Christian Explanation

[Samson]

Arcanus, No, it wasn't Matt that I was having my discussion with, I was just making sure you were talking about the same Matt in which I looked up. And yes, the person who I was having this discussion with, which posted the quote on slavery, and their attempt at rationalizing it, has much of the same view (If not exact) as Matt.

As far as the the answers I get back, 80% of them are in some type of defense mode of "How dare you" make me think for a change...

And of course I get the occasional "No", but without any type of explanation when asked further about their answer.

Arcanus, are you a literal Bible believer? I don't think you are, I'm just curious...

[Ryft]

My beliefs are nearly identical to Matt's as well—at least, on the stuff of his I've read covering specific orthodoxy (e.g., soteriology, the branch of theology that deals with salvation).

Am I a literal Bible believer? It depends on what you mean by "literal"—an important point to consider (especially in this place) because the term is often used pejoratively rather than responsibly. To interpret the Bible literally involves scholarly hermeneutics, a responsible exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context. If we held "literal" in its often pejorative sense with consistency, then the Bible has nothing to say to anybody today because, for example, Paul's two letters to the Christians in Corinth were written, well, to those Christians in Corinth. Christians in other places would have to ignore the letters, and even those in Corinth would have to ignore them a generation later because they were written to their predecessors, not them. What is often meant by "literal" turns out to be silly and unsustainable.

The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means. That's basically how we take the Bible "literally." Historical accounts are taken "literally" as historical, theological expositions are taken "literally" as theological, poetic praises are taken "literally" as poetic, etc.

[rjh4 is back]

My beliefs are nearly identical to Matt's as well—

You don't happen to write for him do you? I read on his website that he now has others that help him.

Am I a literal Bible believer? It depends on what you mean by "literal"—an important point to consider (especially in this place) because the term is often used pejoratively rather than responsibly. To interpret the Bible literally involves scholarly hermeneutics, a responsible exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context. If we held "literal" in its often pejorative sense with consistency, then the Bible has nothing to say to anybody today because, for example, Paul's two letters to the Christians in Corinth were written, well, to those Christians in Corinth. Christians in other places would have to ignore the letters, and even those in Corinth would have to ignore them a generation later because they were written to their predecessors, not them. What is often meant by "literal" turns out to be silly and unsustainable.

The Bible means what it says, and it says what it means. That's basically how we take the Bible "literally." Historical accounts are taken "literally" as historical, theological expositions are taken "literally" as theological, poetic praises are taken "literally" as poetic, etc.

I agree with this approach. What is your specific position on creation, the flood, etc.?

[solarwave]

Hey rjh4! I havn't really talked to you on here so far so I'll like to ask you the same thing you asked Arcanus to get an idea of what it is you believe.

[rjh4 is back]

Hey rjh4! I havn't really talked to you on here so far so I'll like to ask you the same thing you asked Arcanus to get an idea of what it is you believe.

I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible. God and the Bible as the word of God are my starting point for my analysis of reality. Observational science is really good for explaining the universe that God created and I have not seen nor heard of a scientific observation that would necessarily contradict the Bible. To a very large degree, historical science, particularly as it relates to origins, is taking observations and extrapolating to the unobserved past and, therefore, the conclusions reached by scientists will reflect their own bias and presuppositions. So insofar as the conclusions/interpretations made by these scientists conflict with the Bible...I will go with the Bible. I think that this world view explains reality better and is more consistent than any other world view. Are there still questions that I can't answer? Certainly, but I think there are unanswerable questions for any world view.

[Violet]

I think you have some serious reading to do, rjh4....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_street your kind of show?

[rjh4 is back]

I think you have some serious reading to do, rjh4....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_street your kind of show?

Either you did not read my comments very carefully or you did not understand what I was saying.

Regarding evolution (common descent), that is an extrapolation from the kinds of changes that we do see all the time. Nobody has observed the kind of changes required by common descent. Dogs change but they are always dogs. Bacteria mutate but they are still bacteria. Humans change but we are still humans. So while I agree that changes do occur, I do not think this necessitates the interpretation/conclusion of common descent. The kinds of changes that we do see are consistent with Biblical creation of kinds and variations within those kinds.

I'm not sure why you cited the wiki article on fossils.

Regarding the wiki article on the flood, I'm not exactly sure why you cited this either. Just because someone, or even a lot of someones, think it is a myth does not make it so. Maybe all those civilizations had stories about a great flood because there was one.

If you want to talk about some specific thing we observe today that you think it contradicts the Bible in some way, please let me know.

[Violet]

I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible

That one

We have enough evidence for evolution to put our evidence for it to the level of something like gravity... you know: FACT. o.o

The fossils are cited because you think they all are the same age. This is ridiculous ^_^ As with evolution and gravity: FACT. o.o

The biblical deluge
[edit]Flood geology
Main article: Flood geology
Proponents of flood geology contend that the biblical deluge, Noah's ark, is to be taken literally in which most observed geological processes, like fossilization and sedimentary strata, are a later result of this event.
While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[24] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[25][26] this view is no longer widely held.[27]
[edit]

And it did not happen. This is a FACT. o.o

[rjh4 is back]

I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible

That one

We have enough evidence for evolution to put our evidence for it to the level of something like gravity... you know: FACT. o.o

The fossils are cited because you think they all are the same age. This is ridiculous ^_^ As with evolution and gravity: FACT. o.o

The biblical deluge
[edit]Flood geology
Main article: Flood geology
Proponents of flood geology contend that the biblical deluge, Noah's ark, is to be taken literally in which most observed geological processes, like fossilization and sedimentary strata, are a later result of this event.
While some people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists, and historians, many of whom consider it pseudoscience.[24] Though at one time even prominent workers in biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology,[25][26] this view is no longer widely held.[27]
[edit]

And it did not happen. This is a FACT. o.o

I ask you to cite some specific thing we observe today that you think it contradicts the Bible in some way and this is what you come up with!! Evolution insofar as it means common descent is a conclusion/interpretation that extrapolates from the kind of changes we see today. It is not something we observe today. Has anyone observed a dog change into anything other than a dog? Even when one hits fruitflies with radiation to mutate their DNA, does one get anything other than messed up or dead fruitflies? The fact that this is the kind of thing we observe is more consistent with biblical creation than with common descent.

As for the fossils, yes I do think they (or most of them) are the same age. You say this is ridiculous. Why don't you take me through the process of dating them step by step and we can discuss where I would take issue with the process.

Just saying the flood did not happen doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it. Again, if you want to discuss specifics, I am happy to do so but the generalizations are not helpful to either of us. So many of the people here say they are skeptics and freethinkers but never want to question current scientific thought, only Biblical thinking. Interesting.

[Violet]

It is not something we observe today.

Life > Domain > Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species > Sub-species > Organisms.

My very individuality from you is an equivalent case to a worm's individuality from you. What's the difference? We're more related genetically, which genes (and deeper down, DNA and RNA) are responsible for life's evolution in the first place. Unless you are trying to make the case that I am exactly the same as you: you accept evolution. Known to you or not: evolution is an indisputable fact of life

Based on this fact

---

(((never once has a decent evolutionary disproof been discovered... and all these 'missing links' are just like you and me today: organisms part of a larger subspecies part of a larger species, which is part of a larger genus still. You and me are the products of evolved life... we are the simplest evidence of evolution [beyond all of that scientific proof]. I'd say you should stop denying that evolution is a fact, and realize exactly what it means.)))

---

... How could you *NOT* expect the fossil record to show exactly what we see around us today? If you dropped dead today, we can prove that you didn't die 100 years ago (aside from the obvious reasons) via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating .

It's really pretty damn impressive that we can achieve a 2-5% margin of error over 2 1/2 BILLION years... I'm impressed, and I'm not even trying to return our civilization to the Christian Dark Ages What serious flaw do you see in radiometric dating? It works AMAZINGLY... I would have called it magic a few years ago We're listening, if chortling ^_^

Just saying the flood did not happen doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it. Again, if you want to discuss specifics, I am happy to do so but the generalizations are not helpful to either of us. So many of the people here say they are skeptics and freethinkers but never want to question current scientific thought, only Biblical thinking. Interesting.

Here is what it takes to 'prove' something as fact in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Long story short: it takes a hell of a lot of critical review before something is fact... scientists don't just go "Yeah man, that sounds right... you wanna pass me another beer?"... they TEST things RIGOROUSLY... to the point that there is no REASONABLE doubt that it is fact.

Why don't we even for a moment believe the flood... because there is a hell of a lot of EVIDENCE against it... and zippo on the evidence for it. It is probably a fact that the level of the sea was at one time in the past higher than it is now (By a lot perhaps)... but it was due to completely logical natural causes... not a ridiculous rainstorm that rose water levels over the friggin mountains and wiped out all life on earth except for 2 of every animal (and 7 of some) and some humans all loaded on an ark that was fucking tiny (which is just fucking ridiculous anyhow!). The Bible earned it's 'reputation' itself... the current scientific world has been 'SHATTERED?' so many times in the past and present (And will continue to be in future)... how can you even THINK that skeptics and freethinkers don't want to / don't question scientific thought?

Hell, I even questioned .9^ = 1... An established mathematical FACT since the greeks have been around! 2000+ some years ago! Every one of us gains by questioning everything (ESPECIALLY science)... it is ridiculous to state that we only question ridiculous biblical thinking.

I mean this entirely with good humor