Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

To answer your question about human rights...

Mat 5:38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.
s
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Mat 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

That's pretty to the point. Basically, Jesus changed the enforcement of the rules because he was teh sacrifice for such enforcement.

In Old Testament times, if you were a Jew, you were ok, anything else and you had to become a jew or your done. OF course, becoming a Jew wasn't easy back then. But Jesus split the vail and that let everyone into the fold.

 

[Danoff]

You didn't qoute the rest of the chapter because? It talks about forgiveness and grace.

Because it doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

In other words, if you find people in your land that are rebelling against God, get rid of them. Do we not do that now? With peole that rebel against the government? I'm talking in the form of crimes and treason not free speech.

No, we do not kill the non-believers today. We do not go from town to town rounding up non Christians and slaughtering them, as this suggests we do.

This was simply a time for unification of the two tribes of Israel(at the time) Judah and Benjamin.

Is this not one of those times? The bible says we should unify all of humanity under one religion by killing those that would not believe.

Danoff, I have zero problem with you bringing scripture into this discussion, but you CAN'T take it out of context, as Foolkiller has said.

Feel free to keep me honest.

 

[Swift]

Because it doesn't change the meaning of the quote.



No, we do not kill the non-believers today. We do not go from town to town rounding up non Christians and slaughtering them, as this suggests we do.



Is this not one of those times? The bible says we should unify all of humanity under one religion by killing those that would not believe.



Feel free to keep me honest.

Ok, you have been saying for a while, and with some validity, that creationist refuse to see the evidence in Evolution. This is in some part true. But for you to take a single verse out of an entire chapter is like me taking out a single sentence in a study on evolution. I could prove ANYTHING by doing that. I could prove to you with scripture that suicide is cool, very easily actually. The challenge is there's about 1000 other scriptures tell you NOT to do that.

I'm sure if I looked at a white paper hard enough I could take one sentence out and say, "see! It isn't true!" But you would say, read the rest of the paper. That's what I'm saying now. You have to interpret scripture with scripture.

 

[Danoff]

To answer your question about human rights...

That's pretty to the point. Basically, Jesus changed the enforcement of the rules because he was teh sacrifice for such enforcement.

So where in the bible does it say they were just kidding about that stuff about slavery, and that now (after Jesus) you're not allowed to have slaves (despite what the OT says).

In Old Testament times, if you were a Jew, you were ok, anything else and you had to become a jew or your done. OF course, becoming a Jew wasn't easy back then. But Jesus split the vail and that let everyone into the fold.

Right it's really easy now. All you have to do to avoid death is accept Jesus.

Ok, you have been saying for a while, and with some validity, that creationist refuse to see the evidence in Evolution. This is in some part true. But for you to take a single verse out of an entire chapter is like me taking out a single sentence in a study on evolution. I could prove ANYTHING by doing that. I could prove to you with scripture that suicide is cool, very easily actually. The challenge is there's about 1000 other scriptures tell you NOT to do that.

I'm sure if I looked at a white paper hard enough I could take one sentence out and say, "see! It isn't true!" But you would say, read the rest of the paper. That's what I'm saying now. You have to interpret scripture with scripture.

What you mean by that is that you want to re-interpret scripture that you don't like with scripture that you do like. They're contradictory. One says turn the other cheek. The other says kill all non-believers. One says love your enemies. The other says kill the queers. One says man is divine. The other says man is property.

Those are big inconsistencies - and you seem to have no trouble finding ways to justify to yourself that sentence x should be taken literally, but sentence y is symbolic.

 

[Swift]

So where in the bible does it say they were just kidding about that stuff about slavery, and that now (after Jesus) you're not allowed to have slaves (despite what the OT says).

Who said anything about the bible "kidding". Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. The Messiah that brought balance to the world(on a spiritual level).

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Right it's really easy now. All you have to do to avoid death is accept Jesus.

Well, yeah. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Danoff]

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

The only way I can reconcile these two inconsistencies is to assume that Christ literally meant the word "master" not the concept "master". As in, "it's ok to own slaves, just don't let them call you master".

Well, yeah. That's really all there is to it.

Where's your gun? Where's your suicide belt? Why are you not murdering the non-believers as your holy book tells you to?

 

[Swift]

What you mean by that is that you want to re-interpret scripture that you don't like with scripture that you do like. They're contradictory. One says turn the other cheek. The other says kill all non-believers. One says love your enemies. The other says kill the queers. One says man is divine. The other says man is property.

Those are big inconsistencies - and you seem to have no trouble finding ways to justify to yourself that sentence x should be taken literally, but sentence y is symbolic.

No, that's not what I mean. You do realize there there is a time line to the bible, correct? Jesus, who obviously came after the old testament, was the fulfillment of the Messiah. Now, you say I just go and reinterpret scripture that I don't like. I never said that the quotes in the old testament were symbolic or literal. What I said was you were taking out of context to make the word look like a death book.

It's not an inconsistency. All those quotes were given to Israel as a nation. NOT an individual. So when you see things about homosexuality and adultery, it's talking about how to enforce punishment for sin.

Also, you know when it's being literal or symbolic. Especially in the new testament when Jesus is giving his parables. It's extremely easy to see what is literal. He said to gouge your eyes out if you see something sinful. But, he saw sin and never gouged his own eyes out. Along with his disciples. This is what I mean by interpreting scripture with scripture. Just like you would do with science in a peer reviewed study.

Where's your gun? Where's your suicide belt? Why are you not murdering the non-believers as your holy book tells you to?

This is getting dangerously close to a personal attack.

Why am I not doing it? Oh I don't know, maybe because I don't base my faith on one sentence! Danoff, seriously, when you read the ENTIRE bible, things come to light. When you pick and choose what you want, that's when things get confusing. Read the WHOLE book of, well, whatever before you start to say the bible is inconsistent.

Let me ask you something, since you like to pull scripture out of context. What's the deal with this?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If we are to kill non-believers, would Jesus want to save everyone?

 

[Danoff]

No, that's not what I mean. You do realize there there is a time line to the bible, correct? Jesus, who obviously came after the old testament, was the fulfillment of the Messiah. Now, you say I just go and reinterpret scripture that I don't like. I never said that the quotes in the old testament were symbolic or literal. What I said was you were taking out of context to make the word look like a death book.

Do you claim that the bible does not instruct you to kill non-believers and gays?

It's not an inconsistency. All those quotes were given to Israel as a nation. NOT an individual. So when you see things about homosexuality and adultery, it's talking about how to enforce punishment for sin.

How does this make anything better?

Also, you know when it's being literal or symbolic. Especially in the new testament when Jesus is giving his parables. It's extremely easy to see what is literal. He said to gouge your eyes out if you see something sinful. But, he saw sin and never gouged his own eyes out. Along with his disciples. This is what I mean by interpreting scripture with scripture. Just like you would do with science in a peer reviewed study.

Scientists don't typically use symbolism in their studies. They tend to be very precise with their language so as not to be misinterpreted. I'd have appreciated the same thoroughness from God.

This is getting dangerously close to a personal attack.

Try not to take my beef with religion personally. I'm honestly confused as to why you ignore some parts of your holy book but take others literally.

Why am I not doing it? Oh I don't know, maybe because I don't base my faith on one sentence!

Right, you pick and choose which setences to follow and which ones not to. Why can't you do this with evolution?

Let me ask you something, since you like to pull scripture out of context. What's the deal with this?
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Sounds like easy immortality to me.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Is posting by Jesus and the Bible in here equal to divine intervention.

 

[Swift]

Do you claim that the bible does not instruct you to kill non-believers and gays?

Yes! Jesus died for ALL sin. Hence we are not to punish any sinners.

How does this make anything better?

ONe is murder, one is capital punishment. I believe you're a fan of capital punishment, correct?

Scientists don't typically use symbolism in their studies. They tend to be very precise with their language so as not to be misinterpreted. I'd have appreciated the same thoroughness from God.

You'd have it if you read the book in its entirety and with an open mind.

 

[Danoff]

Yes! Jesus died for ALL sin. Hence we are not to punish any sinners.

So then you're not in favor of capital punishment?

ONe is murder, one is capital punishment. I believe you're a fan of capital punishment, correct?

Capital punishment for sexual orientation? No. Capital punishment for not being Christian? No. That would be murder... or... genocide.

 

[Swift]

So then you're not in favor of capital punishment?

I'm very much in favor of capital punishment and I wish it was enforced more often. I see where you going with this. You're saying that it's contradictory for me to be in favor of capital punishment and not punish sinners. Well, we're not punishing the sin, we're punishing the crime. That person, as scary as it is to some(and me sometimes) can be saved and go to heaven. But that doesn't mean they should get let off for their crimes against humanity.

Capital punishment for sexual orientation? No. Capital punishment for not being Christian? No. That would be murder... or... genocide.

Point of view on that one. I'm not saying people should be put to death for anything less then killing someone else. But my point is that there are people, non-Christians, that kill for much less then that. How many people are killed in Muslim-lead countries for being the wrong religion or even wrong "type" of Muslim? The same goes with the stupid Catholic vs Protestant garbage.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok FK. I don't necessarily know when the death is supposed to be symbolic or literal.

Yeah, I jumped back into this late, but I was at lunch.

Well, when it pretty much lays out that someone is telling a parable then I am guessing the statements are a symbolic nature meant to present a lesson or meaning, as that is what a parable does.

I mean, do you think that every time an author writes book in the first person that they actually mean what the main character says? If so then Stephen King should be locked up because he has apparently killed dozens of people then.

When a spiritual leader gives a tale as a lesson it is not a command, but a lesson. How hard is that?

As for the rest of your quotes I will grant you that there is a lot of off the wall remarks made in the Bible, something I did not disagree with you on. I was merely correcting your context. I wouldn't have noticed but that parable is the same one I used to argue with my brother on how I can be both a Capitalist and a Christian (he is neither). The verse jumped out at me and I knew it wasn't a command from Jesus (as you presented it) but Jesus making a quote from a story.

I know you are smart enough to know the difference between a commandment and a parable, so please don't play the "the Bible confuses me" ploy. I know you are more intelligent than that and I hope you realize that I am intelligent enough not to step into that bear trap.

 

[ledhed]

So where in the bible does it say they were just kidding about that stuff about slavery, and that now (after Jesus) you're not allowed to have slaves (despite what the OT says).



Right it's really easy now. All you have to do to avoid death is accept Jesus.




What you mean by that is that you want to re-interpret scripture that you don't like with scripture that you do like. They're contradictory. One says turn the other cheek. The other says kill all non-believers. One says love your enemies. The other says kill the queers. One says man is divine. The other says man is property.

Those are big inconsistencies - and you seem to have no trouble finding ways to justify to yourself that sentence x should be taken literally, but sentence y is symbolic.

Actually all you have to do to avoid death is to not live.

 

[Swift]

Actually all you have to do to avoid death is to not live.

But that's moot since none of us chose to live.

 

[Danoff]

I'm very much in favor of capital punishment and I wish it was enforced more often. I see where you going with this. You're saying that it's contradictory for me to be in favor of capital punishment and not punish sinners. Well, we're not punishing the sin, we're punishing the crime. That person, as scary as it is to some(and me sometimes) can be saved and go to heaven. But that doesn't mean they should get let off for their crimes against humanity.

Point taken. You distinguish crimes from sins. Usually Christians try to argue that crime is based on sin and that Christianity is the basis of the American penal code. But it's good to see that you don't make that argument.

Point of view on that one. I'm not saying people should be put to death for anything less then killing someone else. But my point is that there are people, non-Christians, that kill for much less then that. How many people are killed in Muslim-lead countries for being the wrong religion or even wrong "type" of Muslim? The same goes with the stupid Catholic vs Protestant garbage.

Absolutely. Christianity isn't the only religion that claims you should kill those who follow any other religion. It's not even the most active at preaching that today. Muslims currently hold trophy for most hate-filled, murderous religious sect. But as you know, Christians have their own history of intolerance for others.

Your holy book says that you should kill non-believers (and homosexuals). You ignore this command, but choose not to ignore other aspects of the OT. If you can show me where in the new testiment it says that man should not take it upon himself to punish sinners - that it is against God's will to enforce his moral law, that somehow Jesus's death means we should tolerate sin, I'll stop picking on you and admit that your refusal to kill non-Christians is consistent.

Then I'll just have to find some Jewish creationists to argue with.

 

[Swift]

Point taken. You distinguish crimes from sins. Usually Christians try to argue that crime is based on sin and that Christianity is the basis of the American penal code. But it's good to see that you don't make that argument.

Good deal

Absolutely. Christianity isn't the only religion that claims you should kill those who follow any other religion. It's not even the most active at preaching that today. Muslims currently hold trophy for most hate-filled, murderous religious sect. But as you know, Christians have their own history of intolerance for others.

All forms of organized religion have some ugly spots in their history.

Your holy book says that you should kill non-believers (and homosexuals). You ignore this command, but choose not to ignore other aspects of the OT. If you can show me where in the new testiment it says that man should not take it upon himself to punish sinners - that it is against God's will to enforce his moral law, that somehow Jesus's death means we should tolerate sin, I'll stop picking on you and admit that your refusal to kill non-Christians is consistent.

Then I'll just have to find some Jewish creationists to argue with.

OK

Jhn 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Jhn 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Jhn 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

Jhn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Jhn 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Jhn 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[Danoff]

Ok Swift, I was wrong.

If you believe Jesus is the son of God, and you believe that he is commanding man not to punish other men for sins in that quote, then you get to ignore the OT commandments that people be stoned etc.

Why did Jesus contradict God like that? Or, perhaps more technically correct in your eyes, why did God change his mind on that issue?

 

[Swift]

Ok Swift, I was wrong.

Ok.

If you believe Jesus is the son of God, and you believe that he is commanding man not to punish other men for sins in that quote, then you get to ignore the OT commandments that people be stoned etc.

It's not ignoring the rules, but the punishment for said rules. Except for the sabbath day. Jesus is the sabbath, so we don't have that anymore. Thank God!

Why did Jesus contradict God like that? Or, perhaps more technically correct in your eyes, why did God change his mind on that issue?

First, I don't believe in the trinity. But one God and his name is Jesus.

Second, it's not a contradiction. Again, it's a fulfillment. Why did people have to be put to death or kill an animal? To atone for the sin. Well, Jesus is the Lamb of God. He was that sacrifice. His blood paid for our sins. So we're not to be punished for our sins when we accept him as Lord. So if the blood has already been spilled, then there is no reason for continued sacrifice.

 

[Danoff]

Second, it's not a contradiction. Again, it's a fulfillment. Why did people have to be put to death or kill an animal? To atone for the sin. Well, Jesus is the Lamb of God. He was that sacrifice. His blood paid for our sins. So we're not to be punished for our sins when we accept him as Lord. So if the blood has already been spilled, then there is no reason for continued sacrifice.

Good answer.

Why did that happen? Why did God want "our sins" paid for?

 

[Duke]

If we are to kill non-believers, would Jesus want to save everyone?

Well, if they get saved, and become baptized, then they're believers and no longer need to be killed, right? But your scripture there says that nonbelievers are still damned.

All that Jesus is saying is that you need to try to convert everyone first, before you can kill them out of hand.

 

[Swift]

Good answer.

Why did that happen? Why did God want "our sins" paid for?

Thanks.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God created us for relationship. To put it simply, sin gets in the way of a relationship with God. Much like cheating on your spouse messes up your relationship. Or overspending, staying out to late, etc. While humans have varying degrees of "messing up". To God sin is sin.

 

[livemusic]

I like to read this thread but I always forget to subscribe to it.

Done.

 

[Danoff]

God created us for relationship. To put it simply, sin gets in the way of a relationship with God. Much like cheating on your spouse messes up your relationship. Or overspending, staying out to late, etc. While humans have varying degrees of "messing up". To God sin is sin.

That didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase. What was the divine purpose for Jesus? Why did God send Jesus to atone for our sins?

 

[ledhed]

Someone had to do it ? And to set an example ?

 

[Swift]

That didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase. What was the divine purpose for Jesus? Why did God send Jesus to atone for our sins?

To get back the relationship.

When you read in the old testament, you see a recurring theme of the best animal being sacrificed for the sin of the tribe/group/nation. All this did was push the sin forward or delay the penalty until Jesus was crucified.

The divine purpose of Jesus Christ is to be the sacrificial Lamb that restores the relationship that man and God had in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Danoff]

Then why did God drive man out of the garden of eden in the first place?

 

[ledhed]

Because they didn't listen to him like good children and ate forbiden fruit and so were cast out by a pissed off daddy .

Short version .


BTW that is the ORIGIONAL sin we are all born with....the gift that keeps on giving.


Either that or because of the Supreme court ruling on eminent domain God decided to Build a K mart and close the garden of eden, and form an enterprise zone. And an Ark factory .

Depends who you ask .

 

[Danoff]

Because they didn't listen to him like good children and ate forbiden fruit and so were cast out by a pissed off daddy.

I'm familiar with the pissed off daddy version. But if God wanted the "relationship" with man to return to what it was in the garden of eden, why not respond to the transgresion a little differently?

 

[Swift]

I'm familiar with the pissed off daddy version. But if God wanted the "relationship" with man to return to what it was in the garden of eden, why not respond to the transgresion a little differently?

He handled it exactly how he told Adam he would handle it. You eat this fruit, you die. Adam ate the fruit, hence he could no longer eat from the tree of life. Seems fair to me.