|
|
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 20-Oct-21, 17:39 |
 stalhandske, your club is up to its eyeballs in violations of GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct - and you and your moderators are the biggest violators. Instead of threatening to report posts in other clubs, why don’t you clean up the mess in your own club? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Oct-21, 17:52 |
The F- word is f*** The N-word is negro Ahh, look at that! The F word was not accepted but the N-word was. So let me try the derogatory version of the N word The derogatory N word is nigger Now that was accepted as well. May be there is an error in the GK controls. What about the four-letter c word, c***? OK, so that is not allowed.>> Believe it or not, folks, the above was a recent post from a retired scientist in his “high quality” club. What a disgrace. Let’s test GK policy in another way - stalhandske started three attack threads on me and my club and he and his moderators repeatedly violated GK’s Rules of Conduct in those threads. When I started documenting the obvious violations, GameKnot removed my ability to report them. Here, I’m simply quoting a post of stalhandske’s and saying it’s a disgrace (which it is.) I wonder how fast GK will remove my ability to post. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Oct-21, 18:44 |
No frothing here; just disappointed in the blatant double standard and unfairness in how this website is run. You’d feel the same way if the double standard worked against you. Let me ask you, though… Didn’t you write this a while back? <I was traveling in traveling in Mexico with my wife. We had arrived a few days prior. One day she said, ‘why are you so hyper and chatty? It’s irritating!’ then she realized, I hadn’t smoked any pot for 4-5 days. “Please find some pot... just don’t get arrested.” Lol. I can attribute my 24 year marriage to being stoned most of the time. If it kills me tomorrow, she was worth it!!!> That’s a remarkable admission you made on two fronts: 1) Your wife apparently can’t stand you unless you’re sedated (stoned.) 2) You must have wasted a ton of money on drugs to be stoned “most of the time” during your 24-year marriage. You couldn’t think of a better use for that money? You’re always talking on here about helping the poor and downtrodden. Do you actually do that, or do you just get stoned and expect other people to do it? Serious questions, but I doubt you’ll answer. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Oct-21, 22:17 |
I think the main point is he doesn’t understand anything. It’s pretty incredible actually>> I understand you. But you’re not hard to figure out. Hate and hypocrisy. That’s about it. If you’re stoned most of the time, as you said, you must be stoned when you’re on here, and yet virtually all you do on here is spew hate and attack people. I thought pot was supposed to mellow someone out. If that’s true, you must be absolute hell to be around when you’re not stoned. I get what your wife’s talking about and why she wants you sedated. You’re just a nasty hateful guy. And the hypocrisy? You claim to care about the poor but you’d rather spend buckets of cash on drugs to get high than to donate money to charity. You couldn’t care less about the poor. You care about getting high. You claim animals have the same rights and value as humans and yet you eat animals and kill animals that inconvenience you. You claim humanity’s a cancer on the planet and you long for its extermination and yet you claim to feel sorrowful when someone dies. You’ve done so many drugs, you can’t think straight. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Oct-21, 12:51 |
stalhandske, I have told you numerous times that my disbelief in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Bible, Christianity or God. I have told you numerous times that my disbelief in the theory of evolution is based on the lack of evidence for it. I mean, what solid, tangible evidence is there for the theory of evolution? A couple of questionable transitional fossils (when Darwin said the number of “intermediate varieties” in the fossil record should be “truly enormous.”) I am not a Bible literalist or fundamentalist. You got that impression from bobspringett who lies so frequently about me and what I believe, I’ve concluded his compulsive lying may have a neurological basis. I honestly don’t care who believes the theory of evolution (which I’ve also said many times.) Just don’t claim it’s science. If you want to believe Darwin’s theory as an expression of pantheism, that’s fine. It’s when you insult the field of science by claiming the theory is based on science that I object. Darwin observed minor changes within a species and then made the preposterous and utterly unsupported leap to say variation and natural selection was responsible for the complexity of life. It’s a garbage theory that scientists from the 19th- and first half of the 20th century could be forgiven for believing. But now that we’ve discovered the complexity of the cell and DNA, any “scientist” who still clings to the theory is doing so for religious reasons. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Oct-21, 21:21 |
I may respond to other points in your post on Oct. 21 20:51 in the Evolution theory thread, but as I have an early day tomorrow (10/22,) I’m just going to respond to this paragraph now. I believe that one becomes a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Saviour and believing in His Resurrection. I base this off John 3:16 and Romans 10:9. So by that definition, yes, one can be both a Christian and believe the theory of evolution. However, I do not believe that one can believe both the Holy Bible and the theory of evolution because I don’t think there’s any way to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with the theory of evolution, no matter how much symbolism you (or anyone else) wants to read into the creation account. I haven’t read the Gospels in a while so I’m not sure if Jesus Christ ever said anything that would clearly dispute the theory of evolution, but, to reiterate, I don’t think Christianity (as I defined it via John 3:16 and Romans 10:9) is incompatible with the theory of evolution, but I do not think one can believe the Bible is inerrant and also believe the theory of evolution. But, again, I didn’t believe the theory of evolution long before I read the Bible and long before I became a Christian, and I would never contest or challenge the theory of evolution by saying, “Well the Bible says this…” It always seems to be evolutionists who want to mix the theory of evolution with religion, not me. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 06:14 |
If 'there is no way to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with the theory of evolution', then my original conclusion turns out to be right: One reason for rejecting the evolution theory is hence obviously the belief in the 'creation account in Genesis'. Why continue to deny it?>> Are you really this obtuse? Or are you simply being an obnoxious troll? I have told you countless times that I don’t believe the theory of evolution based on the lack of evidence for it. I have told you countless times that I didn’t believe the theory of evolution long before I read the Holy Bible (and therefore the creation account in Genesis) or became a Christian. Does every scientist associated with dissentfromdarwin.org disbelieve the theory of evolution based on the creation account in Genesis? Of course not! Your theory has no evidence! You’ve got a couple of questionable transitional fossils (when Darwin said the number of “intermediate varieties” should be “truly enormous”) and that’s it. That’s why you and other evolutionists are always trying to mix the theory of evolution with religion - because the theory is so pathetically weak, it’s a pile of garbage, and you want to divert attention away from how pathetically weak (read: nonexistent) the evidence for Darwin’s theory is. Either you’re too dense to carry on an intelligent conversation on this subject or you’re just being an obnoxious troll. Doesn’t seem worth the effort to respond to you. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 06:39 |
If you point out how he contradicts himself, you stand in danger of being accused of being like me! I'm that guy "bobspringett who lies so frequently about me and what I believe, I’ve concluded his compulsive lying may have a neurological basis.">> I don’t contradict myself, Bob. It’s your faulty assumptions and conclusions about what I have said and believe that contradict what I have said and believe. You falsely said I’m a fundamentalist and Bible literalist (when I’m neither) because I don’t believe the theory of evolution. Apparently you’re not aware that the Bible comprises more than the opening chapters of Genesis and that thousands of scientists who are NOT believers think Darwin’s theory is false. If you’re aware of both those facts - and if you were aware of them when you falsely claimed I’m a fundamentalist and Bible literalist - then you were lying. And you lie about me so frequently that you are, imo, a pathological (or at the very least compulsive) liar. You’re also a very mixed-up guy, Bob. You claim on the one hand to be a “rusted-on Christian” but you then claim to have a “mature faith.” Your compulsive lying, obsequiousness to atheists and harassment of believers (not just me) are not evidence of a “mature faith,” Bob. They’re evidence of a guy who’s ashamed to be a Christian - unless the majority of people he’s among are Christians. You’re like a chameleon, Bob. You adapt your views and behavior to conform to the majority of whatever group you find yourself in. <<All I've ever done is draw conclusions from what he asserts.>> And your “conclusions” are wrong. <<The guy who most often misrepresents what Coram believes is Coram himself, as your quote clearly shows.>> You think all the scientists who don’t believe the theory of evolution instead believe the creation account in Genesis? Are you and stalhandske really that dense? Or are you just mixing religion and the theory of evolution (like all evolutionists seem to do) to divert attention away from how pathetically weak Darwin’s theory is? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 07:36 |
Andrew can’t believe in evolution because it would mean his biblical dogma is wrong. Purely a defense mechanism based on hopes and dreams. These dogmatists don’t even understand what science is.>> I know you’re trolling, and in a way, I feel bad for you, that this is what your life is - getting stoned and trolling people on the Internet. I don’t know what trauma you suffered in life to create so much hate inside you that it causes you to self-medicate with drugs and anger release therapy, but I do know you’re only treating the symptom. You’ve gotta deal with the root of what’s creating this hate inside you. The best way is to invite Jesus Christ into your life and into your heart. I hope you do someday and that you let Him heal you. Accepting Christ is about more than having Heaven to look forward to. It’s also about getting help and healing while we’re on earth. I really do hope you think about it. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 09:09 |
Yeah... I’m trolling you.>> You don’t think it’s sad that so much of your life is spent getting stoned and deliberately trying to upset and anger people? <<But at least I’m smiling and know what I’m doing.>> Trolling - deliberately trying to upset and anger people - makes you smile? That makes you happy? That says a lot about you, Jeff. Serious question: What trauma did you suffer in life that caused you to self-medicate with drugs and troll strangers on the Internet? Don’t you think it’d be better to deal with that trauma? <<But what’s amazing is you don’t realize your club and almost every post in it is trolling.>> How so? I believe (and love) the Holy Bible and disbelieve the theory of evolution, and every post in my club reflects that. I don’t post to upset and anger people. If my posts about the Bible and theory of evolution upset or anger people, they’re free not to read them. <<Do you remember what you named your club originally?>> This name was the original name. Are you referring to my original user name? If so, sure I remember - it was fiat_flux. I was enjoying some beers (read: intoxicated) when I rejoined GK and decided to tweak stalhandske because he takes his club and the discussions on it so seriously. And I guess part of me resented his and his former moderators’ constant misrepresentations of what I said and believe. <<And how many of your posts are aimed at people you won’t allow in your club?>> I’ve received two applications to join this club - one from bobspringett, who I (correctly) concluded just wanted to join this club to be a disruptive troll and do the bidding of malicious atheists he’s infatuated with, and another guy who enjoys pushing the envelope of free speech and who’s been thrown out of a few clubs and banned from GK because of it. I was never banned from GK. In the past, I left voluntarily after I got sick of the constant trolling and harassment from you and other atheists <<You dish it out>> Dish what out? Bible verses? Bible passages? Sermon excerpts? Criticism of the theory of evolution? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. <<as if god ordained you troll master in chief, but you are blind to your own actions because you’re so busy judging us.>> I don’t judge anyone. If you feel judgment, that’s coming from you or your conscience, not from me. Read the first two dozen posts in this thread and see how much hate you spewed at me. No one, imo, who is stoned “most of the time” (your words) and who insults and attacks people on the Internet as relentlessly as you do didn’t suffer some trauma in their life that is still eating away at them. If you don’t want to accept Jesus Christ into your life and heart and let Him heal you (the best option) then find someone to talk with who’s qualified to deal with the trauma you suffered. But getting stoned all the time and attacking strangers on the Internet isn’t getting you anywhere. You’re not going to find peace doing that and you’re not going to find happiness doing that. <<I troll you because you troll us.>> With the exception of choosing fiat_flux as my initial user name, I don’t troll anyone. I post what I believe and what I think is interesting. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. But ask yourself why you’re so intolerant of other points of view. <<But I don’t hate you at all. Not even a little.>> That’s good. I don’t hate you either. <<It makes me sad to think of you trapped in the little mind,>> How so? I am happen to be (no brag) pretty smart and I only came to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ after investigating the evidence for it. And Jesus Christ has been an indispensable and invaluable companion ever since. He truly gives the peace that passeth all understanding. <<and i feel compassion.>> Me too. <<But your actions over time on GK inspire me to give back what you’re dishing out.>> You and many atheists on here have been trolls for as long as I can remember. And it’s not in reaction to anything your targets do. It’s your default position. It’s who you are. Like I said, your trolling - deliberately trying to upset and anger people - comes from hatred inside you that’s the result (imo) of some trauma you suffered that you’re still struggling with. <<You should ditch that religious brainwashing,>> I love the Holy Bible and enjoy posting about it. If that upsets you, don’t read my threads. <<stop worrying about science you don’t understand,>> The theory of evolution is not science. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method and it has no evidence that supports it, aside from a couple of questionable transitional fossils. <<and go live in the real world. Grow up and put aside childish things.>> This sounds like psychological projection, Jeff. I don’t spend all my time getting stoned and attacking people on the Internet while my wife works to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. Children (at least young teenagers) get stoned and troll on the Internet. I do neither. You say I’m childish? Every time you refer to former President Trump, you write his name as tRump. Maybe you should take your own advice. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 11:05 |
<<There is no room here to repeat the extensive data from different independent fields of science that - when taken together - quite strongly support what we now call evolution theory. I am sorry that you neglect all that - some of which has been referred to in earlier posts in this thread. Of course, the immidiate and simplest expectation is the one by Darwin in the 19th century that you mention. We have come a long way since, and present-day science seems to be able to understand why 'an enormous number of intermediate variants' has not been found. This is an issue that has been discussed thoroughly in the literature, and there is no space here to repeat it here. Andrew, the problem - as I see it - is that you seem to outright neglect all the evidence for the evolution theory.>> And this is the evolutionists’ age-old dodge - “The evidence is overwhelming! The evidence is everywhere!” “Um, could you say what it is?” “There’s no space here for that. It’s been presented many times before. It’s overwhelming! It’s everywhere!” The truth is, you’ve got a couple of questionable transitional fossils (when Darwin said the number should be “truly enormous”) and nothing else. Nothing. And with every discovery that contradicts the theory of evolution, such as the Cambrian explosion or the complexity of the cell or DNA, it’s not the validity of the theory of evolution that’s questioned, it’s the evidence that contradicts it. And you think Darwin observing different-sized beaks on birds means a cow turned into a whale (or vice-versa?) Give me a break with that stupid nonsense. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Oct-21, 18:54 |
What ignorance, Bob? What pride and malice? I’m trying to help Jeff. You’re doing him no favors by reinforcing his negative coping mechanisms of substance abuse and lashing out at people. You’re just reinforcing that destructive behavior and not letting him get at the root of *why* he’s been stoned “most of the time” (his words) for 45 years (and for 24 years of marriage) and why he trolls and attacks people on the Internet for literally hours upon hours every day. That isn’t normal behavior, Bob. This is somebody who’s been wounded, perhaps worse than we can imagine, and instead of advising him to get help, you’re allowing your anger toward me to blind you to Jeff’s need for help. In short, you’re being selfish and vindictive. <<As Andrew would be the one of the first to tell us, that can only be cured by repentance.>> Well, again, Bob, you’re speaking for me when you have no idea what you’re talking about. First, I’m not being malicious. Read Matthew chapter 23. Read in another part of the Gospels where Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers. Jesus wasn’t all meek and mild. Second, whenever someone fails (falls into sin,) the best thing they can do is remind themselves that they are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus and that God loves them, even when they fail. The worst thing they can do is dwell on their failure and condemn themselves because that just leads to more destructive behavior. Sometimes the most loving thing we can do for someone is to say, “Hey, you’ve got a problem. Let’s get you some help.” Jeff needs help, Bob, not your coddling. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 06:24 |
The logic does not fail because the Holy Bible is comprised of more than the opening chapters of Genesis. The Bible is 66 books and 1,189 chapters; you seem to think it’s only the creation account when it’s so much more. It’s possible to believe the creation account in Genesis is not compatible with the theory of evolution and also not be a Bible literalist. I am in that category because I don’t take *other* passages in the Bible literally, such as: “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29-30) <<My pure guess was therefore that Coram's view of evolution theory is - after all - 'coloured' by his Christian faith.>> And you were wrong because as I’ve said - numerous times now - I did not believe the theory of evolution long before I read the Bible and long before I became a Christian. <<I have noted in the past that several main Christian churches also (like me) do not see a discrepancy between the Bible and evolution theory (Catholicism, European Evangelic Lutherans, the Church of England, etc). So I am in good company.>> You can place your trust in fallible man. I place my trust in the infallible Word of God. The Catholic Church, for example, has many beliefs and practices that directly contradict the Bible. I’ve identified them before; if you need me to again, let me know. <<The only way to solve this problem, instead of bursting out in insults,>> You criticizing insults is quite rich considering you and your moderators’ extensive history of violating GameKnot’s Rules of Conduct. The fact GK removed my ability to report such posts after I started identifying (not reporting) them in this thread doesn’t mean you and your moderators weren’t violating the Rules of Conduct. It just means GameKnot doesn’t run this website fairly. <<is for Coram to explain precisely why he thinks evolution theory is incompatible with the holy Bible.>> It’s not on me to do that. I believe the creation account should be taken literally. You believe it’s symbolic. Explain the symbolism. You want me to explain the literalism? I’ll get you started with this verse: “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 soul.” (Genesis 2:7) I believe that verse should be taken literally. You believe it’s compatible with the theory of evolution. How is that verse compatible with the theory of evolution? You’re the one making the claim that something should be read symbolically and not literally so it’s on you to explain the symbolism. Can you do it? <<And here, he cannot use anyone of his 'scientific' arguments against evolution theory.>> Why put scientific in quotes? You don’t think there are valid scientific objections to the theory of evolution? What evidence do you have supporting it? A couple of questionable transitional fossils and that’s it. The theory’s a joke and will one day (likely soon) be revealed as the biggest scientific fraud of the 19th- and 20th centuries. And you’ll be complicit in perpetuating that fraud. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 06:38 |
Actually, it’s neither good nor constructive because I’m not the one claiming a religious text can be read symbolically to make it compatible with a “scientific” theory. It’s up to stalhandske and you to explain the symbolism. How do you expect me to explain the literalism? If you’re seriously interested in exploring this subject - and not just interested in trolling - then explain how Genesis 2:7, which I posted above, can be interpreted symbolically to conform to the theory of evolution. I don’t think there’s any way that can be done. <<I would be very interested in how he manages his exegesis. I can only think that he will rely on literalist interpretations or secondary readings irrelevant to the primary intention of the writer, having read some of his 'Science in the Bible' entries.>> Bob, it’s up to you and stalhandske to explain the symbolism. I’m not the one claiming the creation account in Genesis should be taken any other way than the way it’s presented. stalhandske and you are making the claim it’s symbolic, so it’s up to you to explain the symbolism and how it’s compatible with the theory of evolution. <<But I am eager for him to prove me wrong. Surprise me, Coram!>> Bob, one of the last things I would do is take direction and orders from you. That’s not meant to be an insult; just a statement of fact. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 06:52 |
The guy making 1100 posts talking to himself thinks I need help. That’s pretty damn funny>> You’ve never heard of a blog, Jeff? Does everyone who makes daily posts on a blog or in a journal need help? Jeff, by your own admission, you’ve been stoned “most of the time” for the past 45 years. You’ve been insulting, trolling and attacking people on this website and posting hate against politicians and other notable people for at least a decade. If you think that’s the behavior of someone who’s well adjusted and psychologically sound, then fine. I don’t. I think you’d greatly benefit from talking to someone who’s qualified to help you deal with whatever trauma you suffered 45 years ago that led to this aberrant and self-destructive behavior. The other atheists on here aren’t your friends. They’re just using you as an attack monkey to go after conservatives and believers. I’d love for you to investigate the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as some prominent atheists have done in the past, with an open mind and an open heart. But if you don’t want to do that, at least consider talking with someone who’s qualified to help you. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 07:03 |
I’ve already addressed this: The Holy Bible is more - much more - than the opening chapters of Genesis. In my view, a Bible literalist takes *everything* in the Bible literally. I don’t. I take the creation account literally but that doesn’t mean I take *everything* literally. And that’s why I’m neither a fundamentalist nor a Bible literalist. You seem to be fixated on the opening chapters of Genesis, as if that’s the only part of the Bible. There are 65 other books and more than 1,180 other chapters in the Bible. I identified one passage from the Gospels that I don’t take literally, and I could identify more. But I’m not going to go the trouble of doing that if you’re not going to acknowledge that the logic of not believing the theory of evolution and not being a Bible literalist doesn’t “fail” at all. The only way it would fail is if the Bible were two chapters long. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 21:06 |
He writes: <I take the creation account literally but that doesn’t mean I take *everything* literally. > In his mind he misunderstands my statement that evolution theory and the Bible are fully compatible with one another, unless one interprets the Bible literally. I obviously did not mean to imply that Coram would take everything literally in the Bible. Why would I do that? Yet, he saves no space in rambling about this. His admission that he takes the Creation account literally (which is different from Catholicism, Evangelic Lutheranism, Church of England) immediately and logically explains his earlier statement that 'evolution theory is incompatible with the Bible'. Problem solved.>> So should I assume you’re not interested (or able) to explain how the creation account can be read symbolically to conform to the theory of evolution? Because your position is that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Holy Bible if the creation account is not taken literally, but is instead viewed symbolically. So what, in your opinion, is the symbolism in Genesis 2:7 that makes it compatible with the theory of evolution? Here is the verse again: “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 soul.” (Genesis 2:7) I’m honestly not expecting an answer. But I just want you on the record as claiming something (the creation account, if not interpreted literally, is compatible with the theory of evolution) that you can’t back up. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 21:14 |
Genesis is 50 chapters, stalhandske. The creation account, to my remembrance, is only in the first two chapters. I haven’t read Genesis in quite a while but there may be passages in Genesis *after* the creation account that I do not interpret literally. Your misstating my position (again) because you don’t know the Holy Bible well enough to comment on it (not that that ever stopped an atheist in the past lol.) |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 21:53 |
The question was to explain why the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Coram's answer is "I take the creation account literally." That is NOT an explanation of how the two are incompatible. It is no more than a flat assertion of personal choice, without supporting evidence or exegetical justification. It is exactly as valid as if he had said "Because I say so.">> Bob, it’s up to you and stalhandske to say how the creation account can be interpreted symbolically to conform to the theory of evolution. I doubt either one of you can do it, which is why you’re trying to muddy the waters with your nonsensical word salad. I believe the text of the creation account should be taken as presented. You don’t. You think there’s some hidden symbolism that makes it compatible with the theory of evolution. Tell us what that hidden symbolism is. You want me to explain why I interpret the creation account literally? The words speak for themselves! You’re the one saying it’s symbolic - so explain the symbolism. <<It also gives lie to his many assertions that his resistance to the Theory of Evolution is based on religious grounds.>> You forgot to include the word “not” in between the words “is” and based.” With that word in place, your claim is false and you know it. <<He has already made up his mind on religious grounds,>> I didn’t believe the theory of evolution *long before* I read the creation account in Genesis. And I didn’t believe it because there’s no evidence to support it, outside of a couple of questionable transitional fossils (when Darwin said the number of such fossils should be “truly enormous.”) <<ands then goes fishing for unconnected factoids that support his preconceptions.>> Wrong again. You really ought to stick to stating what you believe instead of lying about what I believe. <<The fuller text of his response is also interesting.>> Glad you liked it! <<<In my view, a Bible literalist takes *everything* in the Bible literally. I don’t. I take the creation account literally but that doesn’t mean I take *everything* literally. And that’s why I’m neither a fundamentalist nor a Bible literalist.>>> <<So he is NOT a literalist,>> Exactly! I said wasn’t a literalist. <<because a literalist would be consistent. Coram is only literalist when it suits his purposes to be so.>> Do you know anyone who believes the Bible is 100 percent literal or 100 percent symbolic? <<Ironically, he seems to consider this a badge of honour, rather than a failure of integrity.>> Bob, you’re going into the all black or all white mode of thinking you criticize others for. No one I know believes 100 percent of the Holy Bible should be interpreted literally or 100 percent should be interpreted symbolically. This is just a straw man you set up to post cheap insults. Not exactly evidence of a “mature faith” is it, Bob? Oh, I forgot. You’re also a “rusted-on Christian.” <<Coram has accused me of 'lying about what he believes'.>> Yeah, you do it consistently. You’ve done it in this post. <<I realise now why he might think that. I had assumed that his beliefs were rationally inter-connected and consistent.>> Bob, no one believes the Bible should be interpreted 100 percent literally or 100 percent symbolically. If you believe that, you’re quite foolish. If you don’t believe that, then your entire rant is based off something you don’t believe but are pretending to believe so you can post cheap insults. In other words, yet another lie. You know who the father of lies is, Bob? Are you serving him with your constant lying or are you serving God? <<Perhaps my 'lies' are misunderstandings and errors arising from this false assumption.>> No, your lies are lies, Bob. And you lie so frequently you really should consult a neurologist to see if there’s a biological reason for it. <<Sorry, Coram!>> More insincerity. <<Henceforth I will try not to assume you are consistent, and unreservedly apologise for making that false assumption in the past.>> So you believe the Bible should be either interpreted 100 percent literally or 100 percent symbolically? You don’t think it depends on the passage? More importantly, what’s the symbolism in the creation account that makes it compatible with the theory of evolution? I seriously doubt either you or stalhandske will answer that question because I suspect neither of you can. Happy trails! |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 22:03 |
“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 soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Both stalhandske and bobspringett believe the creation account and the theory of evolution are compatible if the creation account is not interpreted literally (i.e. is interpreted symbolically.) So explain the symbolism, Gentlemen. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 23:00 |
And the verse I cited - Genesis 2:7 - is after life emerged, whether one views the creation of man from a Biblical or evolutionary perspective, Here is the verse again: “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 soul.” (Genesis 2:7) How do you or bobspringett interpret this verse symbolically so it’s compatible with the theory of evolution? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 23:34 |
Here’s an online dictionary’s definition of abiogenesis: “The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.” In the theory of evolution, abiogenesis had already occurred when human beings were created. In Genesis, the creation of man came after the creation of animals, and the animals and man were created by a living God (life created life.) So is your position that because the theory of evolution involves life arising from inorganic or inanimate substances, the Genesis 2:7 verse cannot be interpreted symbolically to conform to the theory? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Oct-21, 23:51 |
<<<Will stalhandske or bobspringett explain how this verse from the creation account in Genesis can be interpreted symbolically to conform to the theory of evolution? “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 soul.”>>> Coram's question assumes that I believe the passage he quotes somehow 'conforms to the theory of evolution'. I never claimed it did! Let me be clear; it is no more relevant to the Theory of Evolution than it is to the history of the Napoleonic Wars of the conjugation of German verbs. Why does Coram assume such relevance? This guy has some obsessive-compulsive fixation about Evolution. The first question anyone should ask when addressing a passage from ANY document is 'What is the purpose of this document?' Is it a piece of legislation, intended to define acceptable or unacceptable conduct? Is it a recipe, intended to instruct me on how to cook something? Is it a petition, seeking me to act in a certain way? Is it directions on how to reach a certain objective? So what is the objective of Genesis chapter 1? Most people who read this chapter literally ASSUME it is intended to describe how the world as we see it was created. They further assume that the writer used a style typical of post-Enlightenment Europe that could be called 'objective narrative'. This is a style of writing that was not typical of religious texts at the time of writing. I suggest that these are false assumptions. I suggest that the purpose of Genesis chapter One is to tell the reader WHY the world was created, not HOW. Now, let's read it and see if it make sense from that perspective... Genesis ch. 1 breaks naturally into two parts. Phase 1 Day 1 God creates light and separates Light from Darkness Day 2 God separates the waters above from the waters below Day 3 God separates the dry land from the seas Notice the progression, from 'way out at the limits' to 'drawing near to the centre'. Phase 2 Day 4 God creates the Sun, Moon and stars to populate the Light and the Darkness. Day 5 God creates birds and fish to populate the sky and the seas Day 6 God creates animals and humans to populate the dry land. Again, there is a progression from the distant to the 'right here'. Remember that in Hebrew, ‘to separate’ also means ‘to dedicate’. Thus in Numbers 8:14, “You shall separate the Levites from among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be Mine.” So the first three days are all about ‘separating’ or ‘dedicating’ the different parts of Creation. Like ceremonially purifying different parts of a Temple. The second set of three days is about filling these dedicated parts with creatures. Like putting the worshippers in the body of the building, the choir to either side, and then the priests around the altar. All in order of holiness, from the least holy and therefore most distant from the Holy Place, to the nearest to the Most Holy. Everything has been made holy, prepared for the Seventh Day, for the Great Act of Worship which will include all Creation and all creatures in it! This pattern is emphasised by the repeated phrases “And God said…” “and it was good.” This corresponds to the pattern of worship in which a priest makes an announcement, declares a blessing or offers a prayer, and the worshipers answer with a set response. Compare this to the traditional Litany (available online, for example see “The Book of Common Prayer” and read the Great Litany and following), with roots going back all the way to the re-dedication of the People in Deuteronomy 27. Thus the Creation Account tells the reader that the purpose of all of Creation is a preparation for an act of WORSHIP. THAT is what Genesis chapter one is all about. Not Evolution, not Day-Age Theories, not 'Progressive Creation', none of which were even imagined at the time of writing. Coram would do well to read Genesis for what it is telling him, not for what he wants it to say. Let Genesis set its own agenda, not the modern reader looking for ammunition to fight modern battles.>> This is too long for me to respond to tonight, but it sounds, after a first read, that you’re saying the creation account in Genesis isn’t about the creation of the Heaven, earth and life that inhabits earth. I think that’s quite a stretch and know of no other part of the Holy Bible in which the symbolism is carried so far as to essentially divorce the passage from the words used within it. I think that’s a pretty dangerous and irresponsible path you’re treading because if you do that with the creation account, why not do it with the crucifixion and Resurrection as well? Why not do it with the whole Bible? The second thought I had, after a first read of your post, is that you’ve been smoking some of Z’s flowers. In all seriousness, it’s an interesting interpretation, but I think you’re way off the reservation on this one. I’ll respond more tomorrow. I’ve gotta catch a train to Sleepytown 🛌 💤 |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 00:44 |
stalhandske, you’re only quoting part of the verse. You’re neglecting that the creation account in Genesis says life came from life - that a living God created living animals and a living man. The fact God used dust to create man is almost irrelevant. Also, the verse states *man* was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed life into his nostrils. It doesn’t state that man evolved from a lower life form and that the life in man was the result of life from a less-evolved species. <<If you make a specific point of God creatng the animals before creating man, also that can be understood symbolically as a process consistent with evolution theory.>> I don’t think so because the animals were created separately and distinctly from man (and, in some cases, from each other.) There is no progression of life forms. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 01:20 |
Are you suggesting that modern science does not rule out God? |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:13 |
<<Are you suggesting that modern science does not rule out God?>> <I am indeed, and I have been saying this for years - also in the various GK fora!> I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that modern science did not rule God as being the source or catalyst of the Big Bang, but did rule out God being the source of life. Unless one wants to take the kind of absurd position that God created life, but only the first single-celled organism. Then after creating the first single-celled organism, God kicked back and let the theory of evolution take over. But that runs into the problem of God saying in the creation account in Genesis: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) So we should clarify. I’m aware (and have been for quite some time) that modern science does not rule out God as being responsible for the Big Bang. But are you saying that modern science does not rule out the source of God being the source of life? It appears you are since I believe, in an earlier post, you stated (paraphrasing) that modern science did not rule out life coming from life. So that leaves modern science’s position (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that God may be responsible for the Big Bang and may be responsible for life, but if He’s responsible for life, it’s only the first single-celled organism. Which runs into the problem of how to reconcile that view with Genesis 1:26-27 (quoted above.) So I still think the creation account in Genesis is incompatible with the theory of evolution, no matter how much symbolism is read into the former. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:20 |
I think you’re being too general here in saying there is no way modern science is able to refute religion. Wasn’t (or isn’t) there a religion that believed the earth rested on the backs of tortoises? Surely modern science has refuted that. And science (not modern science) could have stopped Christianity early on had Jesus Christ’s body been discovered after His Resurrection. I’m not well versed at all in other religions, but I think it’s more accurate to say modern science cannot refute the existence of God or *some* religions. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:28 |
I think as an atheist, you’re (understandably) unaware of the role that faith plays in Christianity (and I think in other religions as well.) “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6) And I think most people take with a grain of salt anything science has to say that hasn’t been established and unchallenged (at least unchallenged in a serious way) for many years given the track record of errors in science. Man is fallible. God (and God’s Word) is infallible. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:38 |
And while tests of paranormal activity may not “prove” a supernatural realm exists, they would at least show that some phenomena on our planet do not have a naturalistic explanation. But modern science doesn’t appear interested in opening that door. Modern science may entertain the idea of extra dimensions, multiple universes and extraterrestrial life, but seems decidedly “hands off” about the idea of a supernatural realm despite more than a few occurrences of paranormal activity on our big blue marble. I think that’s very unfortunate. |
||||||||||
|
coram_deo 24-Oct-21, 08:47 |
What it isn’t is a description of anything other than a primitive attempt at understanding and explaining what they didn’t understand. Use it to determine right from wrong if you must use that crutch. But don’t try to pretend it’s real, cause it’s no more real than Athena leaping fully grown from Zeus’s cleft head.>> You’re ignoring (as you always do) all the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I’ve devoted at least two threads to in this club. I’m not going to rehash or repost the evidence because it’d just fall on deaf ears. Your mind is closed on the matter. There have been some atheists, who are experts at evaluating evidence, who decided to look into the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and they became Christians. But they had an open mind. From allaboutthejourney.org The Case For Christ OK, if I'm a lawyer, and I'm viewing the case for Christ through legal goggles, what am I missing? Anything...? Surely, other analytical legal minds have weighed the evidence in "the case for Christ"... Again, I was truly stunned to find that great legal minds had already done this... Check these guys out... Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure." Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ... www.allaboutthejourney.org |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
