Evolution

Yeah.

I don't know for sure but heavy CO2 concentration is said to contribute to higher temperatures, so I'd say it's doubtful.

 

Interesting, perhaps you can cite the Scripture for me that tells that the Earth is only thousands of years old?

As I've said before Gen. 1:1 says; in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, that does not indicate how long ago the Earth was created and would leave open the possiblity the age of the Earth is billions of years.

 

Darn, I was making plans to come see them in person, oh well, I guess I'll just go for a ride in the mountains.

 

Yes Christians beleive in evolution a few misguided ones have embraced creationism but that is a political scheme. any true christian thinkers can not dispute how god set everything in motion and let free will take it from there.We create our realities and they evolve with us. Why would we have free will if we were not able to use it. Is not enlightenment evolution of the mind. What a wonderful cosmic symphony as life vibrates in tune with the creator evolving all the way.

 

First of all, brother, please accept my apologies if I offended you or you took my words to be a personal attack. I know you're a sincere Christian seriously seeking God's truth. The Spirit shines in every one of your posts. If you read my offending post closely, you'll see that I wasn't suggesting you need professional help for disagreeing with my interpretation of the Bible. I was illustrating my difference in how "made" should be intepreted. There is a difference between making light shine in by raisnig the blind and making something like light. That was my point. I said "If" you said you could make light (whch you clearly didn't say), you'd be crazy. Poor choice of example on my part. It wasn't intendied to be taken personally. What Jesus said here won't get us too far, because He was speaking in Aramaic, translated into Koine Greek, translated into English, and with Gen. 2, we're talking about Hebrew. I do find OWB's arguments exasperating, because of his condescending "I know the real meaning" tone of superior wisdom, while he slips and slides between literalism and and contex, while often suggesting that his debaters haven't read the Bible. It is possible for a True Believer to defend the Ptolmeic theory that the sun revolves around the earth, by making enough complex assumptions. The existence of the Flat Earth Society and Young Earth Creationism prove that. Belief in Santa Claus could be defended the same way. How does he manage to visit all those homes around the world in one night? Why he's magic, of course. I had a lengthy debate on another thread with a guy who sincerely believed all physical reality is an illusion, which is actually a basic belief of the Hindu religion. I'm coming from a perspective which is into empirical verification, refuatbility and Occam's razor,by which I think we can make progress in understanding God along with everything else. I certainly don't want to dismiss anyone else's opinions, as long as they are willing to respect mine, recognize that they are opinions , and that when participating in discussions they need to present reasoned arguments and should expect challenge.

 

Jesus was a hippie.

 

If intelligent life was to be found somewhere in outer space tomorrow I wonder how it would effect the three largest monotheism's?

 

the metaphorical mountains

 

Well Okie, you seem to be more of the scientist rather than the mystic.

 

..

great pic monkey boy


:cheers2:

 

Living in Denver, I've got some real ones in my back yard too.

 

I guess you mean not counting God and the angels.

 

I was referring to extraterrestrials.

 

Sorry, you've taken my "tone" so personally.

As for your comment that I "slip and slide between literalism and context", it makes it sound like I change what I believe when I need to to prove my point but I think if you check my posts you'll find that I do not do so. I'm commited to the Bible as a whole and not just looking at one scripture and saying oh that's what it means. Just as with the discussion on how long a creative day is, sure if we are talking about how long it is by just looking at that scripture, I would have to say they're 24 hour days, the problem is when Paul says that the 7th day is still continuing down his day some 4000 years later, then I have to say that those days are not 24 hour days but much longer, at least 6000 years, seeing as the day still has not ended in our day. Now if leting the Bible tell me something like how long the creative days are, is "slip and slide between literalism and and context " then so be it.

 

God and the Angels are not Earthlings.

 

I'm sorry. I went a little nutso with my reply. I read what you wrote then focused on what I thought you were suggesting. I guess that I have a little issue with anything that suggests motive... just a pet peeve of mine because it steers things towards the wrong direction. But I can see that you didn't mean what I thought you meant...

I just have the habit of taking things into very strange direction just to see where it could lead and sometimes I am unaware that people are not inside my head

I was just using the blind talk as an illustration on what made could have meant because the meaning behind words can be funny that way and it can end up being something we never thought up.

Although, overall, I think that the Bible is trying to express something that goes over our heads, so at the time, seeing it as poetic is the best alternative. Even if it seems silly at first, exploring the possibilities is worth it I think because we really don't know where the conversation can lead us. Just something to play around with to see what happens out of it. Maybe the creativity will bring something out of the Bible that we never considered before.

I don't know what the dealio is with flat earthers, but I think that it has little to do with a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, raqiya` is often criticised for being an arch and if it is an arch then the Bible is not the word of God. But raqiya`is meant as something that is spread out, an expanse, and an expanse is something is usually something that is uniterrupted. So someone can look at that word then get arch out of it, but there are so many other meanings and possibilities to that same word so why limit it to that one meaning? I believe that the overall meaning of the word gives us the best understanding on God's word.

Scientific understanding is wonderful, and I encourage it, but only up to a point. Scientists throughout the times have considered themselves to be the wisest and for obtaining great truths of reality. But move ahead a few hundred years, and the thinking of the past will always seen a bit juvenile. I am not suggesting to discredit science, just saying that we should not take ourselves too seriously. For years, scientists have been going on about how Junk DNA had no use. During this time, I always thought... "Isn't that a presupposition... how can they know they aren't wrong? Isn't that a bit thickheaded position for a true scientist to take?" Then now we are learning that 'junk dna' is actually useful, and that only further strengthens my belief that scientists are just flipping switches in the dark. I love the intention, and what could come from it, and how it can get us all to understand more deeply how immensely powerful God's creative power (Elohim) is, but it only goes so far. Scientific method, and Ocam's razor is the best that we have right now, and that we should respect that, but up to a certain point, like I said, taking ourselves too seriously actually corrupts intellectualism, not supports it. We live in a world where creativity is seen as a noiusance. We are taught that it is actually AGAINST intelligence, but the thing is, creativity and imagination are at the cornerstone of intelligence. Once we limit that, we limit our understanding.

I have no idea the true nature of reality and I feel certain that no one really does even if they say that they do. So whenever the scientific community says something like, "We figured this out, this theory is solid" that's exactly when I start to become skeptical. Just because we can't understand exactly how its possible to walk on water now, does not mean that it is not possible and that we can't understand one day.

Just take a look at Ezekiels Wheel. Is that meant literally? I think that what he saw... he saw in reality. I think that is supposed to illustrate that not only is God immensely powerful, but that our knowledge about how reality works is greatly exaggerated. I think that story is supposed to humble us and to slap us back to an understanding that, "You know what... we really know very little to close to nothing about the true nature of reality".

I just believe that everything we need to understand God is within us and in the Bible. Once we feel the Light, love, of God, all other arguments about what reality truly is, just collapses within themselves. There is just something amazing about the Bible that plays on the visual language, something that is universal to all people. Lots of things seem to defy reason and our logic, but what truly matters in the end is what is true and not what we think is true. I just personally noticed that complete faith in the word, makes greater sense with everything else. Learning the knowledge obtained by man becomes so much easier to absorb because you can actually begin to see through it all. I hope that doesn't make me sound conceited, but I think it's something that is possible for everyone. God creates faith because faith is a sign of trust and trust is a sign of love. Without trust, there cannot be love.

I don't know what to say about OWB, but to be fair, he has referred to Acts 17:11 a few times on these boards and has encouraged everyone to test the Bibles message themselves to see if it's true. He can be engaging, but I personally appreciate that, just as long as we don't take the personal route or assume things about each other, and so far, I have never seen OWB take it personally.

 

Thanx. I thought it might lighten the mood a bit.:cheers2: