Genetic testing...achondroplasia

[Devari]

It sounds like you're taking these discussions a little too seriously. I simply view these discussions as an amusing distraction. I don't take anything that is posted here personally because I know that these forum discussions simply don't have an effect on anything.

[avenir001]

aawww

Law were your feelings hurt?

Law is a sensitive soul (or the devil in disguise????)

[vip_138]

It sounds like you're taking these discussions a little too seriously.

 

lol, you think he's taking 'too seriously' a debate specifically about 'his' faith

[The Law]

lol, avenir don't let people know my true identity.

[JewelLeigh]

Devari, you know, it's not only me... but a lot of people are sick of your attitude. I wasn't trolling, I am just sick of debating with someone who doesn't keep an open mind or at least acknowledge the other sides of an argument.

I sorta have to agree with Law here Devari. While I enjoy your well-written points of view...I can't help but be turned off by the fact that you just don't seem to acknowledge that other people may have reasonable reasons for saying and believing in the things they have posted.

 

On another note though..I am really enjoying most of this discussion - it reminds me of how little I really know or understand! Thanks all

[Devari]

I sorta have to agree with Law here Devari. While I enjoy your well-written points of view...I can't help but be turned off by the fact that you just don't seem to acknowledge that other people may have reasonable reasons for saying and believing in the things they have posted.

 

If an issue is a matter of opinion I have no problem acknowledging that. However, if a concept or idea is presented that isn't logical or rational I'm going to point out the problems with it. I probably seem very blunt most of the time but that's because I'm trying to address these topics in a very straightforward manner.

[JewelLeigh]

If you refuse to accept the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church then calling yourself a Catholic is not only untrue it is also ethically wrong.

...

Someone who refuses to believe in the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church simply has no business referring to themselves as a Catholic.

Disclaimer: I'll start by clearly stating that my beliefs are very strongly anti-abortion and that I view it as a sin. I also view a lot of things I do as sins - ones that I struggle with and try to not repeat. I also want to say that I am not a Catholic, so I am completely open to being corrected on anything I say that is incorrect re: Catholicism (much of which is just in response to the above-quoted post).

 

Catholics are Christians right? If so, then shouldn't the most fundamental part of Catholicism be what Christ told us is the key to eternal life - plain and simple belief in Him? Jesus did not claim that one must denounce abortion or give away all money to the poor or do anything other than believe in Him in order to have eternal life. Yes, He wants us to strive to live a God-centred good life, but He knows we will all falter somewhere along the road and as such, the only prerequisite for membership in Heaven is belief in Jesus' life, death and rising again....the rest is forgiven.

 

So.....God is willing to forgive any and all of our sins, just as long as we believe in a risen Christ. But, according to the above post, the Catholic Christian church has stricter rules for membership than God Himself does for membership in heaven! Does this seem odd?

 

Yes, I believe that abortion is wrong and would assume that many/most Christians are of the same mindset...BUT...that doesn't mean that I believe Christians who disagree or interpret abortion differently are not Christians! Jeepers...I have enough of my own faults and do enough of my own sinning to be part of a group that judges other people's missteps as harshly as devari seems to indicate the Catholic church does. I'll (try to) leave the judging to God and work on being a better Christian myself!

[The Law]

Jewels, I agree with everything you said. Even if abortion is sinful (personally - I do not think it is), I'm sure that based on the way I live my life that God is fine with me. If the church excommunicates people for disagreeing with something, then I find that exceedingly hypocritical since the church itself (based on the example displayed by Christ) teaches us all about the importance of forgiveness. To be human is to err, and Jesus taught us that the most important thing we could do is love one another just like He loved everyone (the sinners, the outcasts, even the people that ended up causing his crucifixion). Now, I don't know whether or not the Church automatically "excommunicates" people for having abortions, but if they do, this just intensifies some of the things that I find troublesome about the organization. If God is all forgiving, I don't understand how the Church wouldn't be.

 

I think you hit it right on the nail JL, how does the Catholic Christian church have stricter rules for membership than God himself has for heaven?

[Devari]

Catholics are Christians right? If so, then shouldn't the most fundamental part of Catholicism be what Christ told us is the key to eternal life - plain and simple belief in Him?

 

Simple belief in Jesus isn't enough to accomplish anything. The devil believes completely that Jesus is the Son of God yet the devil is not saved simply because he believes this. Simple belief is not enough. A person must also live according to God's will.

 

Jesus did not claim that one must denounce abortion or give away all money to the poor or do anything other than believe in Him in order to have eternal life.

 

You're wrong there.

 

Matthew 19:16-19:22 (NIV): Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"All these I have kept." the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 

Jesus never said that simple belief in him was sufficient to gain eternal life. He clearly demonstrated that one must not only follow God's commandments but must also further strive to live completely according to God's will. Another example of this is when Jesus said:

 

Matthew 5:21-5:22 (NIV): "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

 

Yes, He wants us to strive to live a God-centred good life, but He knows we will all falter somewhere along the road and as such, the only prerequisite for membership in Heaven is belief in Jesus' life, death and rising again....the rest is forgiven.

 

See above about trying to rely simply on belief in Jesus for salvation. Simple belief is not enough.

 

So.....God is willing to forgive any and all of our sins, just as long as we believe in a risen Christ. But, according to the above post, the Catholic Christian church has stricter rules for membership than God Himself does for membership in heaven! Does this seem odd?

 

The Catholic Church is simply maintaining that the commandments from God must be observed, in particular the commandment "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NIV) The Catholic Church simply cannot condone sinful acts. Abortion in particular is a particularly grievous sin since it destroys a human life even before that life can be born. By committing such an act a person has committed such a terrible sin that the Catholic Church can no longer recognize them as a member of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

 

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

 

Yes, I believe that abortion is wrong and would assume that many/most Christians are of the same mindset...BUT...that doesn't mean that I believe Christians who disagree or interpret abortion differently are not Christians!

 

They are not true Christians because they are not following the teachings of Christ and God. If by "Christian" you simply mean someone who believes that Christ is the Son of God then by this definition the devil would be considered Christian since he clearly believes that Christ is the Son of God.

 

Jeepers...I have enough of my own faults and do enough of my own sinning to be part of a group that judges other people's missteps as harshly as devari seems to indicate the Catholic church does. I'll (try to) leave the judging to God and work on being a better Christian myself!

 

Abortion is an act that is completely contrary to fundamental Christian teachings. Any Christian who tries to justify abortion is simply wrong. I'll quote the relevant passages below:

 

Exodus 20:13 (NIV): "You shall not murder."

 

Jeremiah 1:4-5 (NIV): The word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

 

Elizabeth was visited by Mary and remarked:

Luke 1:43-44 (NIV): "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb lept for joy."

[Devari]

Jewels, I agree with everything you said. Even if abortion is sinful (personally - I do not think it is), I'm sure that based on the way I live my life that God is fine with me. If the church excommunicates people for disagreeing with something, then I find that exceedingly hypocritical since the church itself (based on the example displayed by Christ) teaches us all about the importance of forgiveness.

 

Forgivness is not the same as approving of someone's behavior.

 

To be human is to err, and Jesus taught us that the most important thing we could do is love one another just like He loved everyone (the sinners, the outcasts, even the people that ended up causing his crucifixion). Now, I don't know whether or not the Church automatically "excommunicates" people for having abortions, but if they do, this just intensifies some of the things that I find troublesome about the organization. If God is all forgiving, I don't understand how the Church wouldn't be.

 

It's not a matter of forgivness, it's a matter of stating that the person's actions are not acceptable. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

 

I think you hit it right on the nail JL, how does the Catholic Christian church have stricter rules for membership than God himself has for heaven?

 

Following the commandments from God is one of the requirements for eternal life. Jesus explicitly stated this. The Catholic Church is simply following these teachings.

[The Law]

By excommunicating people (i.e. giving up on them)?

[JewelLeigh]

I'm sorry, I realize now that I assumed one thing in my post which I didn't explicitly say.

 

Yes, He wants us to strive to live a God-centred good life, but He knows we will all falter somewhere along the road and as such, the only prerequisite for membership in Heaven (edit: for a Christian who I assume IS striving to live in God's will, but who is falling short as we all will) is belief in Jesus' life, death and rising again....the rest is forgiven.

I was trying to say that we ALL sin, regardless of how much we try (with the trying part being the part I assumed). I was not meaning to indicate that one could say "oh, well i believe in Jesus, so I can just sin all I want cause it will be forgiven." I more meant my post in the context of a "good" person who strives to follow God's commandments already. So, yes, of course I agree with you that God requires us both to believe in Him AND to strive to live a God-centred life that is in line with his Will and commandments (which yes, for me, includes being against abortion). But, even in that context, the point I was trying to make was that we will all fall short!!! Anyone who believes otherwise is claiming they are equal to God Himself.

 

You quote many bible verses to justify why people who believe abortion is ok are sinning...which I agree with. But, there are many bible verses to also justify why ALL of our lives are full of sin. So if one person mistakenly believes that abortion is not murder (perhaps by using a non-scientific definition of "life"), and thus believes that God thinks abortion is ok...yes they are sinning (imo)...but if their life is God-centred and they believe in Jesus, their particular sin of believing abortion is alright does not exclude them from eternal life. God will forgive this sin as well as their many many others. God does not have different scores - a sin is a sin. There is not a "grave offence" as compared to a "not so bad offence."

 

You yourself Devari quoted Jesus as saying "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor" - have you done this? According to your logic, it sounds like if you haven't, you can't be called a Christian then either. Is this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church too? Or is this a "less grave" offence so you can still hold your head high as a Catholic, while someone who thinks abortion is ok can be forgiven by God, but not by the Catholic church? This baffles me.

 

If we live a life always STRIVING to be good Christians, and we believe in Jesus Christ as our saviour, then we are forgiven our sins (any of them) and will live eternally with Heaven. This is the foundation of Christianity (which, I think - surprise - we agree on).

[Devari]

By excommunicating people (i.e. giving up on them)?

 

Excommunication isn't "giving up" on anyone. Excommunication simply formally recognizes that until the person specifically repents and changes their behavior they can not participate as a member of the Catholic Church. Being excommunicated is not permanent if the person understands and acknowledges that their behavior was wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that regarding the Church's teachings on abortion:

 

2272 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

 

I'm sorry, I realize now that I assumed one thing in my post which I didn't explicitly say.

 

 

I was trying to say that we ALL sin, regardless of how much we try (with the trying part being the part I assumed). I was not meaning to indicate that one could say "oh, well i believe in Jesus, so I can just sin all I want cause it will be forgiven." I more meant my post in the context of a "good" person who strives to follow God's commandments already. So, yes, of course I agree with you that God requires us both to believe in Him AND to strive to live a God-centred life that is in line with his Will and commandments (which yes, for me, includes being against abortion). But, even in that context, the point I was trying to make was that we will all fall short!!! Anyone who believes otherwise is claiming they are equal to God Himself.

 

You quote many bible verses to justify why people who believe abortion is ok are sinning...which I agree with. But, there are many bible verses to also justify why ALL of our lives are full of sin. So if one person mistakenly believes that abortion is not murder (perhaps by using a non-scientific definition of "life"), and thus believes that God thinks abortion is ok...yes they are sinning (imo)...but if their life is God-centred and they believe in Jesus, their particular sin of believing abortion is alright does not exclude them from eternal life. God will forgive this sin as well as their many many others. God does not have different scores - a sin is a sin. There is not a "grave offence" as compared to a "not so bad offence."

 

Actually, there are very clearly different degrees of sin. All sinful acts are not of equal severity. This is clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament where different sins were treated with different penalties. Committing murder, for example, was not punished as severely as causing a less serious injury. Also, Jesus recognized that certain people can have different degrees of culpability even while participating in the same sinful act. For example, when speaking to Pilate:

 

John 19:11 (NIV): Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

 

You yourself Devari quoted Jesus as saying "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor" - have you done this? According to your logic, it sounds like if you haven't, you can't be called a Christian then either.

 

Have you actually read the full passage that I was referring to? What Jesus said was specifically directed at someone who was rich, it wasn't given as some type of general commandment to everyone. Here's the next part of the passage, since you obviously haven't read this part of the bible for yourself:

 

Matthew 19:23 (NIV): Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

 

Not only am I not rich, I actually have difficulty meeting basic needs with my current income. Please actually read the full bible passage in question before you try to suggest that Jesus made some type of general commandment for everyone to sell all of their possessions.

 

Is this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church too? Or is this a "less grave" offence so you can still hold your head high as a Catholic, while someone who thinks abortion is ok can be forgiven by God, but not by the Catholic church? This baffles me.

 

First, there is no commandment for everyone to give away their possessions. Secondly, you're confused about the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion. The Catholic Church never states that a person will not be forgiven for their sins. They simply maintain that until the person changes their behavior and acknowledges their sin they can not resume their membership in the Catholic Church. Excommunication recognizes the severe nature of the sin but it does not in any way prevent the person from repenting and formally rejoining the Catholic Church.

 

If we live a life always STRIVING to be good Christians, and we believe in Jesus Christ as our saviour, then we are forgiven our sins (any of them) and will live eternally with Heaven. This is the foundation of Christianity (which, I think - surprise - we agree on).

 

The distinction I'm making here is that there's a difference between sinning out of weakness versus making a conscious decision to sin without repentance. For example, I can understand how a Christian could get an abortion out of desperation and later realize the full magnitude of their sin. I never claimed that a person in this situation would not be forgiven if they truly repented. However, for a Christian to try and claim that an abortion is justified is simply wrong from a biblical perspective. People who do this aren't "striving to be good Christians" at all, they're doing exactly the opposite by trying to justify a sinful act. This not only prevents that individual from repenting for their own sins but also tries to provide justification for others who have committed the same sin. The following passage might help to illustrate the difference I'm referring to here:

 

Luke 17:1-17:2 (NIV): Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck then for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.”

 

In other words, we will all sin due to our imperfections but if we refuse to acknowledge those sins this can cause others to sin as a result and make those sins even worse.

 

As a side point, I think that in a general sense we do agree on several issues. But there are certain distinctions that are still very important to make regarding the nature of sin.

[JewelLeigh]

Have you actually read the full passage that I was referring to? What Jesus said was specifically directed at someone who was rich, it wasn't given as some type of general commandment to everyone. Here's the next part of the passage, since you obviously haven't read this part of the bible for yourself:

 

Matthew 19:23 (NIV): Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Yes, I have read the whole passage. I asked you if you had sold all of your possessions, because I assume that virtually all people living in Canada are "rich" by the world's standards. Unless you are accessing the internet in a public library or homeless shelter, then I guarantee you are still rich (as I am too!) compared to the majority of the world! My point was that no matter how much you try to be a good person, you will sin too...as will I...as will the Pope...as will everyone else:

 

Romans 3:22-23 (NIV): This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinnned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

Romans 5:12 (NIV): Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...

 

The distinction I'm making here is that there's a difference between sinning out of weakness versus making a conscious decision to sin without repentance.

I was agreeing with you on that point. I think someone who in their heart knows abortion is wrong, but then chooses to be pro-choice is sinning. However, it sounds like the person who started this whole debate is not of that mindset. This person mentioned that he/she didn't think abortion was a sin.... Thus, I think that God will forgive this person for their mistaken belief.

 

Now, perhaps abortion was not the right topic for me to bring this up, because to me, it is so very obviously a sin... But, I think it is not up to me, you, or the Catholic church to judge someone's motivation/beliefs in their sins - that is God's job. And in the end, if a God-fearing person has made an attempt at a good Jesus-centred life, but fallen short, God will forgive them.

 

With respect to degrees of sin, we will have to agree to disagree. It sounds like this is a basic belief of the Catholic church, of you, or of both. I believe that is it only in our human eyes that some sins appear worse than others. The Christian non-Catholic church that I attend believes that all sins are are equal, that all people sin, and that with belief in Jesus as a risen God, each person will be given graceful forgiveness and eternal life.

 

Anyway...I think I've probably beaten this horse as much as I can, so I'll not post anymore in this thread for fear of arguing just for the sake of arguing

[Devari]

Yes, I have read the whole passage. I asked you if you had sold all of your possessions, because I assume that virtually all people living in Canada are "rich" by the world's standards. Unless you are accessing the internet in a public library or homeless shelter, then I guarantee you are still rich (as I am too!) compared to the majority of the world! My point was that no matter how much you try to be a good person, you will sin too...as will I...as will the Pope...as will everyone else:

 

Romans 3:22-23 (NIV): This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinnned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

Romans 5:12 (NIV): Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...

 

With regards to the fact that everyone has sinned, we're in complete agreement here. I also agree that to a large extent most people in developed countries are much better off then we often realize and we therefore have a corresponding duty to help those who are less fortunate.

 

I was agreeing with you on that point. I think someone who in their heart knows abortion is wrong, but then chooses to be pro-choice is sinning. However, it sounds like the person who started this whole debate is not of that mindset. This person mentioned that he/she didn't think abortion was a sin.... Thus, I think that God will forgive this person for their mistaken belief.

 

Now, perhaps abortion was not the right topic for me to bring this up, because to me, it is so very obviously a sin... But, I think it is not up to me, you, or the Catholic church to judge someone's motivation/beliefs in their sins - that is God's job. And in the end, if a God-fearing person has made an attempt at a good Jesus-centred life, but fallen short, God will forgive them.

 

With respect to degrees of sin, we will have to agree to disagree. It sounds like this is a basic belief of the Catholic church, of you, or of both. I believe that is it only in our human eyes that some sins appear worse than others. The Christian non-Catholic church that I attend believes that all sins are are equal, that all people sin, and that with belief in Jesus as a risen God, each person will be given graceful forgiveness and eternal life.

 

I do agree with the idea that correcting human imperfections is a continuous process that can only be achieved through having faith in God and following God's will. In that sense I think that we agree on many fundamental aspects of the Christian faith even though we have certain differences regarding some of our specific beliefs.

[vogue]

So Devari I leave town for a few days and you proceed to fill this forum with fallacies:mad: ....lol. well just got back from a short trip read ur post and felt the need to reply:)

 

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Some of the statements that you're trying to make simply aren't supported by the bible.

 

I found this statement rather funny. First of all, you claim that the Bible can not be taken literally. How then can you say my arguments are not supported by the Bible? Maybe my arguments are based on my personal interpretation of it! Unlike you, I actually back up my assertions with scripture and so far you haven’t. I believe the Bible can be taken literally, and that is how I justify ALL of my claims.

 

The bible never claims that God's creation is "perfect".

 

 

You’re wrong.

 

1. Deut. 32:4 – He is the Rock, His work is PERFECT….(read the rest)

 

2. James 1:16-18. “Do not be deceived my beloved bretheren, every good gift and every PERFECT gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is NO VARIATION or shadow of turning. Of His own will He brought us forth by the WORD of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures.

 

3. In the Greek text, there are two separate words to describe God’s giving. The first word (dosis) means “the act of giving” and is accompanied by the adjective for ‘good’ while the second (dorema) denotes the actual gifts received and is preceded by the adjective for ‘perfect’. The first expression emphasizes the goodness of receiving something from God, while the second illustrates the PERFECT quality of whatever God gives. God’s giving is continuously good; and His gifts are ALWAYS PERFECT. All of creation was God’s gift to humankind (See Genesis 1-2), and, therefore, ALL of creation was ‘perfect’.

 

4. Those who have accepted salvation can look forward to the time when the Lord will revoke the curse (that resulted from sin) and restore the universe to the perfect state it had before man sinned (Revelation 22:3). How can God ‘restore’ the world to perfection if it was not originally ‘perfect?’ The fact of the matter is that all creation was originally perfect and man’s sin destroyed that perfection. Being perfectly just and holy God HAD to punish sin. He did so by cursing creation. Read Genesis after Adam and Eve sinned. Because He loves us, God gave us Jesus, however, to save us from the eternal penalty of sin.

 

Both life and death were a part of God's creation even before humans existed.

 

 

Are you kidding me!?! Do you have ANY biblical support?

 

Romans 5:12-17 – Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and DEATH THROUGH SIN, AND THUS DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, because all sinned…For if by one man’s offense (Adam), many died, much more the grace of God and the gift (salvation, eternal life) by the grace of one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many…

 

Romans 6:23 – For the wages of sin is death, but the gift if God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

In Genesis the creatures God created were commanded to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (Genesis 1:22, NIV) How could the creatures have done this without living, breeding and dying? They must have killed each other for food as part of this process.

 

No. Both humans and animals were vegetarians at the time of creation. In Genesis 1:29–30 the Lord said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat.” This passage shows clearly that in God’s very good creation there was no animal death and that God gave Adam, Eve and the animals only plants to eat. Man was not allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). Animals did not prey on each other, and Adam and Eve did not kill any animals for food.

Because eating a plant can kill it, some people claim that death was part of the original creation, but the Bible makes a distinction between plants and humans and animals. This distinction is expressed in the Hebrew word, nephesh, which describes an aspect of life attributed only to man and animals. Nephesh can be translated “breathing creature” or “living creature” (see Genesis 1:20–21, 24). Plants do not possess this nephesh quality and so cannot die in the scriptural sense.

The Bible describes death as the last enemy that will be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). Revelation 21:4 says that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Death was never a part of God’s original plan. God doesn’t like death.

 

Although sin entered the world when humanity chose to turn away from God, life and death were both present as part of God's creation at a very early stage even before humans were created.

 

 

No. See above.

 

No, Jesus did not follow the scriptures 100% of the time

 

 

That’s incorrect. You seem so eager to quote scripture and yet you lack basic understanding of it. Read the passage you quoted for me again. The one where the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus. Read it carefully. Now allow me to take you to the classroom:

 

1. Why did you take this passage “literally?” Are you in the habit of taking the Bible literally only when it suits you? The scribes and Pharisees did that.

 

2. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the scribes and Pharisees did not drag the adulterous MAN in front of Jesus but ONLY the adulterous woman? Would it have been right for Jesus to say “Go ahead and stone her?”

 

3. Your overall understanding of the context of this passage is appallingly limited. Read vs 6: “This they said, TESTING Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him…” Can you believe that?! These hypocritical scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus! They couldn’t give a rat’s ass that the woman was an adulterer! This was a trap: If Jesus had said not to stone her, He would have contradicted Jewish law. If He had said to stone her, He would have run counter to Roman law which did not permit Jews to carry out their own executions (John 18:31). I’m sure you know of the many instances where the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus in order to kill Him. They ALWAYS failed because it was not yet His time in those cases. Given that they were such hypocrites, Jesus had to deal with them accordingly. Look at how brilliantly He diffused the situation in vs 7: “He who is without sin among you let him throw a stone at her first.” Brilliant! Vs 9: Then those who heard it, BEING CONVICTED BY THEIR CONSCIENCE, went out one by one…” Wow, Jesus is so awesome.

 

4. vs 11: “Neither do I condemn you; GO AND SIN NO MORE.” Be advised that while Jesus did not condemn the woman, he did not condone her sin. He simply forgave her just as He will forgive us all if we will only ask Him.

 

No, the bible does not contain all of the knowledge we need to know about God.

 

 

You also stated earlier that I place too much faith in an imperfect document.

 

Both assertions are false. The Bible is perfectly sufficient in providing all we need to know of God here on earth.

 

1. You say my claims are “not supported by the Bible.” Where is your scriptural justification for the above claims? I already gave you 2 Tim 3:15 -17. All Scripture is “God-breathed.” It is perfectly sufficient in establishing God’s will for us on earth and beyond. Too much of a literal interpretation for you?

 

2. Psalm 19:7—“The law of the Lord (His Word, His Commandments, Scripture) is PERFECT, converting the soul….”

 

3. By the way, Jesus also believed the scriptures are perfect and infallible.

 

John 10:34. in responding to Jews who rejected His deity (Jesus is indeed God) Jesus said

“is it not written in your law, ‘I said, You are gods?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can not be broken) do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?”

The Greek word for broken actually means to ‘loose’ or ‘untie’. This is a strong statement of the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Notice how Jesus made the veracity of His argument rest on the absolute trustworthiness of Scripture. Am I being too literal here? I can give you at least ten other instances where Jesus totally supports the complete infallibility and perfection of scripture. Do you wish to try me? What can you give me to the contrary?

 

Jesus clearly acknowledges them as God's commandments. The reason Jesus didn't always adhere rigidly to scriptures is because those commandments were given from God to imperfect humans who would not always understand the basis for those commandments and would sometimes try to apply them without necessarily following God's intentions.

 

 

You correctly stated that the scriptures (Bible) are God’s commandments to imperfect men. You are also correct in stating that humans may not always understand the basis of scripture, but…what makes a man IMPERFECT?.............uummm well, his inability to follow God’s PERFECT commandments! Do you see what I am getting at here? You need a standard of perfection in order to identify imperfection. Whose standard is perfect? God’s!! You have unwittingly supported my arguments (for the perfection of scripture) and nullified your own! What say you?

 

However, prayer and reason are two essential elements of a relationship with God that also need to be present in order to understand and follow God's will.

 

 

Can you please enlighten me as to why you have separated prayer from scripture? The Bible not only tells us to pray on numerous occasions in its passages, but it also tells us HOW to pray! Reasoning is also encompassed in scripture. However, we are repeatedly warned in scripture not to reason according to the world, with our limited human capacities and tendencies. God tells us in the Bible that His ways are not our ways, neither are His thoughts our thoughts. When reasoning, we must be careful to do so in light of scripture, because scripture represents His perfect will. Scripture is His perfect guide to us, His perfect commandments.

 

If you can accept that the bible can't always be taken literally

 

 

You simply don’t have the facts straight. Did you actually read what I wrote? I never suggested that the Bible could not be taken literally. If I were to say to you, ‘Wow Devari, that car just flew across the street!”, what do I mean? That the car elevated above the ground and sped off? Of course not. I mean the car sped along the surface of the road at a high velocity. The critical point here is that although the Bible contains poetry, parables, typologies, customary sayings, figures of speech etc, these are not meant to HIDE meaning, but rather to HIGHLIGHT it! Such elements of language have been used for thousands of years to convey deeper meaning. Understanding the Bible is not rocket science.

 

why is it so difficult for you to accept that evolution can be viewed as a "tool" that was used by God as part of His creation?

 

 

Why are you forcing me to repeat myself? In response to drcave who asked me whether I really believe evolution is not science, I systematically responded as to why science simply does not support the evolutionary account concerning the origin of man, or the origin of any species for that matter. Did you read that post? Do you take issue with any of my arguments there? If so, let me know. The science is on my side, not yours. The theory of evolution is nothing more than a belief system which describes the way in which some people believe living things have come to be the way they are now. Today’s science slaps evolution in the face.

Imagine this: I’m doing some carpentry work and I ask you to come give me a hand. I ask you to hammer a few nails into two pieces of wood. I then proceed to give you a hammer whose head is the consistency of toothpaste. Will you be successful in the task? My point here is that natural selection and mutation which are the proposed mechanisms of evolution, simply can not and do not account for the increase of information required to go from a reptile to a bird, an ape to a human, a single cell to a multi cell, let alone a single cell to a human being!! Many evolutionists (Richard Dawkins is a famous one) concur, but they are so bent on holding fast to their theory that text books describe evolution as fact when the truth of the matter is that evolutionists are still trying to cook up evidence to support their groundless, irrational theory. Why should God use a crappy, worthless, ineffective “tool” such as evolution? Briefly, let’s go back to the carpentry example. What if I had given you a fully functional hammer? What then? Actually, scratch that. What if you could simply say out loud, “Nails, be thou inserted to those two pieces of wood right now!” and it would be so? Wouldn’t that be freakishly awesome?! Would you bother with the dumb hammer? Neither would God!! He didn’t need evolution as a “tool” when He created all things because He had the only tool He would ever need: His mere words! With His mere speech He spoke all of creation into existence! (See Genesis 1-2). What a powerful God!

The Bible says that death came as the result of man’s sin. This is why Jesus came: to pay the penalty for our sin – death. But He rose again, thus completing His mission on earth to give those who believe on Him eternal life. Evolution says that death has always been a part of nature. Can both be true? Obviously not. You asked me why I can’t accept evolution. It’s simply because it is neither scriptural nor scientific. Why can’t you accept Genesis literally?

[Mitch]

Interesting thread here.....

 

Going back to the original post (sort of), that interview question regarding achondroplasia is interesting. Here in Vancouver, ultrasound techs and radiologists are techinically not supposed to tell expectant parents the sex of the fetus until after 24 weeks gestation (unless they wrote it in the radiology report, in which case the family doc or OB could tell the parents to be at their discretion). It used to be 20 weeks, but then one practitioner started performing elective terminations up till 22 weeks, so the standard was changed to 24. This was supposed to prevent parents from terminating fetuses that were not their preferred sex. I'm not sure if that practitioner is still here or not, or if this practice has changed, since I have stopped having babies, and thus prenatal ultrasounds! It's interesting to think that parents may not be able to find out the sex of their child for fear of termination; yet could find out about the presence of a genetic mutation specifically to decide whether or not to terminate.

[Devari]

I believe the Bible can be taken literally, and that is how I justify ALL of my claims.

 

Both humans and animals were vegetarians at the time of creation.

 

Plants do not possess this nephesh quality and so cannot die in the scriptural sense.

 

The theory of evolution is nothing more than a belief system which describes the way in which some people believe living things have come to be the way they are now.

 

Why can’t you accept Genesis literally?

 

I'm sorry, but if you refuse to accept certain scientific principles then further discussion with you is simply not going to be of any value. I can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who uses a strictly literal interpretation of the bible as the basis of their argument.

 

The following paragraph is from the document "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" which was released in 2004 by the International Theological Commission (a division of the Vatican). Certain fundamental scientific concepts were summarized in this document as part of a discussion of evolution.

 

Human Persons Created in the Image of God

 

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

 

If you want to have a meaningful discussion on this topic you need to have a similar starting point to the one outlined in the above paragraph. God gave us the ability to think and reason and to thereby gain a deeper understanding of His creation. If you choose to ignore science and rational thought when discussing your beliefs then there is simply no way to have a meaningful discussion with you on this topic.

[Devari]

Interesting thread here.....

 

Going back to the original post (sort of), that interview question regarding achondroplasia is interesting. Here in Vancouver, ultrasound techs and radiologists are techinically not supposed to tell expectant parents the sex of the fetus until after 24 weeks gestation (unless they wrote it in the radiology report, in which case the family doc or OB could tell the parents to be at their discretion). It used to be 20 weeks, but then one practitioner started performing elective terminations up till 22 weeks, so the standard was changed to 24. This was supposed to prevent parents from terminating fetuses that were not their preferred sex. I'm not sure if that practitioner is still here or not, or if this practice has changed, since I have stopped having babies, and thus prenatal ultrasounds! It's interesting to think that parents may not be able to find out the sex of their child for fear of termination; yet could find out about the presence of a genetic mutation specifically to decide whether or not to terminate.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I really don't see how aborting a fetus due to certain physical or genetic criteria is any worse then aborting a fetus simply because it would be more "convenient" for the parents to not have a child. I obviously disagree with abortion in either case but I find it rather surprising that certain people have no trouble with aborting a fetus "just because" but seem to think that it would somehow be worse to make this decision based on the physical or genetic characteristics of the fetus.

[vogue]

I'm sorry, but if you refuse to accept certain scientific principles then further discussion with you is simply not going to be of any value.

 

Look, I am a science student. Please tell me which scientific principles I have rejected.

 

I can't have a meaningful discussion with someone who uses a strictly literal interpretation of the bible as the basis of their argument.

 

You know, in terms of the evolutionary account, it really doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. The evolutionary account is simply not consistent with biblical teachings. Even if you casually look at how the Bible speaks of life, death, sin, creation etc etc it's obvious that it rejects the evolutionary account. So if evolution is true then the Bible is not just imperfect; it is grossly inaccurate. All it's claims are under severe compromise and should not be accepted because its teachings are based right on the Genesis account. Devari, if you believe in evolution, then you have no business quoting scripture (as you have been) to defend yourself in any way, shape, or form. I see that you have been unable to respond to the fallacies (I drew your attention to) that you were trying to attach to the Bible. So do you concede that the Bible doesn't support your claims?

 

The following paragraph is from the document "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" which was released in 2004 by the International Theological Commission (a division of the Vatican). Certain fundamental scientific concepts were summarized in this document as part of a discussion of evolution.

 

To qualify as a scientific concept, an idea must be subjected to the scientific method. Gravity is a scientific concept becuase it can be tested with the scientific method. Gravity can be observed in action. Evolutionary concepts have not and can not be subjected to the scientific method because they are alleged past events that cannot be tested in the present. This is why I have referred to evolution as a 'belief system'. Creation according to Genesis is also a belief system. It takes FAITH to hold on to either of these systems of belief. If you have chosen to accept evolution simply because the International Theologic Commission has accepted it then fine. That doesn't make it a scientific concept.

 

 

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account.

 

"Widely accepted" doesn't equal "proven fact". Remember when it was "widely accepted" that the earth was flat? That's what the science of their day told them. Have you considered the possibility that even with our many scientific advances we have erred in assuming evolution?

 

the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

 

The idea that the universe is billions of years old is only an assumption to help fit the mould of the evolutionary account. The Big Bang theory is also an assumption. There is no proof. You must have faith to believe it just as I have faith to take the Bible literally.

 

Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.

 

These are all assumptions to help explain evolution as a theory. No proof.

 

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that the common genetics among living organisms is due to a common Creator and not a common ancestor ("first organism")?

 

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

 

 

1. Be aware that any and all evidence that supposedly substantiates evolution is not inconsistent with the literal Genesis account. An evolutionist researcher will obviously interpret the evidence to fit the evolutionary mould. All scientists interpret experimental results according to their own set of biases. It's inevitable. Even creationist scientists have biases. Two scientists could evaluate the SAME set of data and come up with vastly different conclusions.

 

 

2. Why are you so bent on accepting a theory for which there is continuing controversy? Since the mechanisms of evolution are themselves under debate why do you hold so fast to the theory? Could it be that evolution is the flat earth theory of our time? I know that natural selection leads to breeding of varieties of a species (dogs, present day horses etc). But scientists know that natural selection can not explain evolution.

 

If you want to have a meaningful discussion on this topic you need to have a similar starting point to the one outlined in the above paragraph.

 

Sometimes our starting point is wrong.

 

 

God gave us the ability to think and reason and to thereby gain a deeper understanding of His creation.

 

Yes and He gave us the book of Genesis to help us out.

 

If you choose to ignore science and rational thought when discussing your beliefs then there is simply no way to have a meaningful discussion with you on this topic.

 

Why are you afraid to discuss these issues with me? I have ignored neither science nor rational thought in my arguments. I have merely pointed out that evolution is not a proven fact. You need faith to believe it. Why do you criticize me for being critical of widely held beliefs that have not been proven? Wasn't slavery a widely held belief? Doesn't science require me to have a critical eye?

[vip_138]

Vogue, I have seen you post numerous time about how evolution isn’t a science. It is. I didn’t really feel like posting because I wanted to avoid this whole debate but after all your posts I feel there are things I have to clear up, if not for the sake of proving it’s a science, then for the sake of proving it to any readers out there and for dispelling some of your false statements.

 

First of all, let me state that I am an atheist and I believe in evolution. As stated by devari, I do believe that evolution and god are independent and faith in one doesn’t exclude the other. I do agree however with vogue that you can not believe in the bible and evolution as they do contradict each other. Anyways, my goal is to prove evolution is a science and don’t care whatsoever about any debate on God itself.

 

Lets look at you’re original post, where you stated a number of things attacking evolution. First of all, I was quite disappointed that you had basically cut-and-past the argument from a pro-ID brochure without providing a link, source, or even acknowledging these aren’t your words. Especially since you seem to quote the bible with specific passages quite a lot in other posts.

 

Here’s the link if ppl are interested:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

 

 

All the points made here basically culminates to the idea that natural selection must act on genetic information but “you” make a statement that this can’t be made through mutation

 

So can mutations produce new information? Actually, research shows that the answer NO. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.

 

I would normally ask how you can make such a statement but it turns out this was stated by L. Spetner – “Not By Chance” and not actually by you. This is such a loaded statement. To say no mutations have NEVER had a positive effect (adaptive) is ludicrous. If you want specific proof look at an article on apolipoproteins:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html

 

to summarize it, apolipoprotein AI is a major component of HDL which remove cholesterol. Lately there has been a point mutation seen in some cases that has lead to an improved function in the protein (a beneficial mutation). If you want to debate this point I suggest you read the whole article, which outlines a strong case against Spetner’s argument.

 

Considering that statement was the basis of your argument, that:

 

Mutations do NOT work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.

 

The first half of your post is futile since it is a very probably mechanism.

 

“Mutations create variation in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change” - Wikipedia

 

An interesting note that provides further evidence is:

 

“Organisms such as bacteria can even increase their mutation rate in response to stress, leading to the evolution of novel genes that counter the source of stress” - Wright B (2004)

 

So lets look at the arguments for ID. As always stated in an ID argument, the heads of Mt. Rushmore are brought up. Now this statement is made without understanding the scientific process. If a scientist was to look at Mt. Rushmore they would be able to analyze all the evidence around him, notice the excavation sites, the remenants of dynatmit and so forth. The scientist does not just assume it was ‘intelligently disigned’, he/she uses a scientific method and knowledge of what consequences result in what actions (ie. carved stone from placed dynamite). Now for the ID is a science debate (not actually addressed in this thread) which sparked in Kansas, they concluded ID was not a science, because it does not adhere to the scientific principles as having an hypothesis that is testable. A good film to watch that adresses this is “flock of dodo’s” which outlines both sides but comes to the conclusion that ID is not a science, it is faith.

 

Lets now address the “first cell could not have arisen by pure chance” and the term “irreducibly complex”. Now I recognize that this is a difficult to accept and I’m not completely sure if this is correct. I don’t know how complex machinery can evolve spontaneously, but I would like to point out that science is always progressing, and 100 years ago we didn’t know anything about genes and DNA. Who says we might not discover a better explanation for this. I can however talk about the origins of life that can hint that this is possible.

 

The primeval soup and RNA World Hypothesis suggest spontaneous creation. The primeval soup is suggested to be the conditions of “young earth” where there were water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. In Miller-Urey Experiment, they provided a spark of electricity in lab conditions, which sponateously developed amino acids. The RNA world hypothesis explains the how RNA could have been the initial mechanism of enzymatic process and storage of information from the polymerization of nucleotides. There are also alternative theories like PAH world hypothesis.

 

 

For the cause of the the universe, I can’t really dispute it, but niether does evolution so I don’t really plan to address this. I did however start thinking about the QM discussion and altho I don’t have a doctoral thesis in QM, I would be interested in hearing how QM might not be involved ( I’ve only taken a few classes in Quantum Mechanics so I know some stuff but am no expert). Matter can technically be created if antimatter is also produced just like how anitmatter and matter can destroy eachother. This was actually the basis for how Stephen Hawkings applied QM to blackholes, where anitmatter fell into the blackhole but matter was emitted, explaining Hawking radiation. Couldn't a causal relationship be drawn here with these basic principles (the universe creating itself)?

 

Now to specifically deal with the concept that evolution is a “science”. You stated:

 

To qualify as a scientific concept, an idea must be subjected to the scientific method.

 

To take a better definition from wikipedia:

 

“In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation”

 

Evolution doesn’t fit the standard scientific method that we think about because we can not actually do experiments, but that doesn’t mean its not scientific. As seen with a the examples below, we can still use the model of evolution to predict occurences and has the possibility of being falsified through empirical evidence.

 

(These are just a couple examples, there is a list of more examples at: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html)

 

 

“It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.”

 

“Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.”

 

This has basically been a massive post to show you that evolution is a SCIENCE. You say we can’t actually observe it, thus its not a science. What about blackholes, we have never seen a black hole, it is just predicted through mathematical and physical calculations based on observations of physical phenomena. Is the study of black holes not a science?

 

 

Now I’m willing to accept that evolution isn’t fact. It is a model created to account for the overwhelming evidence that has been observed through fossils, live organisms, and genetic analysis. I accept that science is fallable and is ever changing. 50 years from now, science may have progressed to new concepts that might explain the full causal existence of the universe. What I’m getting at is that there are theories that explain processes and though there might be problems with some, they are are best explanations for how the world has come to be and what is most important is that they use scientific principles and observe evidence to draw their conclusions. Our understanding of lets say quantum mechanics is so minescule. Our understanding of singularities where the laws of physics break down is so little that we can’t begin to comprehend its possibilities. Anyways, I think I’m done here.

 

Oh, I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on how old the earth is, considering you’ve stated that you believe it was created in “six consecutive normal days”. How do you account for empircal evidence that the earth is 4.some billion years old?

[Devari]

Look, I am a science student. Please tell me which scientific principles I have rejected.

 

The paragraph I quoted from "Human Persons Created in the Image of God" summarizes basic scientific concepts that are universally accepted by scientists. If you flatly refuse to accept those basic scientific facts about the history of the universe and about life on earth then there's simply no point in having a discussion with you.

 

So do you concede that the Bible doesn't support your claims?

 

Sorry, but your understanding of scripture and your ability to reason are both so dramatically flawed that there's no point in me even trying to explain to you why you're wrong. You simply wouldn't understand or accept my explanation. For example, when I stated that:

 

"Both life and death were a part of God's creation even before humans existed."

 

You replied:

 

Both humans and animals were vegetarians at the time of creation. Man was not allowed to eat meat until after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). Animals did not prey on each other, and Adam and Eve did not kill any animals for food.

 

Plants do not possess this nephesh quality and so cannot die in the scriptural sense.

 

How is anyone supposed take those statements seriously? First, you try to claim that based on a literal interpretation of the bible you actually believe that no animal ever ate another animal until after the flood in Genesis. Second, you try to suggest when a plant is eaten it doesn't count as having died. Do I actually have to explain to you how retarded those types of claims are?

 

I'm not going to even try to have a discussion with someone who insists on interpreting the bible completely literally. If you refuse to accept basic scientific concepts and refuse to apply rational thought to these issues then it simply isn't possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

[degoo_]

Thank you vip, a post like that was needed in this thread.

Interestingly, it seems to me that vogue is actually an atheist who is just playing devil's advocate to show some irrefutable truths in religion, or he/she is just a tad naive.

[vogue]

Lets look at you’re original post, where you stated a number of things attacking evolution. First of all, I was quite disappointed that you had basically cut-and-past the argument from a pro-ID brochure without providing a link, source, or even acknowledging these aren’t your words. Especially since you seem to quote the bible with specific passages quite a lot in other posts.

 

 

Hey VIP

Thanks for your ideas...Yes sorry for not providing links! I'm on the road on and off for a while and in a hurry (no excuse)...you can get tons of info from Answers in Genesis and No Answers in Genesis (for support for evolution). I have read both and others extensively in the past. Also Strong Bible Concordance for better understanding of scriptural meanings (Hebrew, Greek words, cultural contexts etc). I will treat this thread more as a referenced paper when i get home. Its a serious discussion now! I will respond to some of your arguments then (home). I think it will be very productive to debate with you since you realise that the Bible and Evolution are not compatible.

[vogue]

I'm not going to even try to have a discussion with someone who insists on interpreting the bible completely literally. If you refuse to accept basic scientific concepts and refuse to apply rational thought to these issues then it simply isn't possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

 

Alright Devari.