Evidence for creationism

[Brian Shanahan]

but "born in sin" - I never heard anyone claim that we are ejaculated in sin

"Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate."

As sung by an angelic choir of Castratos. This is pretty much the Catholic viewpoint on sticking your sperm in anything other than your wife.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Those don't logically follow.

The truth of Jesus's substitutionary atonement to avert God's justified wrath, depends on the truth of the notion that man IS in fact responsible for sin and suffering hence why Paul draws a straight line between Adam and Jesus.

 

[Methos]

Do you really care? I'm not being facetious. I care. I find it fascinating.

Don't worry, I have no problem with your question.

Do you have courses in calculus and linear algebra under your belt? I found thinking regarding multiple dimensions to be much easier once I got a feel for those two types of maths

I tried studying some of this, but its rather difficult to wrap my head around. Part of the problem is I've looked at this some via science (not much though) and also esoterically via the Kaballah, among other texts.

Anyway, if you don't have a lot of time to devote to this, I found this astronomy professor's seminar to be quite good. His talk is intended for a lay audience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPkGEVgOJK0

Thanks for the link. When I have time, I'll watch it.

Then to put it baldly, you're not a Christian.

It's always annoying when you have non-believers argue using the Bible, or literal meanings of it. I don't know what his faith is, or even if he has one, but the Bible isn't the only route to be a believer in God. Quit being so rude and disrespectful. Heck, I don't recall him even stating if he has faith, yet you're insulting him anyway.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

It's always annoying when you have non-believers argue using the Bible, or literal meanings of it. I don't know what his faith is, or even if he has one, but the Bible isn't the only route to be a believer in God. Quit being so rude and disrespectful. Heck, I don't recall him even stating if he has faith, yet you're insulting him anyway.

But it is acknowledged to being the only route to believing in the Christian God. You sign up to believing in the scriptures when you become one. All religions work this way, they ask you to take stuff on blind faith and not question the hows or whys, otherwise they wouldn't be either very effective or coherent religions.

 

[Lone Wolf]

All religions work this way, they ask you to take stuff on blind faith and not question the hows or whys, otherwise they wouldn't be either very effective or coherent religions.

But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren't a priest."

"What?" asked the thief, almost gaping.

"You attacked reason," said Father Brown. "It's bad theology."

Now, I happen to think that the Catholic Church is less driven by reason then it thinks itself, but they admire reason. Officially, at least.

 

[carlosMM]

Moderator Action: Inappropriate content deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ParkCungHee]

The truth of Jesus's substitutionary atonement to avert God's justified wrath, depends on the truth of the notion that man IS in fact responsible for sin and suffering hence why Paul draws a straight line between Adam and Jesus.

Yes but you haven't disputed that fact, you've disputed the fact that the story of Genesis literally happened, and from there assumed that man is not responsible for sin. Just because the story of how man is responsible for Sin is not litterally true, doesn't mean man is not responsible for sin.

 

[Methos]

But it is acknowledged to being the only route to believing in the Christian God. You sign up to believing in the scriptures when you become one. All religions work this way,

I disagree. Your argument is based on the orthodox Church in regards to God. I'm not knowledgable about the other religions, so I can't argue either way in regards to your statement regarding non-Christian/Jew religions.

they ask you to take stuff on blind faith and not question the hows or whys, otherwise they wouldn't be either very effective or coherent religions.

While I agree with the above regarding the orthodox Church, or mainstream Christianity, that isn't how my denomination does it. Referring to it as my denomination isn't the correct term, but I'm not sure what the best way to express it is.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But it is acknowledged to being the only route to believing in the Christian God.

By who, precisely?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

By who, precisely?

Go up to any priest, minister or pastor ordained by a proper Christian denomination, and ask them if the Bible is the central document of their faith, and that it is neccessary to know (at least in general terms) it in order to be Christian they will say yes.

 

[Arakhor]

Being at least partially familiar with the Bible does not in any way insist that you must trust it as literal Gospel truth.

 

[Tacitusitis]

It's always annoying when you have non-believers argue using the Bible, or literal meanings of it.

The Bible is kind of definitive of Christian theology. If you don't believe the theology of the Bible, you are not theologically a Christian.

Quit being so rude and disrespectful.

I don't really consider it an insult to call someone a nonChristian. The contrary even.

Yes but you haven't disputed that fact, you've disputed the fact that the story of Genesis literally happened, and from there assumed that man is not responsible for sin. Just because the story of how man is responsible for Sin is not litterally true, doesn't mean man is not responsible for sin.

OK I see where you're coming from now, and that's a very fair point.

But, Park, if this is the route you want to go you have to think about two things -

A) how Paul (as an apostle, saint, and theologian) now reads in light of the fact that he was wrong about Adam/Eden being literally true. What about Jesus - if Jesus literally believed in Adam would that cast doubt on his being God?

B) you have to come up with an alternative scenario explaining why man is responsible for everything. Life has been dying and rotting and eating other life for billions of years before man first appeared on the scene so... good luck?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Being at least partially familiar with the Bible does not in any way insist that you must trust it as literal Gospel truth.

Well then what kind of theology does Christianity have? Is it just a case of picking the bits you like a la carte off the menu. Frankly that makes you about as religious as the new Age "pagans" whose beliefs boil down to "whatever I feel like".

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Chukchi Husky

I'm curious. Could you tell me what your teachers thought about ecology (the science, nor the green movment) And what they thought about free-market economy?

I don't know. I was never taught anything about ecology or economics.

 

[Arakhor]

Well then what kind of theology does Christianity have? Is it just a case of picking the bits you like a la carte off the menu. Frankly that makes you about as religious as the new Age "pagans" whose beliefs boil down to "whatever I feel like".

I'm not a theologian, but provided you accept Christ Jesus as the Son of God and attempt to live your life as he taught, I would say that you are a Christian.

 

[ParkCungHee]

A) how Paul (as an apostle, saint, and theologian) now reads in light of the fact that he was wrong about Adam/Eden being literally true. What about Jesus - if Jesus literally believed in Adam would that cast doubt on his being God?

Probably, but I find that unlikely. Biblical literallism is a largely new phenomenon. As Plotinus said in another thread, Genesis is in the mythical genre, it's like thinking the Greeks literally believed to enter paradise you just had to climb a mountain, or to find a dead relative you just had to fall in a hole. I find no particularly powerful evidence that Paul was a biblical literallist in his letters other then the fact that he makes mention of Adam.

B) you have to come up with an alternative scenario explaining why man is responsible for everything. Life has been dying and rotting and eating other life for billions of years before man first appeared on the scene so... good luck?

What does that have to do with man's responsibility for Sin?

Go up to any priest, minister or pastor ordained by a proper Christian denomination, and ask them if the Bible is the central document of their faith, and that it is neccessary to know (at least in general terms) it in order to be Christian they will say yes.

By that reasoning, there were no christians until several decades after the death of Christ.

 

[Methos]

I find no particularly powerful evidence that Paul was a biblical literallist in his letters other then the fact that he makes mention of Adam.

There's an interesting argument that Paul may have been a Gnostic, who were definitely not literalists.

 

[carlosMM]

I find no particularly powerful evidence that Paul was a biblical literallist in his letters other then the fact that he makes mention of Adam.

Paul's letters have been seriously played havoc with, much of the bad stuff is not real. For example, the comment about women having to shut up in church (loose translation, I know) is really from a letter TO Paul, not BY Paul. Which explains why he bothered to write greetings to a bunch of female church leaders - he was not anti-women at all.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Is there even a good reason why Paul is presumed to have any kind of authority?

 

[GoodGame]

So God created the Calvin Cycle to prove that he liked Calvinism?