get by as Christians with the NT does not mean that the OT is not important, otherwise Jesus would not have bothered referring to it. If people give out special NTs or whatever, then that is of course fine, in fact it is probably recommended over ploughing through the whole thing from Genesis, although that's what I did myself. As I said, Jesus is our only example and that's all we need to know, so if Jesus worshipped Him, as He was in the Jewish scriptures, then we should too. Jesus never once told the Jews they were worshipping a false God, he simply told them of their failures to serve him.


Congratulations, you have just demonstrated you do not understand the Christian conception of God, which is why you can't understand what you just said is nonsense.

1. God is all powerful.

2. He is best by no counterforce and restricted by none save himself.

3. Therefore all proceeds as he Wills

This was hardly new to Arminius, it's Christianity 101. It follows directly that if ANYONE goes to heaven it is by the will of God and if ANYONE does not it is also by God's Will. Throughout history most Theologians have said that man must have free will, because otherwise God would not Will anyone into Hell.

Calvin, for no apparent reason took the conception of God as a benevolant Father and turned it on it's head, if people go to Hell it MUST be his Will because God is irresistable. What Calvin did was identify the inherrent flaw in the Free Will arguement (how to reconcile Free Will with Divine Kowledge) closed it and instead created the problem of why God Loves some people more than others.

Of course, God can do whatever he wants, so if he wants man to have free will, he does. On the other hand, Calvin's God is either unjust (and therefore not God) or limited in power (and therefore not God).

In all the times we have had this arguement you have always appealed to mechanical simplicity, suggesting that because there is an apparent difficulty in the mechanism by which God grants free will it must be an illusion, but you have never answered the question of why God hates me when he made me and decides my every action.

Though it might be surprising to people here, I am a pretty timid soul in RL. I might have easily been discouraged by your confident dismissal of my understanding of God, if you have not then went on to ascribe it to Calvin as well, which is quite clearly a foolish and unfair thing to do, even to the most hard-headed Pelagian.

I cannot understand your argument that God should save us all, as if we are deserving of it, or He is somehow obliged to take mercy on us. But then that stems also from our differences in what we see to be the fallen nature of man. In it's efforts to counter Calvinism (which we should remember, that is what Arminianism aimed to do - Calvinism is often seen as the negative, defensive reaction to Arminianism on account of the 5 TULIP points being raised in the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrants, as if Arminianism was somehow the more 'natural' form, and Calvinism a corrupt offshoot), the Arminians attacked the very roots of Christianity - that we are all born sinners. And so this creates many problems that are undeniably equal to that many see in the doctrine of limited atonement. It seems that this semi-Pelagianism would have us believe that we have the right to boast of our salvation as Grevinchovius so proudly did, as though the scripture was mistaken to ever tell us that it was a gift and not the result of works that we could boast of. Arminianism makes man out to be a sort of morally neutral agent; fundamentally good and yet somewhat defective, and as such a creature that should be seen as fit for God's mercy. Calvinism doesn't, it teaches we are sinners, in fact more than that, it teaches that we are sin in our fallen condition. God transforms us from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:8), and does not speak of a dull flame, or a match waiting to spark itself with some prompting (for the holy ghost is no more than a general moral persuasion in Arminianism, apparently somehow appealing to us when we still have a heart of stone).

And so, in fairness, we each have elements to our teachings which many Christians today would not be happy to lend their support to. The fact is, some people are saved and others are not. You can attack me and tell me that limited atonement is an un-Christian doctrine, but there seems to me nothing more un-Christian that boasting of salvation, as if one person deserves it more than anther. And if it is by chance that some are saved and others not, then this seems hardly more ideal than limited atonement in the first place.

[Incongruous]

He called Yahweh a war god that isn't even the trinitarian God of the New Testament! That's blatant Catharism if ever I saw it! The NT doesn't make any sense at all without the OT. Jesus didn't come because the Old Covenant was false or not from God, he came because we people failed at the Old Covenant.

The YHWH reffered to in Deut and Num is not the same God which Jesus talked of, how on earth can you link the two together? By making the Lord a raving loon with bi-polar? The Hebrew chiefs and scribes were clearly using the religion of their people for their own ends. YHWH was a war god, I have read many books on the subject at university and they all either point or make explicit claim to YHWH being a war god. The genocide commited in his name invalidates him as the true God, in fact I think it invalidates him as a god full stop.

That does not mean that God did not talk to the Israelites, but I think that whatever message may have been goven, it was perverted.

Jesus, would most likley agree with me, indeed I agree with him. I mean Christ wasn't very Messianic when he just let himself be executed was he? The Messiah was supposed to come with fire and sword according to the Hebrew scriptures. Scriptures I believe were written by a priesthood bent on some kind of Godly revenge upon Greek, Babylonian, Persian and Roman. They are the ramblings of angry men, Jesus did not agree with all of it, mosy of the OT he disregarded, thus why he was so revolutionary.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet, in its efforts to extend God's grace to all men, Arminianism raises mankind to such a level that it would seem we hardly require God in the first place. Though it glosses over the morbid reflection Calvinism gives of mankind, Arminianism still suffers from the same fundamental issues, in that a loving God would create a creature with the capacity to sin, and punish them for it. Ultimately, their sins are still a product of what they are - imperfect beings, created as such by God.

A man has nothing, save that which is from God. Arminius simply rephrased traditional Christian belief in opposition to Calvin. Traditional Christianity is not without it's philosophical problems but in order for man to Sin he must have the capacity to act independently of God's direct Will; it is a by-product of being able to freely love God. Without free will love of God must be forced, and is therefore not love.


If that is what Magyar was suggesting, then he should have said so. I also do not understand your comment about my denomination, do we read the same scripture or not (generally speaking of course, at least as far as the parts about Yahweh being a "war god" go)?

I believe it is in Isaiah, though I am not sure, "The Lord is a Man of War", we quote it on EB I's loading screens. In any case, I would say he was more of a War/Sky God, something like Tyr or Zeus. In any case, if you knew the Creeds you would no Magyar's point was implicit, it doesn't need to be said.


Also, just because we can get by as Christians with the NT does not mean that the OT is not important, otherwise Jesus would not have bothered referring to it. If people give out special NTs or whatever, then that is of course fine, in fact it is probably recommended over ploughing through the whole thing from Genesis, although that's what I did myself. As I said, Jesus is our only example and that's all we need to know, so if Jesus worshipped Him, as He was in the Jewish scriptures, then we should too. Jesus never once told the Jews they were worshipping a false God, he simply told them of their failures to serve him.

Jesus said they were worshipping him the wrong way, and he provided ample examples of bad laws in scripture (the food laws, sex laws, marriage laws etc.). Face it, Jesus rejected the spirit of the Old Testemant and much of the content.


Though it might be surprising to people here, I am a pretty timid soul in RL. I might have easily been discouraged by your confident dismissal of my understanding of God, if you have not then went on to ascribe it to Calvin as well, which is quite clearly a foolish and unfair thing to do, even to the most hard-headed Pelagian.

Calvin's system makes a nonsense out of Grace, and I am hardly the first man to say so, Hooker, whose statue I pass every day, was no fan of Calvin either. Just because Calvin was clever does not mean he was pious or close to God. I would go so far as to say Calvinism sacrifices traditional Christian love, compassion ans sympathy in favour of a rigourous, and closed, system.


I cannot understand your argument that God should save us all, as if we are deserving of it, or He is somehow obliged to take mercy on us. But then that stems also from our differences in what we see to be the fallen nature of man. In it's efforts to counter Calvinism (which we should remember, that is what Arminianism aimed to do - Calvinism is often seen as the negative, defensive reaction to Arminianism on account of the 5 TULIP points being raised in the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrants, as if Arminianism was somehow the more 'natural' form, and Calvinism a corrupt offshoot), the Arminians attacked the very roots of Christianity - that we are all born sinners. And so this creates many problems that are undeniably equal to that many see in the doctrine of limited atonement. It seems that this semi-Pelagianism would have us believe that we have the right to boast of our salvation as Grevinchovius so proudly did, as though the scripture was mistaken to ever tell us that it was a gift and not the result of works that we could boast of. Arminianism makes man out to be a sort of morally neutral agent; fundamentally good and yet somewhat defective, and as such a creature that should be seen as fit for God's mercy. Calvinism doesn't, it teaches we are sinners, in fact more than that, it teaches that we are sin in our fallen condition. God transforms us from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:8), and does not speak of a dull flame, or a match waiting to spark itself with some prompting (for the holy ghost is no more than a general moral persuasion in Arminianism, apparently somehow appealing to us when we still have a heart of stone).

And so, in fairness, we each have elements to our teachings which many Christians today would not be happy to lend their support to. The fact is, some people are saved and others are not. You can attack me and tell me that limited atonement is an un-Christian doctrine, but there seems to me nothing more un-Christian that boasting of salvation, as if one person deserves it more than anther. And if it is by chance that some are saved and others not, then this seems hardly more ideal than limited atonement in the first place.

I believe God's love is universal and unlimited, it saddens me that you cannot see that at the root of my arguement. This has nothing to do with boasting, with any complex system it is simply this:

I believe God loves me no more and no less than he loves anyone else, that he is the universal father of creation and that he offers salvation to all his children without bias. I also believe that he must suffer greatly when even one of his children rejects him and refuses to ask for forgiveness. This is a God, and a father, who extends his love to all his children from the moment they are concieved, at least, whose Grace touches every living thing.

This is my God, who walked among his children in the form of one of them, incarnate as a man, and who dined for their sins, and to show them an example of love, sacrifice and forgiveness.

Arminius, like those before him, believe that man was not inherently good, but good by the Grace of God, and that this Grace was universal, a gift to all men and women everywhere.

I do not think this is remotely your God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A man has nothing, save that which is from God. Arminius simply rephrased traditional Christian belief in opposition to Calvin. Traditional Christianity is not without it's philosophical problems but in order for man to Sin he must have the capacity to act independently of God's direct Will; it is a by-product of being able to freely love God. Without free will love of God must be forced, and is therefore not love.

So you do admit that those problems exist?

As for being forced to love God, this is not the case with Calvinism. Calvin believed that we are born as slaves to sin, we do not have the capacity to love God. The process of giving us a heart of flesh is forced, since otherwise it would not come about. But after that, Calvin believed fully in free will. Having been born again, you love God because you want to. Although salvation is of the lord, there is still free will in moral choices.


I believe it is in Isaiah, though I am not sure, "The Lord is a Man of War", we quote it on EB I's loading screens. In any case, I would say he was more of a War/Sky God, something like Tyr or Zeus. In any case, if you knew the Creeds you would no Magyar's point was implicit, it doesn't need to be said.

So where do you draw the line? Was it this war god that gave the covenants to Israel? Was it this war god who told the prophets to predict Jesus' coming? Where exactly is the real Yahweh in the OT, if he is even there at all? And if not, why would Jesus refer to Him, and promise to fulfil his prophecies? Are we left with our own imagination, as though the scripture is entirely unreliable?


Jesus said they were worshipping him the wrong way, and he provided ample examples of bad laws in scripture (the food laws, sex laws, marriage laws etc.). Face it, Jesus rejected the spirit of the Old Testemant and much of the content.

Indeed they were, it was not my aim to dispute that the Jews weren't worshipping the way they should be. But I do not think that Jesus so much rejected the OT, as he did expand upon it. He took the laws of tablets of stone and wrote them on our hearts, he took the basic ethnic-based laws and traditions and made them into a serious moral code. One example I think I've gave before because I like it so much is that of the Sabbath. They didn't abandon the Sabbath, but instead changed it from a day of the week, to our eternal rest in Jesus Chritst - great stuff! Also, I think the rather miraculous fact that an Israeli state exists today is testament to the validity of the Old Covenant.


Calvin's system makes a nonsense out of Grace, and I am hardly the first man to say so, Hooker, whose statue I pass every day, was no fan of Calvin either. Just because Calvin was clever does not mean he was pious or close to God. I would go so far as to say Calvinism sacrifices traditional Christian love, compassion ans sympathy in favour of a rigourous, and closed, system.

I can only urge you to study Calvin's life, and you will quickly see that it is undeniable that he was a very pious soul. And it is Arminianism that makes nonsense out of God's grace. It turns it from a complete, transformative force, wholly regenerating sinners into godly folk; into nothing more than, as the Remonstrants put it, a "general moral persuasion". So this force is nothing greater than any wordly force, no more effective than the arguments any man may put forward, made disctinct only by its supernatural form - all this to avoid trampling upon our free will. Indeed it makes God's grace a very delicate and innefectual force, I hardly see how it could be said to have any effect at all if we are truly said to be sinners.


I believe God's love is universal and unlimited, it saddens me that you cannot see that at the root of my arguement. This has nothing to do with boasting, with any complex system it is simply this:

I believe God loves me no more and no less than he loves anyone else, that he is the universal father of creation and that he offers salvation to all his children without bias. I also believe that he must suffer greatly when even one of his children rejects him and refuses to ask for forgiveness. This is a God, and a father, who extends his love to all his children from the moment they are concieved, at least, whose Grace touches every living thing.

This is my God, who walked among his children in the form of one of them, incarnate as a man, and who dined for their sins, and to show them an example of love, sacrifice and forgiveness.

Arminius, like those before him, believe that man was not inherently good, but good by the Grace of God, and that this Grace was universal, a gift to all men and women everywhere.

I do not think this is remotely your God.

I am well aware a universal love is at the heart of your argument. The issue is that when you combine universal love with the fact that not all are saved by it, then you have a very flimsy, innefectual, and far from absolute love indeed. Does a parent say to their teenage child, "well, you are in such a hormonally-inspired rage as to no longer wish our love, and so for the sake of your free will we will spare you from it"? Of course not, by its nature love it absolute. Of course, you could say that God loves them as he sends them to hell, which leaves us wondering that if God truly knows what is good for people, why does He not save them? The wills of all men resist God at some time, something which we surely must both confess to. Why then, if he loves them, would God not intervene for the people's own good. He's supposed to be a shepherd, does he sit by as His sheep wander off to die in their ignorance? He hardly seems fit to call Himself by such a term.

And again, the heart of my issue with Arminianism remains. Why do some accept God and not others? Are we better, or just lucky? I have never heard this answered effectively.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you do admit that those problems exist?

Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.


As for being forced to love God, this is not the case with Calvinism. Calvin believed that we are born as slaves to sin, we do not have the capacity to love God. The process of giving us a heart of flesh is forced, since otherwise it would not come about. But after that, Calvin believed fully in free will. Having been born again, you love God because you want to. Although salvation is of the lord, there is still free will in moral choices.

If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.


So where do you draw the line? Was it this war god that gave the covenants to Israel? Was it this war god who told the prophets to predict Jesus' coming? Where exactly is the real Yahweh in the OT, if he is even there at all? And if not, why would Jesus refer to Him, and promise to fulfil his prophecies? Are we left with our own imagination, as though the scripture is entirely unreliable?

All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.


Indeed they were, it was not my aim to dispute that the Jews weren't worshipping the way they should be. But I do not think that Jesus so much rejected the OT, as he did expand upon it. He took the laws of tablets of stone and wrote them on our hearts, he took the basic ethnic-based laws and traditions and made them into a serious moral code. One example I think I've gave before because I like it so much is that of the Sabbath. They didn't abandon the Sabbath, but instead changed it from a day of the week, to our eternal rest in Jesus Chritst - great stuff! Also, I think the rather miraculous fact that an Israeli state exists today is testament to the validity of the Old Covenant.

Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.


I can only urge you to study Calvin's life, and you will quickly see that it is undeniable that he was a very pious soul. And it is Arminianism that makes nonsense out of God's grace. It turns it from a complete, transformative force, wholly regenerating sinners into godly folk; into nothing more than, as the Remonstrants put it, a "general moral persuasion". So this force is nothing greater than any wordly force, no more effective than the arguments any man may put forward, made disctinct only by its supernatural form - all this to avoid trampling upon our free will. Indeed it makes God's grace a very delicate and innefectual force, I hardly see how it could be said to have any effect at all if we are truly said to be sinners.

Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.


I am well aware a universal love is at the heart of your argument. The issue is that when you combine universal love with the fact that not all are saved by it, then you have a very flimsy, innefectual, and far from absolute love indeed. Does a parent say to their teenage child, "well, you are in such a hormonally-inspired rage as to no longer wish our love, and so for the sake of your free will we will spare you from it"? Of course not, by its nature love it absolute. Of course, you could say that God loves them as he sends them to hell, which leaves us wondering that if God truly knows what is good for people, why does He not save them? The wills of all men resist God at some time, something which we surely must both confess to. Why then, if he loves them, would God not intervene for the people's own good. He's supposed to be a shepherd, does he sit by as His sheep wander off to die in their ignorance? He hardly seems fit to call Himself by such a term.

And again, the heart of my issue with Arminianism remains. Why do some accept God and not others? Are we better, or just lucky? I have never heard this answered effectively.

So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.

[Louis VI the Fat]

thanks to a children's version of HomerA children's version? Tsk. :no:

When I was eleven, being the refined intellectual that I am, I had already read Homer in its Latin original. :book:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis, I will assume that was a joke.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When I was 11 all I was reading about was stories like how in a town in Mexico they dig a pit, but then people fall in so they need to fill it, and so they did another pit, etc.

Never mind your fancy continental education systems about philosophy and other such renaissance quirks, here you learn what you need to learn.

[Adrian II]

A children's version? Tsk. :no:

When I was eleven, being the refined intellectual that I am, I had already read Homer in its Latin original. :book:Yeah, yeah. My kids fart, chew gum and start bitching if Dad doesn't serve them fries on Friday, dontcha worry. Real fries by the way, not the little French poof sticks.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, there is a difficulty in reconciling his revealed Will to give man free will with his unlimited knowledge, this is, however, due to not understanding the means by which he exercises his power. There is not problem as to why man was given free will to begin with, there is not inconsistancy in God's divine Will itself.

Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.


If man is a slave to sin, it is by the will of God.

If man does not have the capacity to love God, it is the will of God.

If man is utterly corrupt unless he is forced to redemption, that is by the will of God.

Also, Calvin did not actually believe that you loved God because you want to, he believed God wills that you want to. Your love is the direct will of God, since Special Grace is irresistable.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is a force in the universe to oppose God.

And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.

In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.


All excellant questions, and equally pertinant for the NT which has also been corrupted.

You could place your faith in God, rather than a book written and authorised by old men long after the fact.

Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.


Firstly, the State of Israel exists today because of the Holocaust, if you want to ascibe that to God you are beyond all hope, frankly. Aside from that, Jesus CLEARLY rejected the Old Law, he invalidated it, it is explicit.

A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.

Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).


Without Preveniant Grace man would be an animal, that its effect in the world is not immidiately obvious does not detract from the fact that it underpins every aspect of our existence.

As to Calvin, he to me represents the worst of Christian polemicists and hate-mongers, his theology bore rotten fruit during the "Godly Republic" when it was used as the justification for the despoiling of tombs, smashing of alters, and closing of churches. I am surrounded daily by reminders of the destruction that took place in the name of God.

Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.

I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.

I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.


So, if you loved a woman, would you rape her to prove your love, or would you let her go if she did not want you? If, once your child had reached their maturity, they no longer wanted anything to do with you, would you lock them up or let them go. Absolute love does not mean unilatteral action.

Your alternative is that God hates most of his children and spiritually rapes the rest.

Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Such practical concerns are only part of the issue with Arminianism. Generally, I think the problem is threefold. Firstly, it lacks scriptural support. Secondly, it has the previously mentioned practical issues. And thirdly, I think it is detrimental to a Christian individual's practice of Godliness, and contradictive with important parts of Christianity in general. The last point is the most important one, with the other two, particularly the second, being secondary issues, but worth noting nonetheless.

One is completely a matter of opinion. Many of the passages you think demonstrate limited atonement I think show no such thing, especially since parables have only one meaning, Hooker and Wyclif both demonstrate scriptural support for free will and the irrelevance of any "elect". This is the majoriety view throughout history and across denominations, both before and after Calvin.

Two, practical is not a problem, unless you want to unravel God's divine power. Knowing how God does something is not important, you can't know anyway. Producing an arguement for why he does something is far more important. Calvin presumed to know God's divine plan, he must have believed he was Elect, which meant he believed he was right. The situation was only made worse by his followers, who exasberated the doctrine and virtually claimed it as divine law.

The third is not a problem, because all you have comes from God. If anything Calvinism is worse, because it will, and has, led to individuals believing they are justified in their actions as members of the Elect.


And it is true also with Arminianism, that if man has even the capacity to sin, then he was created that way by God, and it is God's will that he may sin. You have the freedom to do good or evil, but ultimately the very nature of your character on which you are judged is created as it is as a result of God's will.

On the other hand, free will has a justification because without free will you cannot truly love God and have a relationship with him. you are just his slave.


In this case, I agree with what you say on Calvin, but only so far as our fallen nature is concerned. If you are born a slave to sin, even sin itself, then naturally a forceful transformative process will be needed to give a person a heart of flesh. But having been through such a process, the decision to love God is not forced. It is both God's will that we love Him, and our own.

Bigger problem, why does God create people who can't love him?


Of course my faith is fundamentally in God Himself, the book is there for general spiritual guidance and to help to spread the word. Generally speaking it is fine to question parts of the scripture and their reliability. But the issue being raised here over Yahweh is far too integrated throughout the entire scripture to dismiss as an inaccuracy on account of it being written by men. Even the historically earliest events in the OT regarding Yahweh's covenants with mankind are constantly referred to throughout the NT, often by Jesus himself, not to mention the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was based upon the prophecies given to the prophets by the Yahweh of the time period which you are calling into question.

Um, sorry, but I completely dissagree. The Jews had a very good idea of what the Messiah was going to do, based on the prophecies and history of the Torah. Jesus failed completely in their eyes. Cmparison only serves to illuminate human bias in the scripture at both ends.


A little bit extreme in the first sentence there I think. I remember a quote where one of the French kings asks for proof of God's existence, and he is told something along the lines of "the Jews sire, the Jews!". If that was true a few hundred years ago, then it must be ten times moresoe today when we have an Israeli state. There's a reason why dispensationalism has largely replaced covenant theology in Reformed circles. Of course, there are the usual historic forces which played their role in the Isralei state coming into being, it was not just a case of God snapping His fingers. But then, why do you so readily dimiss God playing an indirect role in such a process? You are happy to say that we evolved through the process of evolution by God's design, and yet you cannot say that God played a similar overseeing role in the state of Israel coming into being.

I believe in free will, and I don't believe God would kill millions of people to prove a point. Just because there are still Jews means nothing, you could equally argue it proves free will because God chosen people refused to accept him, which makes no sense as they will be destroyed.


Also, Jesus quite clearly did not abolish the Old Covenant and much of the OT along with it as you suggested. Jesus himself says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).

Scripture is not necessarily divine law, why don't you quote the next verses and then try to tell me he did not reject parts of Hebrew scripture.


Of course God's grace still has a notable role in Arminianism, but it is far less of a force than it is said to be in Calvinism, not such an 'Amazing Grace' at all.

Arguably, Calvinism requires a counterforece, while other theologies do not. So Calvin's God is weaker.


I think you are being harsh on Calvin himself, and that your disapproval would be better aimed at those who upheld the form of Calvinism which led to the things you speak of. Calvin himself never supported violent resistance under even the most extreme circumstances, although in the last version of the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion' which were published in 1559, he did point to the case where Daniel disobeyed what he deemed to be an impious royal edict. Though Calvin himself always held to such a position, his successors did not. John Knox brought a more radical form of Calvinism to Scotland, and indeed his works such as 'The Appellation' were important in justifying the Covenanters role in the conflict you speak of, in which Knox argues that the gentry and other important people within society are appointed to their roles by God just as kings are, and as such may use their God-given roles to protect the common people from tyrants. Also, the man you mentioned earlier as being a victim of the conflict, Richard Hooker, actually played an important role in justifying the Parliamentarians. He was a pioneer of the contractarian branches of resistance theories, as he claimed that kings ruled both by divine right and human right, the latter being a form of contract between the king and his subjects.

You last part about Hooker is off, he is reading Wyclif there. Hooker was an important theolgian, I wanted you to read his works, whether or not he was persecuted is not relevant. As to Calvin, men were executed in Geneva for not following religious laws he had pushed for, and with his permisssion.

Fundamentally, Calvin believed God loved some people more than others, I would not accept that on pain or death.


I can see you very passionately dislike Calvinism, which is fair enough, indeed if I recall correctly you suggested in a past discussion that Calvin could even have ben the antichrist. But I think you must study it more to truly understand it. Just as surely as modern evangelicals spread misinformation about Catholicism such as saints having special powers as you said to me before; so to are there many misconceptions about Calvinism which are readily passed about in the circles which have had little exposure to it.

I have seen it used to invoke suffering, on Christians, on others, and to sow division.


Those analogies are hardly appropriate, since they involve harming people in the name of the love; a spiritual transformation and eternal life in heaven are hardly comparable. Also, they are wrong because in Calvinism it is taught that we have free will to love God once we are saved, it is purely the transformative process that is forced. Before that process takes place, we are sin, we have nothing but a heart of stone, unable to love God, and unable to even want to.

Calvin believed in "Saving Grace" and that it was irresistable, it cleared your mind and left you free to love God. In effect, it was forced because Calvin assumed that no one would reject God if not restrained by the Devil. He also argued for Common Grace, which is what stops us killing each other.

The Rape analogy is apropriate because I don't believe in forced trasformation, just because Cavin says it is "Saving Grace" doesn't make it any such thing. Here we have the root of my problem, if you believe in Election as the only means to enter heaven and exercise concience and good thought; what if Calvin was Unelect?

That's Calvinism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

little French poof sticks.My girlfriend says that my lack of size isn't important, only what I do with it. ~:mecry: