Dyer, Moose, Religion

[Moose]

Dyer,

 

I wasn't going to answer your questions....I'm thinking that it's possible that you're setting me up. Then I read your first sentence again, you said that you're sincerely interested. So, I'm going to answer them, but I'm moving this to another forum. We've gotten way too far off the subject of this thread, so it's time to move off of here to another venue.

 

I'm going to start a thread in the personal rants and confessions forum. This way the Moderators won't have to go in here and do a bunch of deleting.

 

I hope this is ok with you Dyer, I'm going to title it, "Dyer, Moose, Religion". I would put it in the religious, spiritual forum, but this is more of a personal subject now. Hope you don't mind. I'll see you in there.

[dyermaker]

I don't think they'll allow it if you name me specifically. Maybe just answer the questions in the abstract?

[Moose]

Moose, sincerely interested:

 

1. Do you believe the sun revolves around the Earth?

2. Do you believe that the sky is really a dome of water? '

3. Do you believe in germs?

4. Do you believe in genetics?

5. Do you believe the moon landing was simply a satanic mistake of recording history?

6. Do you believe that changes in a species are a result of God tinkering with his creation?

7. Do you believe that people who lived before the Bible was written could still be saved?

 

1. No, I've witnessed for myself that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I didn't need science or history to illustrate that fact to me. Although there was a time I actually thought and believed it could all be illusional, but logic tells me differently.

 

2. The sky a dome of water? What makes you think I'd believe such a thing as that? Just because I believe in the Bible and God's word, it doesn't mean that I don't understand the science of things. Although, rumor is (I'm sure you've heard), that there is never any more or any less water on Earth, it keeps recycling itself over and over. I don't know if it's true or not, but I found that tid-bit fascinating. Since I've only had the privleage of maxing out at 35,000 ft. above sea level, I can't tell you for sure. I didn't witness this for myself.

 

3. Of course I do. That's why God gave us white blood cells. To combat these little intruders. I've witnessed germs for myself. And the white cells God blessed me with took care of the little boogers.

 

4. Of course I believe in genetics. I see proof in my children everyday. I see proove in my alcoholism. I see proof in my Parkinson's disease. I've witnessed for myself that genetics exists.

 

5. Since I wasn't there, I can't tell you for sure. I've seen the footage, the stories, the books, all the proof presented to me. But I can't tell you for sure that anyone actually landed on the moon. It could've all been filmed out in the desert for all I know. I could tell you that yes man did land on the moon. That doesn't mean I'm right. Because I didn't witness the first steps for myself.

 

6. I've never witnessed any creature on earth change aspects of their species, or evolve to adapt to it's enviroment. I've never seen anything mutate to survive in their changing surroundings. The closest I've ever saw to complete physical change were catipillars metamorphisizing into moths or butterflies. Now that I think is awesome. But no, since I didn't witness it for myself, I don't think God, "tinkers" with His creation. God is perfect in everything He does, why would He mess with something that began as being perfect to begin with?

 

7. Noone who have past from this life before Christ paid for our sins by dying on the cross could be, "saved". There were laws before then, though, that God expected man to follow in order to re-establish a relationship with Him after the fall of man. Those who followed those laws will be in heaven when the, "saved", souls enter.

 

How do you account for the two differing creation stories I alluded to earlier?

Are you aware of any of the other numerous contradictions in the Bible?

 

Like I said, I've never read two different creation stories in the Bible, and I've told you before that I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself in any way shape or form. So the answer to your question is no, I'm not aware of other numerous contradictions in the Bible. But I invite you to attempt enlightening me.

[Moose]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I don't think they'll allow it if you name me specifically. Maybe just answer the questions in the abstract?

 

Good point, but maybe they'll let this slide seeing how we both knew before hand? If not, I think you and I can come up something, may be tough, but I think if we tried real hard we could. hehe

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

1. No, I've witnessed for myself that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I didn't need science or history to illustrate that fact to me. Although there was a time I actually thought and believed it could all be illusional, but logic tells me differently.

How could, then, the sun have stood still over Joshua and his battle? Wouldn't it have been the Earth that stood still, if such an event really occured?

The sky a dome of water? What makes you think I'd believe such a thing as that?

It says so, clear as day, in the Bible. One of the stories (keep in mind I believe Creation is a theological truth and a historical fiction) states that God took water, divided it into two parts, and put one above an ethereal dome. This is how they explained the sky being blue. I thought you believed "God's word" (The Bible) over science, pardon.

 

Although, rumor is (I'm sure you've heard), that there is never any more or any less water on Earth, it keeps recycling itself over and over. I don't know if it's true or not, but I found that tid-bit fascinating.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but yes, this is true. Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, and through a proccess of natural cleansing, the same water that was here over 4 Billion Years ago, or whenever you believe Earth was created, is here today. Otherwise, where would it come from? Space?

 

3. Of course I do. That's why God gave us white blood cells. To combat these little intruders. I've witnessed germs for myself. And the white cells God blessed me with took care of the little boogers.

My only reason for asking this question is that people who wrote the Bible didn't understand germ theory at all. They didn't know why they got sick when they ate bad meat, so they figured anyone who was sick was being punished by God. That's why Pork is considered unclean to Jews.

 

5. Since I wasn't there, I can't tell you for sure. I've seen the footage, the stories, the books, all the proof presented to me. But I can't tell you for sure that anyone actually landed on the moon. It could've all been filmed out in the desert for all I know. I could tell you that yes man did land on the moon. That doesn't mean I'm right. Because I didn't witness the first steps for myself.

My only reason for asking would be that the Creation stories give heaven a clear, tangible location, and a moon landing would have interfered with the belief that God's home is actually in the sky (above the dome of water).

 

God is perfect in everything He does, why would He mess with something that began as being perfect to begin with?

Okay, I know you don't believe in evolution, but I'm going to explain a small portion of it. Forgive me if you know this already, but a ton of people don't.

 

Animals don't evolve to become "better", or more perfect. Changes occur in species (that's a fact) because of changes in the environement.

 

A perfect example is this. No matter what, variation exists among a population. This is simply due to genetics, and the fact that sexual reproduction doesn't produce exact clones of anything.

 

You have 10,000 white moths, but 100 of them are black.

The reason there are so many white moths is because they're harder to see (for predators) against the white background of white trees, their home.

The reason there are so few black moths is that black moths are easy to see on the background, and so they're killed before they're old enough to create offspring of their own, which would result in more black moths.

 

Then, all of the sudden, the Industrial Revolution occurs! Suddenly, trees aren't so white anymore. In fact, they're stained a dark black color because of pollution.

 

The moths evolve to become more black. They don't just randomly change, it's just that black moths are more fit for the environment, and so they are producing a lot more offspring than white moths.

 

Yes, a certain part of evolution is due to mutation, but mainly, it's the proccess I described above. Does that make more sense to you?

 

The reason people think evolution challenges religion is because THEY THINK evolution implies that God's creation isn't perfect. It's just that what's perfect at one point won't be perfect later on, which is entirely why evolution occurs.

 

 

7. Noone who have past from this life before Christ paid for our sins by dying on the cross could be, "saved".

Where do you get that?

 

One of my main problems with fundamentalism is, on one hand they claim to only follow the Bible, but on the other hand, they have a lot of beliefs that aren't outlined in the Bible at all.

 

So the answer to your question is no, I'm not aware of other numerous contradictions in the Bible. But I invite you to attempt enlightening me.

If you refuse to accept the Creation story discrepancies, how about answering this question. When was Jesus born?

 

It's a simple question.

 

Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod died of a kidney disease in 4 BC.

 

Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during Israel's first census, when [Cyrenius / Quirinius / Cyrino / Kurenios] was the governer of Syria.

This places Jesus' birth between 6-7 AD.

 

Assuming the blessed virgin wasn't in labor for ten years, one of the above stories is wrong, right?

[Mr Spock]

Good. Now you two can bore each other to death. I never see what the big fuss is about. Moose can belive Jesus shat asparagus as far as I'm concerned, just don't try to govern a country with it. I myself think the bible is a nice peice of fiction-kind of like when people get ahold of a story line and turn it into a made-for-tv-movie.

[Moose]

I do enjoy this Dyer, I hope you know this. Here we go:

 

How could, then, the sun have stood still over Joshua and his battle? Wouldn't it have been the Earth that stood still, if such an event really occured?

 

It's always been my understanding that God is capable of doing anything He wishes, including suspending the Earth's rotation. Wouldn't gravity itself cease to exist if the Earth came to a sudden stop? What's the actual speed of Earth's rotation anyway? Something close to 6,000 mph isn't it? Whatever it is, (and I admit my ignorance on the subject), if God so chooses to cause the Sun to shine in order for His will to come to pass, I'm saying He can make this possible against anything science tries to prove.

 

It says so, clear as day, in the Bible. One of the stories (keep in mind I believe Creation is a theological truth and a historical fiction) states that God took water, divided it into two parts, and put one above an ethereal dome. This is how they explained the sky being blue. I thought you believed "God's word" (The Bible) over science, pardon.

 

and:

 

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but yes, this is true. Energy/Mass can neither be created nor destroyed, and through a proccess of natural cleansing, the same water that was here over 4 Billion Years ago, or whenever you believe Earth was created, is here today. Otherwise, where would it come from? Space?

 

Let's say that you were able to take all the moisture present in our atmosphere and asorb it into a sponge....then squeeze it all into a basin the size of our oceans.....would you agree that the two bodies of water would occupy the same amount of space? Again, that's a fascinating concept if you ask me. And it explains what you take literally, when it was actually figurative.

 

BTW, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic....I was serious.......

 

My only reason for asking this question is that people who wrote the Bible didn't understand germ theory at all. They didn't know why they got sick when they ate bad meat, so they figured anyone who was sick was being punished by God. That's why Pork is considered unclean to Jews.

 

That's why pork, was, considered unclean. Jesus put to rest that it's not what goes into your body that makes one unclean, it's what comes out that does, blessing all foods. Sure they thought they were being punished, and God knew man would be ignorant of the truth. That's precisely why God provided Moses with laws to follow so that man could find comfort in appeasing the, "Angry God", they worshipped. Until Jesus was sent to Earth this is all man could do.

 

Jesus came here to take these laws, and place them on His shoulders and pay our sin debt for our lack of knowledge and ability to follow these laws. Those who accept this are the ones who have been, "saved" which will answer this comment you posted:

 

One of my main problems with fundamentalism is, on one hand they claim to only follow the Bible, but on the other hand, they have a lot of beliefs that aren't outlined in the Bible at all.

 

On one hand you have the, "old laws" in the Old Testament. Then on the other, you have the saving grace of our Lord Jesus in the New Testament. What seems to be the problem? The New Testament covers the, "old laws" with the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Why? Because, God knew that we would never, in this day and age, be capable of following the old laws outlined in the Old Testament.

 

My only reason for asking would be that the Creation stories give heaven a clear, tangible location, and a moon landing would have interfered with the belief that God's home is actually in the sky (above the dome of water).

 

Ok, and I think I left you with enough of my own skeptisism of whether or not man landed on the moon.

 

 

 

Okay, I know you don't believe in evolution, but I'm going to explain a small portion of it. Forgive me if you know this already, but a ton of people don't.

 

and:

 

The reason people think evolution challenges religion is because THEY THINK evolution implies that God's creation isn't perfect. It's just that what's perfect at one point won't be perfect later on, which is entirely why evolution occurs.

 

Don't you find it a strange that you and I both used the moth as an example? I think it's because that's the only tangeable evidence we've witnessed with our own eyes.

 

Evolution, I can't swallow.....the ability to adapt to enviroments, I can, but only with what God already provided us and every other creature with that's on this planet.

 

If you refuse to accept the Creation story discrepancies, how about answering this question. When was Jesus born?

 

In the year of our Lord of course. That's what the Bible says. Simple answer.

 

Matthew 2:1 states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Herod died of a kidney disease in 4 BC.

 

Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during Israel's first census, when [Cyrenius / Quirinius / Cyrino / Kurenios] was the governer of Syria.

This places Jesus' birth between 6-7 AD.

 

Assuming the blessed virgin wasn't in labor for ten years, one of the above stories is wrong, right?

 

I'll go more into depth with this tomorrow. I'm sure you'll be anxious to hear what I have to say about this.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

It's always been my understanding that God is capable of doing anything He wishes, including suspending the Earth's rotation.

The Bible never mentions suspending the Earth's rotation. God specifically "spaketh" the Sun to remain still. Since the Sun is already a stationary body, such a command would have been superfluous and redundant, and have no effect on Joshua's army whatsoever.

Let's say that you were able to take all the moisture present in our atmosphere and asorb it into a sponge....then squeeze it all into a basin the size of our oceans.....would you agree that the two bodies of water would occupy the same amount of space?

No. Moisture is present in almost 100% of all matter, and doesn't just exist in oceans.

Again, that's a fascinating concept if you ask me. And it explains what you take literally, when it was actually figurative.

That's my point! The creation story is figurative. I'm not doubting God created the universe, it's just clear to me that he did so in a way that's much more complex than a simple children's story.

Sure they thought they were being punished, and God knew man would be ignorant of the truth. That's precisely why God provided Moses with laws to follow so that man could find comfort in appeasing the, "Angry God", they worshipped. Until Jesus was sent to Earth this is all man could do.

I think you totally don't understand Judaism, and it's disrespectful to say that your method of worship is somehow superior. Isn't it POSSIBLE, just POSSIBLE, that evangelical christianity is right for you, and legalistic judaism is right for others?

 

In the end, it's about the community you belong to, and how it affects your relationship with God.

Jesus came here to take these laws, and place them on His shoulders and pay our sin debt for our lack of knowledge and ability to follow these laws.

That's your interpretation, Jesus never said he came on behalf of our ignorance to Old Testament laws. A lot of people treat Jesus as the REPLACEMENT of the old testament, when really he's just the fulfillment of it.

Why? Because, God knew that we would never, in this day and age, be capable of following the old laws outlined in the Old Testament.

Orthodox Jews do it. It hasn't gotten harder to follow Old Testament laws in "this day and age", if anything, because of a global marketplace, it's gotten easier.

 

Do you see where I take issue with you saying "God does this" or "God would never" or "God knows" etc? You're not God, and you don't have the authority to speak for him.

Ok, and I think I left you with enough of my own skeptisism of whether or not man landed on the moon.

How do you get pictures of the Earth then? Do you think those photographs are made up?

 

What about the various technologies that came out of the space program, are you skeptical that VCR's really work?

Don't you find it a strange that you and I both used the moth as an example? I think it's because that's the only tangeable evidence we've witnessed with our own eyes.

Where did you use the moth as an example?

 

Regardless, it's not the only evidence of evolution.

Evolution, I can't swallow.....the ability to adapt to enviroments, I can,

There's no difference.

 

Evolution simply means "change over time"

 

Species change over time. An examination of the fossil record, or a demographic survey of populations over time prove this.

 

Additionally, new species are created all of the time, simply because of geography, environment, or human intervention.

but only with what God already provided us and every other creature with that's on this planet.

If a creation of God (an animal) was perfect, it would be perfectly suited for its environment.

 

Such creations of God are not perfect, because in order for them to maintain perfection, they wouldn't have a mutable environment.

 

Creationism just doesn't hold weight in reality, because it would mean that God would have to create a new species every time an environment changed.

 

In the year of our Lord of course. That's what the Bible says. Simple answer.

No, not a simple answer at all. Where does the Bible mention 'the year of our Lord' ?

 

"Anno Domini" (The Year Of Our Lord) wasn't used when the Bible was being authored, ergo the Bible never says anything about "the year of our Lord"

 

People would date things based on the number of years since the last local ruler took power. For example, if you were in Rome 2 years after Nero became Emporer, you'd say "The second year of the reign of the Emporer Nero"

 

The concept of dating things "In the year of our Lord" dates back to the sixth century, it was created by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus. He calculated the number of years it had been since Jesus' birth, and, with little success at the time, attempted to create a calendar system based on the number of years since Christ's birth.

 

Most agree that Dionysius Exiguus was wrong in his calculations, and therefore it has been slightly more or slightly less than 2004 years since the birth of Christ.

 

Therefore, you still didn't answer my question: When was Jesus born?

 

The Bible contradicts itself on this, so I'm interested in who you think is right. Is it Luke, or is it Matthew? At least one of them is wrong, that's certain.

 

It would have been impossible for Jesus to have been born in the year AD 1, because Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born during Israel's first census, between AD 6 and AD 7.

 

Yet, it would be impossible for Jesus to have been born after BC 4, because otherwise he would have not been born during the reign of King Herod (Matthew 2:1), who died in BC 4.

[Moose]

I think you totally don't understand Judaism, and it's disrespectful to say that your method of worship is somehow superior. Isn't it POSSIBLE, just POSSIBLE, that evangelical christianity is right for you, and legalistic judaism is right for others?

 

Well there you go Dyer! You answered it! I never said my method of worship is superior did I? I respect all religions, it's everyones right to have their own method whether or not it makes any sense to next person. When you say I'm speaking for God, I don't believe I am, I'm stating what I found in the Bible......my interpretation of what I found in the Bible. Doesn't mean I'm right, doesn't mean I'm wrong.....it means I interpret the Bible differently than you do.

 

The Bible never mentions suspending the Earth's rotation. God specifically "spaketh" the Sun to remain still. Since the Sun is already a stationary body, such a command would have been superfluous and redundant, and have no effect on Joshua's army whatsoever.

 

When it was written that God, "spaketh", the Sun to remain still, who are you to say that the Earth didn't stop? Wouldn't both bodies have to remain perfectly still in order to stay in absolute place? I knew you'd try to throw loaded questions at me. Fortunatley I'm bright enough to dodge your bullets.

 

No. Moisture is present in almost 100% of all matter, and doesn't just exist in oceans.

 

Well, you just blew your own theory out of the, "water", didn't you? About your dome of water in the sky....incidently......would it not be ice? And if so, how did we get those satellites and space shuttles and everything else through that ice....how come noone ever told us about this ice? It doesn't make sense to me and that's just because we have different methods of interpretation of the Scripture...which by the way, there isn't anything wrong with that.

 

That's my point! The creation story is figurative. I'm not doubting God created the universe, it's just clear to me that he did so in a way that's much more complex than a simple children's story.

 

And you're absolutley right about the complexity of God's creation. He did have to explain it to us in a way we could understand. But evolution ain't gonna cut it for me. I refuse to believe it and that's my porogative. I respect others that do, they have a lot of interesting data and facts, it's just not my cup of tea. When God inspired man to write that He created man from the dust of the Earth, and Woman from one of Adam's ribs....that's all I need to know. I'm sure that while I have eternity to spend with God, I'll get a chance to have it explained in detail. Although, it's my understanding that when we do enter into God's kingdom, all knowledge will automatically be known to us.

 

Do you see where I take issue with you saying "God does this" or "God would never" or "God knows" etc? You're not God, and you don't have the authority to speak for him.

 

And I apologize if you take issues with it, you're going to get that a lot. Like I explained earlier, when I say that "God did this", or "God would never" or "God knows".....it's just my interpretation. I'm not speaking for God at all. I feel the same way you do and take issue when you try to tell me that God's creations aren't perfect, for example:

 

If a creation of God (an animal) was perfect, it would be perfectly suited for its environment.

 

and:

 

Such creations of God are not perfect, because in order for them to maintain perfection, they wouldn't have a mutable environment.

 

I believe that God is perfect in every way shape and form. There isn't anything that comes from God that isn't perfect in my opinion. All the animals He created are suited for their environment, and are able to adapt to a mutable environment only because God provided them with the means to do so. IF your theory of evolution is correct, wouldn't it be possible to simulate these theories in a lab somewhere? If so, how come it hasn't been done yet?

 

How come scientists haven't taken a micro organism and simulated the entire process? Isn't it possible to accelerate growth? How come I've never heard of scientists taking an animal and exposing it to slowly changing environments and watching more limbs grow, or start walking upright?

 

These are just some reasons why I don't buy evolution, doesn't mean that I look down upon others that do. That's up to them to believe what they want, and I respect that.

 

As far as when Jesus was born, I'm still gathering my data. I do know that He was alive during Herod's reign though.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

When it was written that God, "spaketh", the Sun to remain still, who are you to say that the Earth didn't stop?

I think the story isn't true, as in, it's a work of fiction meant to convey a religious truth.

 

However, the Bible clearly says the sun stopped. Joshua 10:12-13.

 

Wouldn't both bodies have to remain perfectly still in order to stay in absolute place?

The sun IS stationary. The earth revolves around the sun.

The people who wrote the Bible didn't know that, though, which explains why they'd write the story wrong.

 

Well, you just blew your own theory out of the, "water", didn't you? About your dome of water in the sky....incidently......would it not be ice? And if so, how did we get those satellites and space shuttles and everything else through that ice....how come noone ever told us about this ice? It doesn't make sense to me and that's just because we have different methods of interpretation of the Scripture...which by the way, there isn't anything wrong with that.

No, I know there's no dome of water in the sky. My point was that you'd believe there's a dome of water in the sky IF you believed the creation story was literal.

 

And you're absolutley right about the complexity of God's creation. He did have to explain it to us in a way we could understand. But evolution ain't gonna cut it for me. I refuse to believe it and that's my porogative. I respect others that do, they have a lot of interesting data and facts, it's just not my cup of tea. When God inspired man to write that He created man from the dust of the Earth, and Woman from one of Adam's ribs....that's all I need to know. I'm sure that while I have eternity to spend with God, I'll get a chance to have it explained in detail. Although, it's my understanding that when we do enter into God's kingdom, all knowledge will automatically be known to us.

In my opinion, the origin of species was too complex for God to explain to ancient jews. No one would read the Bible if it's something they couldn't understand.

All the animals He created are suited for their environment, and are able to adapt to a mutable environment only because God provided them with the means to do so.

Okay, all of the animals created weren't suited for their environment, because otherwise there would be no extinctions!

 

Variation exists among populations. Some animals are more fit for an environment. The fittest animals survive.

 

Isn't it possible that the 'means to do so' that 'God provided them with' IS evolution?

 

IF your theory of evolution is correct, wouldn't it be possible to simulate these theories in a lab somewhere? If so, how come it hasn't been done yet?

Scientists have observed evolution take place. You can do it in a lab, to a limited extent.

How come scientists haven't taken a micro organism and simulated the entire process?

They have. A good example is bacteria colonies interacting with antibiotics. Eventually, they evolve to resist the antibiotics, because the ones that aren't killed by the antibiotics spread their resistance. You notice that in your own body, which is why a doctor tells you to take ALL of the antibiotics, even when you feel better.

 

How come I've never heard of scientists taking an animal and exposing it to slowly changing environments and watching more limbs grow, or start walking upright?

That's not evolution. I think you should put more study into a theory before you decide whether it's your 'cup of tea'. Even if it's not for you, you should reject it because you've studied it and found flaw in it--simply rejecting a theory you don't understand borders on lazy.

 

As far as when Jesus was born, I'm still gathering my data. I do know that He was alive during Herod's reign though.

Then Luke's Gospel is wrong, because the census occured after Herod's death.

 

I'll post more on evolution in a bit, I'm not trying to convince you to accept a theory you object to, but no harm could come from understanding it more.

[Moose]

This is wild that we both have answers for each others responses, I'm going to agree with you on some:

 

I think the story isn't true, as in, it's a work of fiction meant to convey a religious truth.

However, the Bible clearly says the sun stopped. Joshua 10:12-13.The sun IS stationary. The earth revolves around the sun.

The people who wrote the Bible didn't know that, though, which explains why they'd write the story wrong.No, I know there's no dome of water in the sky. My point was that you'd believe there's a dome of water in the sky IF you believed the creation story was literal. In my opinion, the origin of species was too complex for God to explain to ancient jews. No one would read the Bible if it's something they couldn't understand

 

You're probably right about man being so ignorant to science that God chose to simplify Scripture using an analogy, how else would man comprehend the fact that not only did God stop the Earth's yearly rotation around the Sun, but also the daily rotation of the Earth on it's North and South pole? Without doing both at the same time, the Sun's rays would constantly travel across her face.....makes sense to me. And it's also common knowledge that Jesus Himself used analogies, ( Quite a bit ), to explain Truth to us followers.

 

I'll finish answering the rest tomorrow.....my son is looking at me like I should be killed for taking over the lap top....kinda like survival of the fittest....or like some people call it....evolution. WAIT ok, I don't have to answer now......hehe

 

Except, I will still get to your flawed timeline.......sooner or later.....whoa....how poetic.

[dyermaker]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked for any information to refute mine, re: christ's birth.

 

Luke's Gospel has to be incorrect, because Herod was already dead when the Census occured, and therefore the entire story of escaping the murderous clutches of King Herod would have to have been fabricated.

 

I recognize that these aren't historical documents, and most of the Gospels are probably made up to tell a story anyway--most of the people who wrote Gospels (there are more than four) never met Jesus anyway, and they're just operating on what they've heard from other people, maybe making a few things up here and there.

 

That doesn't bother me, but if every word in the Bible is 100% true and literal, then I'm still curious as to how you reconcile this; Did Jesus have two birthdays?

[Moose]

I was hoping to hold you off until Thanksgiving, but oh well, you caught me.

 

I don't take everything in the Bible literally. There are some Scripture that you should take literally, and some that are too vague to understand 100%. Then there are some that are complete analogy. However I interrpret it or how you interrpret it will always differ. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a Bible Scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot of wife's family have dedicated most of lives to understanding Scriptures. I always look forward to gathering with them so I can learn more. And this will be one of the hot topics this year.

 

As far as your last question, I've only read of Jesus having one physical birth. So I'd say his birthday would've been on that day.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

I don't take everything in the Bible literally. There are some Scripture that you should take literally, and some that are too vague to understand 100%.

I think you're going to pick and choose what you want to follow. A common tactic is to use Old Testament verses to condemn homosexuality as sinful, but whenever you want to eat pork, shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, or not stone your children--you gleefully proclaim that when Jesus came, he freed you from those laws.

 

See, religion is older than science. Before we understood about light, God was responsible for light. Before we knew about germs, God was responsible for germs. Before we knew about dreams, God was responsible for dreams. Scientifically, we give God dominion over the things we don't understand. That list is growing smaller.

As far as your last question, I've only read of Jesus having one physical birth. So I'd say his birthday would've been on that day.

Surely you don't mean December 25th?

[Moose]

No I don't mean December 25th. As far as I know, there hasn't been enough evidence to nail down a certain date.

 

I don't pick and choose what I'm going to follow. Call me a slow learner, or a selective learner, or whatever fits my description, but I take what I read and digest it for a while, ask questions from someone who knows better, get different views, then form a conclusion.

 

To me, homosexuality is wrong because 2 men or 2 women can't procreate, as far as the rest you listed, Jesus did bless all foods to consume any time, fabric was meant for warmth, and stoning our children is against man's law which we were told to obied by.

 

See, religion is older than science. Before we understood about light, God was responsible for light. Before we knew about germs, God was responsible for germs. Before we knew about dreams, God was responsible for dreams. Scientifically, we give God dominion over the things we don't understand. That list is growing smaller

 

See, I understand all of that.....it isn't my point. My point is that man will never, and I mean never know enough science to explain everything in this great universe of ours. The scientific evidence that we've gathered thus far could be easily cancelled out with the next greatest breakthrough.

 

I'm sticking with what is in the Scriptures, at least until God grants me full understanding which is promised to me when I pass on.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

I don't pick and choose what I'm going to follow. Call me a slow learner, or a selective learner, or whatever fits my description, but I take what I read and digest it for a while, ask questions from someone who knows better, get different views, then form a conclusion.

How is that different from picking and choosing what to follow?

To me, homosexuality is wrong because 2 men or 2 women can't procreate

Isn't anything possible with God?

See, I understand all of that.....it isn't my point. My point is that man will never, and I mean never know enough science to explain everything in this great universe of ours. The scientific evidence that we've gathered thus far could be easily cancelled out with the next greatest breakthrough.

I think you'd benefit from learning more about science, because you're the kind of person who roots knowledge in total understanding. If you knew more about how science develops, how it reinforces itself, and how it meets academic challenges, you'd be intellectually unstoppable. Especially nowadays with the internet, you can become a total expert on things without dropping a dime.

I'm sticking with what is in the Scriptures, at least until God grants me full understanding which is promised to me when I pass on.

What makes you think you're among the 144,000 ?

[Moose]

How is that different from picking and choosing what to follow?

 

Well, let me see, isn't it you that is so fond of research to find full understanding, or at least to grasp as much of it as you can and then call it Scientific Reality? I I I, think it was.......

 

Isn't anything possible with God?

 

You bet it is....anything! You know, and I know that had it been God's intentions for 2 men to procreate, and 2 women to procreate, then He would've made it possible. Otherwise, wouldn't we evolve to become asexual....correct? I mean, isn't that what you believe?

 

I think you'd benefit from learning more about science, because you're the kind of person who roots knowledge in total understanding. If you knew more about how science develops, how it reinforces itself, and how it meets academic challenges, you'd be intellectually unstoppable. Especially nowadays with the internet, you can become a total expert on things without dropping a dime.

 

I'm not using any sarcasism, or stretching anything I say:........WOW! thanks Dyer! I truly, TRULY take that as a compliment! Thanks,,,,,I mean it. I'm taking your advice to heart, and I will dig deeper thanks to you. You can honestly rest assured that you changed a person's thinking this day. And it's all in the way you put it!

 

What makes you think you're among the 144,000 ?

 

I know I'm not among the 144,000. I know that I am saved and will ultimatley share in the inheritance promised to me by God, and part of that inheritance is full understanding of all things. All things meaning, all things.....even how the very first atom was created.....by God.

[dyermaker]

I think if you research Darwinism with an open mind, you can believe in evolution without compromising your unwavering faith in God.