Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US snubs Darwin biopic as too controversial

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    TrackDaddy, please tell me that you aren't one of those folks who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. :?
    jazz-curious.. what exactly is a literal intepretation of the Bible?
    It means that nothing in it is figurative or symbolic, but actually happened exactly the way it's depicted.
    For those who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, ( I am one of those).....it is just that. Mankind has taken it upon himself to categorize the word of God.
    Dietary prohibitions from Leviticus 11:
    13: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray...
    19: And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

    Mankind has taken it upon itself to contradict the word of God here and classify bats among the mammals, rather than the birds. Is that one of those things you are referring to?
    You're kidding right. First I stated categorize the word of God...

    In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?

    The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.

    Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.

    http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/ ... y/bat-bird

    Pego...what it boils down to and always has and will is this, people either believe the Bible and all of it contents as the word of God or they don't, that simple. There is no middle ground.
    on the road

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Speedfirst
      The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories.
      This is precisely the point some of us have been trying to convey to the proponents of Biblical creatinism. Perhaps, TrackDaddy and Scott Mitchell will take the message from you, a deeply committed Christian.
      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
      by Thomas Henry Huxley

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Pego
        Originally posted by scottmitchell74
        How quickly does this thread get shut down if folks start making fun of ANY other religion besides Christianity?
        Show me one post other than yours that ridicules Christianity.


        BTW, the only attack at anybody was TrackDaddy's quote that viciously slandered Charles Darwin and evolution for sins that neither has committed. I am personally seriously offended. To blame evolution for racism and eugenics is beyond pale.
        Three things here:

        First, did you not see or read the cartoons and negative references to Christ and me in this thread?

        Two, where did scott ridicule Christianity?

        And finally, the Darwin quote was linked by the thread starter, Cooter Brown, in the article and I only copied and pasted in the thread.

        I'm sorry you were offended, but personally I feel I've had TEN TIMES the cause to be and am not.

        Some have said or implied offensive things about me and about (my) God, and the article (not me) said some mean things about yours.

        No reason to derail a perfectly good thread.

        Such is life, you know?
        The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Pego
          Originally posted by Speedfirst
          The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories.
          This is precisely the point some of us have been trying to convey to the proponents of Biblical creatinism. Perhaps, TrackDaddy and Scott Mitchell will take the message from you, a deeply committed Christian.
          What?!?

          Speed's post doesnt contradict anything I've stated and in fact affirms it!

          See my post to Helen above.
          The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Pego
            Originally posted by Speedfirst
            The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories.
            This is precisely the point some of us have been trying to convey to the proponents of Biblical creatinism. Perhaps, TrackDaddy and Scott Mitchell will take the message from you, a deeply committed Christian.
            Pego, TD and Scott are on the same page with respect to the above paragraph from my post. In that the Bible dates science. The Bible can and does proves science and really science proves the Bible.

            P.S. TD you are correct, this doesn't contradict what you stated.
            on the road

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by lonewolf
              I think I may have mentioned this on a previous thread. My paternal grandmother, a dear and righteous soul, was a fundamentalist who could "prove" from the Bible, to her satisfaction, by adding generations that the earth was only a few thousand years old. She survived to 99 years, 11 months and 28 days, content in that belief and it did no harm to anyone.
              When I started studying geology and tried to explain to her what geology was, she completely rejected it. We left it at that and that is what I am doing with TrackDaddy. No skin off my nose.
              And the implication is that you are far too intellectual to agree to the nonsense that your grandmother and I believe.

              Because in fact you have the answers that are based on scientific probabilites, huh?

              The day the Earth was born is clearly indicated in your carbon dating super cereal box secret decoder kit. Nevermind that you have no idea how it looked when it was formed, you know what it should look like now...right?

              You know with a doubt not only how old the Earth is but how and why we all got here and where we're going. And to suggest that anyone else has a differing albiet simpler philosophy regarding what you theorize then they are hopeless and hapless.

              Gotcha.

              I suppose time will tell who is right.

              In the interim may I suggest developing a contingency plan in the event that you are wrong.
              The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

              Comment

              Working...
              X