Creation questions

[Ophiolite]

Well in that case knock yourself out tell away I was wrong of course you can tell me how to think you own your mouth and that is the only thing you will ever have control over, but never will you have control over how I choose to think.

Of course not. We have established that I don't have control over how you think. I never claimed that I did.

What happened was that because you have reading comprehension difficulties you saw in my post what you wanted to see - something to get irate about.

Once again, inevitably it seems, you have made a further error. It is quite secondary to the subject of this thread, but illustrates rather nicely your inability to think before you post. You assert that my "own mouth" is the only thing I will ever have control over. My daily work routine is a clear demonstration that you are mistaken. Perhaps you should learn to exercise control over your thought process. It would benefit everyone.

 

[exchemist]

Why not live in the present? forget the past it's history, just enjoy nature as it changes instead of farting about with fossils.

You think that is any kind of answer?

What you seem to be recommending is that we give up on scientific enquiry ("farting about with fossils, as you put it"). Is that what you really think?

But anyway it's too late: the fossils have already been farted about with. So we pretty well know the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. We can't unlearn that, and nor can you. So you've got a bit of problem with your biblical flood being a literal event, haven't you?

Also worth reading about the epic of Gilgamesh and and very similar flood myths from the Middle East. These things are evidence that the biblical flood may have been just one version of a very widespread ancient myth.

 

[exchemist]

Anyone got an opinion of "the tower of babel"?

I gave you mine a while back.

 

[Jason.Marshall]

Of course not. We have established that I don't have control over how you think. I never claimed that I did.

What happened was that because you have reading comprehension difficulties you saw in my post what you wanted to see - something to get irate about.

Once again, inevitably it seems, you have made a further error. It is quite secondary to the subject of this thread, but illustrates rather nicely your inability to think before you post. You assert that my "own mouth" is the only thing I will ever have control over. My daily work routine is a clear demonstration that you are mistaken. Perhaps you should learn to exercise control over your thought process. It would benefit everyone.

The day you gain the ability to exhibit control over my thought processes, that is also the day you can save the world and protect "everyone" from them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Many would find believing in the old testament to be illogical. And yet..

Where do I even begin..

Let's start with your dishonesty and misrepresentation.

If you believe in the old testament, then you are a young earth creationist, which you laughed at being called a young earth creationist and queried where you had supposedly rejected evolution, in the evolution denial thread and then said the earth was 3.5 billion years old. Yet you claim you believe in the old testament.

Bells, I can find only four reasons to account for that foolish statement.
1. You are as thick as two short planks nailed together.
2. You are deliberately trolling.
3. You accidentally omitted the words "literal meaning of" between "the" and "old testament".

The metaphorical language of much of the old testament is well understood, except by fundamentalists and now, it would seem, you.

 

[Kittamaru]

Bells, I can find only four reasons to account for that foolish statement.
1. You are as thick as two short planks nailed together.
2. You are deliberately trolling.
3. You accidentally omitted the words "literal meaning of" between "the" and "old testament".

The metaphorical language of much of the old testament is well understood, except by fundamentalists and now, it would seem, you.

Except, it isn't - just look at a lot of the Catholic crowd, who base almost the entirety of their belief on the principle that they are "not worthy" to bring their own sins before God (hence, confessional) and need to somehow 'earn' their way to salvation via penitence and penance.

The New Testament, and by extension the New Covenant in Christ, overwrites nearly all the Old Testament ways... this is because, thru Christs death, our sins are forgiven. This doesn't give us free reign to "do as we please", but rather shows that despite our best attempts, we are fallible, sinful human beings and we WILL make mistakes. Those mistakes, though, are forgiven.

In short... people DO take the Old Testament literally.

 

[exchemist]

Except, it isn't - just look at a lot of the Catholic crowd, who base almost the entirety of their belief on the principle that they are "not worthy" to bring their own sins before God (hence, confessional) and need to somehow 'earn' their way to salvation via penitence and penance.

The New Testament, and by extension the New Covenant in Christ, overwrites nearly all the Old Testament ways... this is because, thru Christs death, our sins are forgiven. This doesn't give us free reign to "do as we please", but rather shows that despite our best attempts, we are fallible, sinful human beings and we WILL make mistakes. Those mistakes, though, are forgiven.

In short... people DO take the Old Testament literally.

This seems very unclear to me. How does what you say indicate anybody is taking the OT literally?

And on what do you base this idea that Catholicism is almost entirely based on people being unworthy to bring their sin before God?

 

[Kittamaru]

This seems very unclear to me. How does what you say indicate anybody is taking the OT literally?

And on what do you base this idea that Catholicism is almost entirely based on people being unworthy to bring their sin before God?

http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/confess.pdf

Why not confess your sins directly to God in prayer? By sin, it was God that was offended; and God set down the conditions for forgiveness. You cannot insist of God that He forgive your sins on your own conditions. And Jesus Christ did not bestow the power and responsibility to forgive sins to the Apostles and their successors knowing that all one needed to do was to seek forgiveness through prayer. The Church does not deny that sins will be forgiven via prayer directly to God, given of course that there's true repentance coupled with firm resolution to avoid this sin in the future; however, the only way we can be sure of proper disposition of the forgiveness of sin with absolute certainty is via the means established by Christ - the sacrament of Penance.

In essence - they ignore that "Christ has absolved us of Sin", from the New Testament.

Hebrews 4:14-16 (NLT)
14 So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. 15 This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. 16 So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.

John 20:21-23 (NIV)

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

It seems, to me at least, as though they are forgetting or ignoring what was established in the New Testament verses regarding confession and, to be honest, church in general - a church is not a building, but rather is where two or more gather in prayer.

Much the same, one can forgive another their sins, so long as both bring their sins to God.

 

[exchemist]

http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/confess.pdf



In essence - they ignore that "Christ has absolved us of Sin", from the New Testament.

Hebrews 4:14-16 (NLT)
14 So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. 15 This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. 16 So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.

John 20:21-23 (NIV)

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

It seems, to me at least, as though they are forgetting or ignoring what was established in the New Testament verses regarding confession and, to be honest, church in general - a church is not a building, but rather is where two or more gather in prayer.

Much the same, one can forgive another their sins, so long as both bring their sins to God.

I still don't get it, I'm afraid.

Firstly, how does any of this indicate taking literally the Old Testament, when both your quotes are from the New?

Secondly, neither of these contains the phrase you quoted earlier, i.e. that "Christ has absolved us from sin". Where does that come from, exactly?

Thirdly, my understanding of your quotation from St John's gospel is that is the instruction of Christ which is precisely the basis for the Catholic practice of confession. Notably, it contains the statement, "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven". On the face of it this seems at odds with your contention that the practice is all unnecessary, doesn't it?

(I'm not a big fan of confession by the way, I just don't like people throwing careless misrepresentations around.)

 

[Bells]

Bells, I can find only four reasons to account for that foolish statement.
1. You are as thick as two short planks nailed together.
2. You are deliberately trolling.
3. You accidentally omitted the words "literal meaning of" between "the" and "old testament".

The metaphorical language of much of the old testament is well understood, except by fundamentalists and now, it would seem, you.

I will assume that the fourth reason was silent? Or you forgot about it?

It is clear that you failed to read what that post was in response to.

I will give you a hint. It was in response to questions about dinosaurs and man co-existing before Noah's flood killed off the dinosaurs... An op which also contained support and belief in the old testament because apparently these things are fact, especially if you believe in the old testament, which the OP claims he is.

Now, I do not know where you are from, but most would acknowledge that if someone believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then those individuals are usually seen as being young earth creationists. Perhaps this is different where you come from and perhaps you are one of those individuals who believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted... That would certainly explain your visceral response to me about my wording and my comments to the poster who clearly states that he believes in the old testament and also indicated that it also meant he believed that the dinosaurs and human beings coexisted until said dinosaurs were killed by the flood that biblical Noah survived.

Young Earth creationists reject the geologic evidence that the stratigraphic sequence of fossils proves the Earth is billions of years old. In his Illogical Geology, expanded in 1913 as The Fundamentals of Geology, George McCready Price argued that the occasionally out-of-order sequence of fossils that are shown to be due to thrust faults made it impossible to prove any one fossil was older than any other. His "law" that fossils could be found in any order implied that strata could not be dated sequentially. He instead proposed that essentially all fossils were buried during the flood and thus inaugurated flood geology. In numerous books and articles he promoted this concept, focusing his attack on the sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis."[86] Today, many young Earth creationists still contend that the fossil record can be explained by the global flood.[87]

In The Genesis Flood (1961) Henry M. Morris reiterated Price's arguments, and wrote that because there had been no death before the Fall of Man, he felt "compelled to date all the rock strata which contain fossils of once-living creatures as subsequent to Adam's fall", attributing most to the flood. He added that humans and dinosaurs had lived together, quoting Clifford L. Burdick for the report that dinosaur tracks had supposedly been found overlapping a human track in the Paluxy River bed Glen Rose Formation. He was subsequently advised that he might have been misled, and Burdick wrote to Morris in September 1962 that "you kind of stuck your neck out in publishing those Glen Rose tracks." In the third printing of the book this section was removed.[88]

Following in this vein, many young Earth creationists, especially those associated with the more visible organizations, do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[89] Usually, they claim that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the flood. A number of creationist organizations further propose that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in the ark,[90] and that they only began to disappear as a result of a different post-flood environment. The Creation Museum inKentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs coexisting before the Flood while the California roadside attraction Cabazon Dinosaurs describes dinosaurs as being created the same day as Adam and Eve.[91] The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, has a "hyperbaric biosphere" intended to reproduce the atmospheric conditions before the Flood which could grow dinosaurs. The proprietor Carl Baugh says that these conditions made creatures grow larger and live longer, so that humans of that time were giants.[92]​

This is established for young earth creationists. The questions asked by the OP and his ready admittance that these are pivotal moments for christians who believe in the old testament, as he does, clearly indicates that he is a young earth creationist who does apply it literally.

Since he believes in the old testament, queried if it was the giant flood that killed off the dinosaurs, meaning they apparently coexisted with humans prior to the floods, it means he also believes in the Book of Genesis, which is in the old testament. Which means that he is reading the old testament literally.

The biggest clue that the OP was not applying "the metaphorical language" comes in his OP:

Is the sea powerful enough to kill the(or most, T-REX etc.) mighty dinosaurs(the flood)?
Who confused the language of man(tower of babel)?

These are pivotal moments in history(Christian) and they are not metaphors if you believe the bible(Old Testament), as i do.​

Emphasis mine. I have highlighted the bit that you clearly failed to read or take note of, let alone consider when you read my direct response to that OP. The OP believes in the literal interpretation of the old testament and thus, is a young earth creationist.

 

[exchemist]

I will assume that the fourth reason was silent? Or you forgot about it?

It is clear that you failed to read what that post was in response to.

I will give you a hint. It was in response to questions about dinosaurs and man co-existing before Noah's flood killed off the dinosaurs... An op which also contained support and belief in the old testament because apparently these things are fact, especially if you believe in the old testament, which the OP claims he is.

Now, I do not know where you are from, but most would acknowledge that if someone believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, then those individuals are usually seen as being young earth creationists. Perhaps this is different where you come from and perhaps you are one of those individuals who believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted... That would certainly explain your visceral response to me about my wording and my comments to the poster who clearly states that he believes in the old testament and also indicated that it also meant he believed that the dinosaurs and human beings coexisted until said dinosaurs were killed by the flood that biblical Noah survived.

Young Earth creationists reject the geologic evidence that the stratigraphic sequence of fossils proves the Earth is billions of years old. In his Illogical Geology, expanded in 1913 as The Fundamentals of Geology, George McCready Price argued that the occasionally out-of-order sequence of fossils that are shown to be due to thrust faults made it impossible to prove any one fossil was older than any other. His "law" that fossils could be found in any order implied that strata could not be dated sequentially. He instead proposed that essentially all fossils were buried during the flood and thus inaugurated flood geology. In numerous books and articles he promoted this concept, focusing his attack on the sequence of the geologic time scale as "the devil's counterfeit of the six days of Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis."[86] Today, many young Earth creationists still contend that the fossil record can be explained by the global flood.[87]

In The Genesis Flood (1961) Henry M. Morris reiterated Price's arguments, and wrote that because there had been no death before the Fall of Man, he felt "compelled to date all the rock strata which contain fossils of once-living creatures as subsequent to Adam's fall", attributing most to the flood. He added that humans and dinosaurs had lived together, quoting Clifford L. Burdick for the report that dinosaur tracks had supposedly been found overlapping a human track in the Paluxy River bed Glen Rose Formation. He was subsequently advised that he might have been misled, and Burdick wrote to Morris in September 1962 that "you kind of stuck your neck out in publishing those Glen Rose tracks." In the third printing of the book this section was removed.[88]

Following in this vein, many young Earth creationists, especially those associated with the more visible organizations, do not deny the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct animals present in the fossil record.[89] Usually, they claim that the fossils represent the remains of animals that perished in the flood. A number of creationist organizations further propose that Noah took the dinosaurs with him in the ark,[90] and that they only began to disappear as a result of a different post-flood environment. The Creation Museum inKentucky portrays humans and dinosaurs coexisting before the Flood while the California roadside attraction Cabazon Dinosaurs describes dinosaurs as being created the same day as Adam and Eve.[91] The Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, has a "hyperbaric biosphere" intended to reproduce the atmospheric conditions before the Flood which could grow dinosaurs. The proprietor Carl Baugh says that these conditions made creatures grow larger and live longer, so that humans of that time were giants.[92]​

This is established for young earth creationists. The questions asked by the OP and his ready admittance that these are pivotal moments for christians who believe in the old testament, as he does, clearly indicates that he is a young earth creationist who does apply it literally.

Since he believes in the old testament, queried if it was the giant flood that killed off the dinosaurs, meaning they apparently coexisted with humans prior to the floods, it means he also believes in the Book of Genesis, which is in the old testament. Which means that he is reading the old testament literally.

The biggest clue that the OP was not applying "the metaphorical language" comes in his OP:

Is the sea powerful enough to kill the(or most, T-REX etc.) mighty dinosaurs(the flood)?
Who confused the language of man(tower of babel)?

These are pivotal moments in history(Christian) and they are not metaphors if you believe the bible(Old Testament), as i do.​

Emphasis mine. I have highlighted the bit that you clearly failed to read or take note of, let alone consider when you read my direct response to that OP. The OP believes in the literal interpretation of the old testament and thus, is a young earth creationist.

You miss his point. He is criticising your use of the term "believing in" the OT as if it were synonymous with taking the OT literally.

It is not synonymous, of course. The main Western Christian traditions have for centuries (a) continued to believe the OT is divinely inspired and contains important messages about God and Man but (b), have at the same time realised the absurdity of taking it all literally - starting with Augustine of Hippo in about 400 AD. It is largely the Seventh Day Adventists, in c.20th America, who have reintroduced the idiocy of biblical literalism. It is very much a minority belief within Western Christianity.

 

[Bells]

You miss his point. He is criticising your use of the term "believing in" the OT as if it were synonymous with taking the OT literally.

It is not synonymous, of course. The main Western Christian traditions have for centuries (a) continued to believe the OT is divinely inspired and contains important messages about God and Man but (b), have at the same time realised the absurdity of taking it all literally - starting with Augustine of Hippo in about 400 AD. It is largely the Seventh Day Adventists, in c.20th America, who have reintroduced the idiocy of biblical literalism. It is very much a minority belief within Western Christianity.

And you are missing the point that I was responding to someone who claimed that he does believe in the OT in the sense that he literally believes what is claimed in the OT. Which is why I worded it as I did.. He believes the old testament, literally and he clearly states, not metaphorically. So when I say he believes in the old testament, I am saying that he believes in the stories written in the old testament. You know, he believes in those so called "pivotal moments in history", which he believes is represented in the old testament.

I am sure that Ophiolite will list 10 reasons while claiming it is 12 reasons about how and why I am wrong. He has been doing that a lot lately because I disagreed with him about something. I am sure we will just add this one to the pile and he will continue with his crusade of calling me names. Well, everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

 

[exchemist]

And you are missing the point that I was responding to someone who claimed that he does believe in the OT in the sense that he literally believes what is claimed in the OT. Which is why I worded it as I did.. He believes the old testament, literally and he clearly states, not metaphorically. So when I say he believes in the old testament, I am saying that he believes in the stories written in the old testament. You know, he believes in those so called "pivotal moments in history", which he believes is represented in the old testament.

I am sure that Ophiolite will list 10 reasons while claiming it is 12 reasons about how and why I am wrong. He has been doing that a lot lately because I disagreed with him about something. I am sure we will just add this one to the pile and he will continue with his crusade of calling me names. Well, everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

Bells, I understand the context and don't want to get in the middle of a vendetta here. But you will I hope realise it is irritating to people who respect Christianity to read posts that suggest belief in the OT of the Bible is the same as thinking dinosaurs and man coexisted. It would be nice if you could avoid giving the impression that you tar all Christians with the literalist brush, that's all.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I understand the context and don't want to get in the middle of a vendetta here. But you will I hope realise it is irritating to people who respect Christianity to read posts that suggest belief in the OT of the Bible is the same as thinking dinosaurs and man coexisted. It would be nice if you could avoid giving the impression that you tar all Christians with the literalist brush, that's all.

That is fine exchemist.

I think I made it pretty clear when I explained that it was in direct response to someone who said they read and believed the OT literally and not metaphorically.

So as to not offend the delicate sensibilities of those who had such a fit over my comments about Christians who believe in the OT, I shall refrain from commenting on what I actually think of the OT and those who believe in it, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Kittamaru]

I still don't get it, I'm afraid.

Firstly, how does any of this indicate taking literally the Old Testament, when both your quotes are from the New?

To me, it's that they are following the "old ways" as opposed to the teachings of Christ. I could be misunderstanding though - do understand, I am not a theological student by any stretch.

Secondly, neither of these contains the phrase you quoted earlier, i.e. that "Christ has absolved us from sin". Where does that come from, exactly?

1 Peter, 3:18 - Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.

Isaiah 53:5 - But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.

Romans 5:8 - God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John, 3:5 - You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Ephesians 1:7 - In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Colossians 2:14 - By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Those read, to me, to mean that through our faith in Christ, we are forgiven.

Thirdly, my understanding of your quotation from St John's gospel is that is the instruction of Christ which is precisely the basis for the Catholic practice of confession. Notably, it contains the statement, "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven". On the face of it this seems at odds with your contention that the practice is all unnecessary, doesn't it?

(I'm not a big fan of confession by the way, I just don't like people throwing careless misrepresentations around.)

Confession is necessary - you are to bring your sins before God and one another, and ask forgiveness for them. What I find odd/unnecessary is that, in the Catholic faith, it seems that one is told you are not worthy/capable of bringing these sins to the Father yourself, and so must do so via a Priest; I understand the idea of confessing together (where two or more are gathered to pray), but the idea that only certain men, dictated by the Church, can bring your sins to God just seems... I don't know, arrogant?

 

[Ophiolite]

In short... people DO take the Old Testament literally.

I am not denying that some people take it literally. However, raised as a Scottish Presbyterian I can assure you that they do not. Moreover, are you seriously suggesting that the Catholic church -used in your example - deny Big Bang Theory (which originated with a Catholic Priest), or evolution (which was provided with a mechanism through the work of a Catholic priest).

I am specifically addressing Bell's ludicrous suggestion that believing in the Old Testament requires that one believe that all of it is the literal truth. The Hebrews were a poetic people, they used poetic language. This is not rocket science.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will assume that the fourth reason was silent? Or you forgot about it?< snip>

Emphasis mine. I have highlighted the bit that you clearly failed to read or take note of, let alone consider when you read my direct response to that OP. The OP believes in the literal interpretation of the old testament and thus, is a young earth creationist.

You really are thick or dishonest. I do not give a rat's ass whether or not the OP is a young Earth creationist. I am dealing with a simple statement you made. This was the statement:

If you believe in the old testament, then you are a young earth creationist

Now you are trying to wriggle off the hook by screaming context, context. Your statement is false. Do you agree that your statement is false? Yes, or no?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am sure we will just add this one to the pile and he will continue with his crusade of calling me names. Well, everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

You are correct. On all forums when I see someone talking crap I attack them. If I notice their posts are crap in multiple threads I address that. If you don't want to be called names, stop posting crap.

 

[billvon]

If you believe in the old testament, then you are a young earth creationist, which you laughed at being called a young earth creationist and queried where you had supposedly rejected evolution, in the evolution denial thread and then said the earth was 3.5 billion years old. Yet you claim you believe in the old testament.

I know several people - some quite intelligent - who believe in the Old Testament and who are not young earth creationists.

 

[billvon]

Is the sea powerful enough to kill the(or most, T-REX etc.) mighty dinosaurs(the flood)?

Sure! Heck, the sea is powerful enough to kill you.

Who confused the language of man(tower of babel)?

Man.

These are pivotal moments in history(Christian) and they are not metaphors if you believe the bible(Old Testament), as i do.

There are a few problems with that. One of the most basic ones is that the Old Testament contradicts itself, and thus some stories must be read as metaphor.