Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[7djengo7]

What Arthur Brain says, Pee Wee says more elegantly, and with merciful brevity.

 

[ok doser]

Oh look!!! Allegories having allegories :rotfl:

all the way up to the "allegory" of the risen Savior

 

[Arthur Brain]

I agree... but you do it anyway.

Adam is ALWAYS spoken of in scripture as an actual MAN and not as an "allegory".

No, I don't. It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.

Oh look!!! Allegories having allegories :rotfl:

You should try reading the link that anna posted again.

Of course you do... your fundamentalism includes:
[*]God's Word cannot be taken seriously.
[*]Man-made ideas are above God's Word.
[*]etc. etc. etc.
[/LIST]

No, it just means that I'm not bound to a man made belief system that insists on rigid literalism of an account whereby the allegory is obvious.

You can continue to lie. It suits your nature.

"Science" is your "god".

I'm not lying. You accept absolute non-science if you lap up "creation science" because that's entirely what it is.

Any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

It's no wonder that it was barred from being taught as science in schools and rightly so. So again, you don't accept science, you just reject science.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, I don't. It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.



You should try reading the link that anna posted again.



No, it just means that I'm not bound to a man made belief system that insists on rigid literalism of an account whereby the allegory is obvious.



I'm not lying. You accept absolute non-science if you lap up "creation science" because that's entirely what it is.

Any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

It's no wonder that it was barred from being taught as science in schools and rightly so. So again, you don't accept science, you just reject science.

Paul provides, in 1 Corinthians 15, a test by which one can invalidate all of Christianity (including the idea that the earth is young).

Here's the test:

If Christ is not risen, then Christianity is a completely vain belief. But the opposite is true. If Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other beliefs are false.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NKJV

Christ said that He made man at the beginning of the creation, male and female, and that if you don't believe what Moses wrote, you won't believe what Christ said.

So the question to be asked here?:

Arthur, did Christ rise from the dead?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Paul provides, in 1 Corinthians 15, a test by which one can invalidate all of Christianity (including the idea that the earth is young).

Here's the test:

If Christ is not risen, then Christianity is a completely vain belief. But the opposite is true. If Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other beliefs are false.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NKJV

Christ said that He made man at the beginning of the creation, male and female, and that if you don't believe what Moses wrote, you won't believe what Christ said.

So the question to be asked here?:

Arthur, did Christ rise from the dead?

Christ rising from the dead and stating that man is created male and female from the outset in no way negates allegory or actual science where it comes to the age of the earth etc. There's no problem for anyone who isn't bound to a rigid belief system whereby the Genesis account has to be read 100% literally.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Christ rising from the dead and stating that man is created male and female from the outset in no way negates allegory or actual science where it comes to the age of the earth etc. There's no problem for anyone who isn't bound to a rigid belief system whereby the Genesis account has to be read 100% literally.

I notice you didn't actually answer the question, Arthur.

Yes or no:

Did Christ rise from the dead?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I notice you didn't actually answer the question, Arthur.

Yes or no:

Did Christ rise from the dead?

Sure. Happy now?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Paul provides, in 1 Corinthians 15, a test by which one can invalidate all of Christianity (including the idea that the earth is young).

Here's the test:

If Christ is not risen, then Christianity is a completely vain belief. But the opposite is true. If Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is true, and all other beliefs are false.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NKJV

Christ said that He made man at the beginning of the creation, male and female, and that if you don't believe what Moses wrote, you won't believe what Christ said.

So the question to be asked here?:

Arthur, did Christ rise from the dead?

Sure.

So if Christ rose from the dead, that means that Christianity is valid, and all other religions/beliefs are false.

Christianity teaches that Christ said that God made man at the beginning of creation, male and female, which is consistent with and in agreement with what Moses wrote in Genesis 1 and 2, that God made Adam, and then He formed Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.

Christ also says that if you don't believe Moses, then you will reject what He Himself says.

Since you affirm that Christ rose from the dead, then it follows logically that you affirm that the claims of Christianity are true.

One of those claims is that Moses spoke the truth when he said God made man male and female on day six of creation which is in line with what Christ said, that God made man male and female at the beginning of creation.

Do you reject this claim?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So if Christ rose from the dead, that means that Christianity is valid, and all other religions/beliefs are false.

Christianity teaches that Christ said that God made man at the beginning of creation, male and female, which is consistent with and in agreement with what Moses wrote in Genesis 1 and 2, that God made Adam, and then He formed Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.

Christ also says that if you don't believe Moses, then you will reject what He Himself says.

Since you affirm that Christ rose from the dead, then it follows logically that you affirm that the claims of Christianity are true.

One of those claims is that Moses spoke the truth when he said God made man male and female on day six of creation which is in line with what Christ said, that God made man male and female at the beginning of creation.

Do you reject this claim?

Yes, because it's your own claim and one mired in fundamentalism that can be discarded accordingly. Your belief system is not Christianity.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, because it's your own claim

False.

Did or did not Moses state the following:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. - Genesis 1:24-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

and

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. - Genesis 2:4-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&version=NKJV?

Did or did not Jesus state the following:

And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” . . . And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:3,5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

When taken at face value do these texts say that man was made at the beginning of creation, or after millions of years?

 

[Arthur Brain]

False.

Did or did not Moses state the following:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. - Genesis 1:24-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

and

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. - Genesis 2:4-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&version=NKJV?

Did or did not Jesus state the following:

And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” . . . And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ - Mark 10:3,5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

When taken at face value do these texts say that man was made at the beginning of creation, or after millions of years?

"biblegateway"?

Pass...

How you can't see allegory in at least some of that is also bemusing. Obviously, after millions of years. No problem for people not mired in fundamentalism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"biblegateway"?

Pass...

Do you have an issue with me quoting the Bible or something?

I use Bible Gateway because their app allows me to copy/paste verses with ease, rather than having to type the verses out, and it doesn't format the text oddly.

You didn't answer either of the questions I asked, again.

Did or did not Moses state the above?
Did or did not Jesus state the above?

How you can't see allegory in at least some of that is also bemusing.

When taken at face value (that means without trying to read any beliefs into what something says and without trying to interpret the text, as true or genuine without being questioned or doubted) do the texts say that man was created at the beginning of creation, or after millions of years?

If you want to apply allegory to the text after we determine what it actually says, go for it.

But first you need to know what the text actually says, without interpretation.

Obviously, after millions of years. No problem for people not mired in fundamentalism.

And where does it say millions of years? Because the text says, plainly, "and the evening and the morning were the sixth day" and "from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’"

My point is this:

You cannot arrive at the conclusion that the text means or says "after millions of years" WITHOUT the a priori belief that it means after millions of years.

Your problem, Arthur, is that you're coming to the text with the a priori belief of "after millions of years," rather than coming to the texts with no a priori beliefs. In other words, you reject the claim that the earth is young NOT because "it's a fundamentalist claim" or "it's mired in fundamentalism", or because "it's not Christianity." No, you reject the claim that "God made man at the beginning of creation, on day six" because you have an a priori commitment to your belief that the universe is millions/billions of years old.

It has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It's simply that you, Arthur Brain, are too attached to your belief that the universe is older than a few thousand years to allow Scripture to speak plainly. It's that you think you know better than God does about what His Word says.

And yes, by "Word" I mean Christ.

Arthur, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is vain.

But if Christ DID rise from the dead, then what He said is true.

You affirmed that Christ rose from the dead. Therefore it is logically inconsistent for you to assert that what Christ said was not true, or to assert that He didn't mean EXACTLY what he said.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Do you have an issue with me quoting the Bible or something?

I use Bible Gateway because their app allows me to copy/paste verses with ease, rather than having to type the verses out, and it doesn't format the text oddly.

You didn't answer either of the questions I asked, again.

Did or did not Moses state the above?
Did or did not Jesus state the above?

How you can't see allegory in at least some of that is also bemusing.

When taken at face value (that means without trying to read any beliefs into what something says and without trying to interpret the text, as true or genuine without being questioned or doubted) do the texts say that man was created at the beginning of creation, or after millions of years?

If you want to apply allegory to the text after we determine what it actually says, go for it.

But first you need to know what the text actually says, without interpretation.



And where does it say millions of years? Because the text says, plainly, "and the evening and the morning were the sixth day" and "from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’"

My point is this:

You cannot arrive at the conclusion that the text means or says "after millions of years" WITHOUT the a priori belief that it means after millions of years.

Your problem, Arthur, is that you're coming to the text with the a priori belief of "after millions of years," rather than coming to the texts with no a priori beliefs. In other words, you reject the claim that the earth is young NOT because "it's a fundamentalist claim" or "it's mired in fundamentalism", or because "it's not Christianity." No, you reject the claim that "God made man at the beginning of creation, on day six" because you have an a priori commitment to your belief that the universe is millions/billions of years old.

It has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It's simply that you, Arthur Brain, are too attached to your belief that the universe is older than a few thousand years to allow Scripture to speak plainly. It's that you think you know better than God does about what His Word says.

And yes, by "Word" I mean Christ.

Arthur, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is vain.

But if Christ DID rise from the dead, then what He said is true.

You affirmed that Christ rose from the dead. Therefore it is logically inconsistent for you to assert that what Christ said was not true, or to assert that He didn't mean EXACTLY what he said.

Oh, it has everything to do with fundamentalism. Anything that doesn't concur with a rigid and absolute, literal reading of the Genesis account is "wrong" effectively for people like you. Heard it many times before and your'e not saying anything new frankly. You're too entrenched into such a belief that you can't entertain actual science that disproves YEC, even though it's been provided for you time and time again by Christians on here. I don't expect you to change or entertain anything that conflicts with fundamentalism as that's what it does unfortunately. It completely discourages independent thought.

 

[Stripe]

What they're saying is science.

You have no idea what science is. That you think what people say might be science proves it.

Creation science is not science.

Nobody said it was. And nor should they.

I'm being pedantic for a reason. That reason is to show that you have no idea what science — or the law — is.

Barb, Alate and others have shown you how ridiculous YEC is on here for years and you were never going to listen.

We've got plenty of time. Show us their best argument if you haven't got evidence of your own. :up:

 

[Stripe]

No, I don't. It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.

Ah, the poetry gambit again. :chuckle:

Can you explain how the fact that the Genesis account employs poetry and allegory means that it cannot be an account of history?

We'll wait. :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

No, I don't. It's quite easy to see allegory and poetic narrative in the Genesis account.

You're seeing things that are not there. And it's simple to understand why.

You should try reading the link that anna posted again.

Again you try to wave the magic wand and make it all just disappear.

It disgusts me the way that you denigrate the Word of God.

No, it just means that I'm not bound to a man made belief system that insists on rigid literalism of an account whereby the allegory is obvious.

You even try to flip the truth on its head. YOURS is the man-made belief system.

And NO, I do NOT "insist on rigid literalism"... I insist on taking God's Word in its normal and natural reading, unlike you who make almost every into an allegory when it's NOT!

I'm not lying. You accept absolute non-science if you lap up "creation science" because that's entirely what it is.

Any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science

It's no wonder that it was barred from being taught as science in schools and rightly so. So again, you don't accept science, you just reject science.

Another pile of lies. You're pathetic.

 

[ok doser]

I use Bible Gateway ....

me too

is there something controversial about BibleGateway?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, because it's your own claim and one mired in fundamentalism that can be discarded accordingly. Your belief system is not Christianity.

:rotfl:

So now you're redefining Christianity.

You are a HOOT!!!

 

[JudgeRightly]

me too

is there something controversial about BibleGateway?

That's what I've been wondering!

:idunno:

I guess it's that people don't like having truth shoved in their face...

 

[ok doser]

That's what I've been wondering!

:idunno:

I guess it's that people don't like having truth shoved in their face...

for me it's like using wiki or google dictionary - a good solid, usually reliable first reference