Definitely a fag.
Posted on 01/16/2013 4:41:13 PM PST by EveningStar
In fact, I would contend that such a claim is in direct contradiction to Scripture.
Which states that God created all things, excluding himself, that is, but including all living things, both spirit and flesh.
If souls were pre-existing from eternity, in what sense are they "children of God?" They would be his co-equals in longevity, although not in power.
The Declaration of Independence says men endowed by "their Creator" with inalienable rights. The term "Creation" by definition means a new existence, not a recycling.
A phase shift might entail suddenly collecting information in a planar temporal fashion, thus shifting our 'assimilation' potentials to a completely different frame of reference. ... 'We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.'
Good post.
You allege that Creationism “as defined” is useless. “As defined” by whom? Your allegation “as defined” is an abject confession that you can only proceed if you are allowed to dictate terms and meanings, and your incessant crying and moaning is an abject confession that you are aware that you are not being allowed to advance your propaganda unopposed. And in front of the entire Forum assembly too! How shameful and embarrassing for you!
Now, you allege that my use of definitions is “non standard.” Which definitions?
the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003?
the Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937?
the The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary?
the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition – which shows no change since 1880?
the Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005?
the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.?
the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition?
or, perhaps the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA?
How are they “non standard”? Do you rate yourself superior to all the authorities represented by the above publications? By whose authority are they deemed “non standard”? Explain in detail how this is so, or stand exposed as a fraud.
You are quite correct in saying that Christianity and Creationism are not synonymous. Of course not. Creationism is a tenet of Christianity; the most important tenet; That the Judeo-Christian God is the Creator of the Universe, and of Mankind. What is your point in asserting something not in dispute? Do you think it somehow salvages your soiled reputation?
Your sad pitiful song and dance was tiresome four years ago. Go cry somewhere else. Your pitiful special creationism is as useless as your same song and dance.
“It just goes to show that one person CAN make a difference!”
One person with the support of the mainstream media.
One person swimming against the media stream will not have such an easy time. He has a cause they agree with so they pick him up and carry him in their boat.
So you assert, but the assertion does not prove the fact. You expose yourself as a mere poser, incapable of supporting anything you say. Reduced, like the ape your superhero Darwinian Mullahs claim we all are, to slinging poo. And in front of all the assembly! How humiliating! How sad! How pathetic!
How are my definitions “non standard”? Explain in detail how this is so, or stand exposed as a fraud. Oh wait! Too late! You are a fraud. Your ineptness is even an embarrassment for Alinsky or Goebbels. How sad! How deliciously droll!
What a pitiful display! Better get on the phone to the Creationist Museum showing people having a yabba dabba do time with dinosaurs and tell them they are misusing the word creationist and must add a modifyer. The gospel according to Fred Flintstone! LOL!!!!
Understood -- my remark was for the lurkers, based on your comment
While I don't rank these various types of belief, I think it odd to claim that the only one we can demonstrate to be true is the "lowest" on the scale, while those supported solely by mental gymnastics are the "highest."
One might note also C.S. Lewis's essay On Belief in which he ranks other kinds of evidence based knowledge, e.g. historical, forensics (e.g. sworn testimony), and the like -- more accurate than "I believe" but less accurate than experimentation.
Another feature not touched on much was covered in the book Galileo's Daughter which pointed out the change in questions from "Why?" (as in, why did God make things like this) to "Why?" (as in, what is the mechanism underlying what is observed).
Cheers!
Your avoidance in responding to YHAOS’ challenge is duly noted and expected.
My kids have a term they use for someone in your position that fits quite well.
PWND.
More poo slinging. How humiliating. Cringe, poser!
Cheers!
Sorry, not familiar with that offering from Lewis.
Pwnd was when you incorrectly invoked Godwin then lamely made putrid excuses. Pwnd was when you cannot admit the Pope is a Christian. Pwnd is when you cannot come up with a single practical application for your useless creationism.
Cheers!
You might want to get back on your meds ...
While I am reluctant to put my foot into the "in-between" of a dispute between two such beloved brothers....
At first, I thought it was only a "semantic problem." I.e., the "meaningful" difference between "creation" and "formation."
But that didn't satisfy....
Then the thought occurred to me that this entire "dispute" is resolvable in terms of the concept of ex nihilo Creation, which the Holy Scriptures inerrently proclaims and attests.
From there, I wondered: What is the basis of the supposition that "'ex nihilo' creation" must be a one-time, one-off event?
There are a few folks around FR right now who are paying attention to "time problems," to problems of spatio-temporal dimensionality, of how space and time seem to go hand-in-hand in ordinary existence, and yet manifest to our individual consciousness in ways that point beyond spacetime itself.....
On that basis, I am not insisting that "ex nihilo creation" must be a one-off, one-time creation "event."
And so I'd give points to marron on this question....
Dear TXnMA, dear marron: May God ever bless you and all your dear ones!
Thank you so very much for sharing your views!!!
And certainly, if the universe were not reliably made, we could not have form, substance, reason or language - much less be able to say anything useful about it whether science, math, philosophy or whatever.
And yet when we see a newly born child, we see a new creature in this universe. And that little creature may grow up to add never-before-envisioned arts, technology or whatever to the body of knowledge within this universe.
The Creation was God's doing. His alone. Man cannot undo it or remake it no more than he can end it or prevent its end. And yet it was God's will to let us be a part of what it'll become, whether for good or ill.
Thank you all so very much for your wonderful essay-posts!
I’m Just “hoseing” around... you understand...
WHAT IF?... Tele-Kinetic intelligent creative power is possible..
You know.... “Psychokinesis”
Surely not among humans but available somewhere in this vast “universe” -OR- beyond...
Humans might call this energy “God” or something..
Whether one entity or a committee, cabal, junta, or group one cannot tell..
Seems far more possible than Barry Obama trying to SPEND the U.S.S.A. out of debt..
OR provide Utopia for the Poor by stealing from the Rich...
OR making celebrities of useless eaters at the expense of the productive ones.. whom are milked and sheared like animals..
Under “Psychokinesis” time may be just a commodity, linear or circular depending on the need..
The human mind “jokes” about dimensions disregarding the implications of them..
Under this scenario “made by God” is quite logical..
If one considers “made” to mean “imagined”...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.