For Danmac - Abiogenesis

[ImmortalFlame]

Because the Bible says man was created in God's image.

And why could not this process of creation been evolution?

Evidently God is not a mere animal.

Based on what?

If God is a living thing, then God could well be an animal. Why are you so averse to this simple label?

 

[Commoner]

My position doesn't rely on science. As a matter of fact it warns against dishonest interpretations of scientific data. It's like lucy for example. Science made claims about lucy that were later found to be false. How many more evolutionary claims are false, but held as true in the present?

I don't understand how this is a response to my post, but anyway...

See, there you go again - you make a vague accusatory (off-topic) claim and expect me to first guess what exactly your argument was supposed to be and then address it as if I were talking with someone who actually did some research on the subject and is not just repeating words from a faq on a creationist website.

It's a dishonest tactic you're using, Danmac.

 

[Danmac]

And why could not this process of creation been evolution?

It could have been. But the Bible makes a distinction between humans, and all other life forms. Adam is our common ancestor according to the bible.

Based on what?

If God is a living thing, then God could well be an animal. Why are you so averse to this simple label?

I must refer to scripture since it is the basis for my beliefs.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Here is an explanation from Robertson's word pictures in original Greek:

Being (huparchôn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of huparchô. In the form of God (en morphêi theou). Morphê means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hêgêsato. Originally words in mos signified the act, not the result (ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hêgêsato, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case theôi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Re 21:16. Emptied himself (heauton ekenôse). First aorist active indicative of kenoô, old verb from kenos, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

 

[Danmac]

I don't understand how this is a response to my post, but anyway...

See, there you go again - you make a vague accusatory (off-topic) claim and expect me to first guess what exactly your argument was supposed to be and then address it as if I were talking with someone who actually did some research on the subject and is not just repeating words from a faq on a creationist website.

It's a dishonest tactic you're using, Danmac.

It is not my intent to deceive, only to debate my position.

 

[Commoner]

It is not my intent to deceive, only to debate my position.

Then why do you keep doing it?

 

[Danmac]

Then why do you keep doing it?

You are questioning my motives. How can you know them?

 

[Commoner]

You are questioning my motives. How can you know them?

Do you have another explanation for your behavior?

 

[Danmac]

Do you have another explanation for your behavior?

I only defend what I truly believe. I am not here to be a blind leader of the blind, though you may see me as blind. I can no more deny what I believe to be true than can you. I defend what I believe because I hold it as truth. You happen to disagree.

 

[Commoner]

I only defend what I truly believe. I am not here to be a blind leader of the blind, though you may see me as blind. I can no more deny what I believe to be true than can you. I defend what I believe because I hold it as truth. You happen to disagree.

Is this another strawman, Danmac? Read the list of my objections a couple of posts ago again and tell me if you can find "I don't agree with you" among them.

You're not defending what you believe, you're trying to attack what you percieve to be my position - without really presenting any arguments for your position - and you're doing it by making unsubstantiated claims and continuing to make the same factually incorrect statements you have been called out on before. That's my beef with you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It could have been. But the Bible makes a distinction between humans, and all other life forms. Adam is our common ancestor according to the bible.

And yet you choose to believe that when the Bible clearly says that God made man out of dirt it is being non-literal. Why can you think think the same thing of the entire garden of Eden story? Or perhaps Adam was the first human, but not the first living organism. Why reject these possibilities outright?

I must refer to scripture since it is the basis for my beliefs.

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Here is an explanation from Robertson's word pictures in original Greek:

Being (huparchôn). Rather, "existing," present active participle of huparchô. In the form of God (en morphêi theou). Morphê means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hêgêsato. Originally words in mos signified the act, not the result (ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). To be on an equality with God (to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hêgêsato, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case theôi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Re 21:16. Emptied himself (heauton ekenôse). First aorist active indicative of kenoô, old verb from kenos, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

I see a lot of interpretation, and no facts.

 

[Tristesse]

When Moses wrote the book of Genesis, I don't suppose He had a sufficient word to describe it in scientific terms. As a Christian I cannot accept one common ancestor. The Bible specifically states that all things were created "after their kind"

The bible also says, to take your unruly child to the edge of town and stone him to death. The bible says a lot of stuff. What's your point?

 

[McBell]

Then why do you keep doing it?

Because once again he is being dishonest.
he is not here to debate.
He is here to preach.
This is made painfully clear by the fact that he merely repeats the same old bull **** over and over, regardless of how many times he is presented with the truth.

 

[Danmac]

Because once again he is being dishonest.
he is not here to debate.
He is here to preach.
This is made painfully clear by the fact that he merely repeats the same old bull **** over and over, regardless of how many times he is presented with the truth.

I don't ever see you doing anything but hurling insults. Do you actually have an opinion on anything or are you here just to throw rocks. You say I am not here to debate. Tell me what part of your post refers to any part of the thread topic?

 

[Danmac]

The bible also says, to take your unruly child to the edge of town and stone him to death. The bible says a lot of stuff. What's your point?

You are speaking of theocratic law. Gentiles were relieved of theocratic law. The creation story never changes. It is recorded history.

 

[Tristesse]

You are speaking of theocratic law. Gentiles were relieved of theocratic law. The creation story never changes. It is recorded history.

It's recorded history, really? Who recorded it? Can you name some of the authors or some of the witnesses?

 

[Tristesse]

And if gentiles are relieved of the theocratic law, then I guess you can toss out the ten commandments.

 

[McBell]

I don't ever see you doing anything but hurling insults. Do you actually have an opinion on anything or are you here just to throw rocks. You say I am not here to debate. Tell me what part of your post refers to any part of the thread topic?

Which one of your posts in this thread actually deals with the thread topic?

Perhaps you should actually start dealing with the thread topic yourself before whining about others not dealing with the thread topic?
Just a thought.

Though I do I have to admit I am honestly impressed.
Your immunity to truth, reason, and facts is truly amazing.
Yeppers.
It puts you right up there with Fatihah and 301ouncer.

 

[RedOne77]

Tristesse,

The creation story was given to Moses by God. God is the author. You can either believe what God said or deny it, it's your choice.

And if gentiles are relieved of the theocratic law, then I guess you can toss out the ten commandments

The gentiles never were under the law, the law was given to the Hebrews and was not meant for the gentiles. The Hebrews did, however, have certain laws for the gentiles called the "Seven Laws of Noah" Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That aside, when Jesus came, and through Paul (who was ordained by Peter as a teacher from God to the gentiles), gentiles were called to be part of the body of Christ. This means, in terms of 'law', that we have moral obligations to uphold certain principles as laid out in the Bible - particularly what Jesus said and what other disciples have told us as in the New Testament.

 

[Tristesse]

Tristesse,

The creation story was given to Moses by God. God is the author. You can either believe what God said or deny it, it's your choice.



The gentiles never were under the law, the law was given to the Hebrews and was not meant for the gentiles. The Hebrews did, however, have certain laws for the gentiles called the "Seven Laws of Noah" Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That aside, when Jesus came, and through Paul (who was ordained by Peter as a teacher from God to the gentiles), gentiles were called to be part of the body of Christ. This means, in terms of 'law', that we have moral obligations to uphold certain principles as laid out in the Bible - particularly what Jesus said and what other disciples have told us as in the New Testament.

Ok, I understand that thats what you believe and many other christians. But I was looking for some evidence that what you're saying is remotely true.

 

[Danmac]

It's recorded history, really? Who recorded it? Can you name some of the authors or some of the witnesses?

Much of ancient history is recorded after the fact. Much of what you have been taught about history is not from eyewitness accounts.