Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
"The Creation story leaves out 99 percent of all living things by failing to mention microbes."
Be fair now, Moses couldn't see microbes. The microscope wasn't invented until Jansen in 1595. They thought demons were responsible for disease, too. This is why the Bible makes such a good science text.
And it doesn't if my hands are clean.
Did the meat make them abominable? Or was it breaking and disrespecting the covenant that Israel had with God that made them abominable?
Mathew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
When God told Paul that he could kill and eat any of the animals he wished. It was a dual meaning. First, Paul was about to be sent to the Gentiles to tell them about salvation. Gentiles were also considered unclean by Jews. So this was a way of symbolizing to Paul that salvation would be extended and Gentiles who accepted were not to be considered unclean. But second, it was a literal restoration under the New covenant of what preceded Mt. Sinai that all the animals could be eaten.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
LOL, it might have been, but AIG makes a good case that snakes literally eat dust, among other things.
You think thats bad, the US Constitution didn't even mention bacteria.
Is AIG where you get all this nonsense?
Nor does it discuss the cause of disease.
I do get creationist views and arguments from AIG, ICR, True Origens, ChristianAnswers, RAE (Revolutionagainstevolution), and others. And I get a lot of stuff, directly from the scriptures.
They are leading you away from a true understanding of Scripture. I will pray for you.
Or why Disco music became popular
It's a very rare evolutionist that accepts the flood. If they are wrong about the flood, then they are probably wrong about evolution too.
2 Peter 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Dunno. Perhaps a good research project for you?
Right, you have to read the DOI to get that.
You're the one trying to compare the Constitution with Genesis with respect to the mention of microbes. It's up to you to demonstrate that your analogy is valid, not me.
Not its not. I made my point. The Bible is not a science text and neither is the Constitution. Those are facts.
There is no scientific evidence for the flood. It is a fable. It might have some spiritual lesson, but I can't figure out what that might be.
It sounds more like a campfire story to scare kids into being good or God will destroy the world. (Except in the end it says He won't do that again, which begs the question why He would do it in the first place.)
Using the Bible to call me "full of lust" etc. is exactly how a true Christian knows creationism is wrong.
Didn't you say you were a Christian Minister? You are either an ex-Minister or a Unitarian (some might say what's the difference - a little Protestant humor). You can't write off the flood story and not slice and dice the Bible into a complete mess. The Bible derives lineage based on the flood - you can't easily call it a fable unless you absolutely think the Bible is a joke.
It sounds more like a campfire story to scare kids into being good or God will destroy the world. (Except in the end it says He won't do that again, which begs the question why He would do it in the first place.)
As a Christian Minister - is this what you tell your congregation? The Bible contains campfire stories to scare kids? Something does not add up here. What church would ordain somebody that mocks the Bible? There is no Protestant Church that would find your statements acceptable (except maybe the Unitarians)
So tell us: which parts of the Bible are to be believed and which parts are fables to scare kids and what magic decoder ring do you use to glean this distinction.
You have no idea what lesson is being taught in the story of the flood yet you claim to be a Christian Minister? And you even told me you know more about religion than I do....
...something is rotten in Denmark
IOW, I had matters of substance completely correct.
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.