Posted on 04/30/2007 1:18:21 PM PDT by mjp
For those that are interested I have found these videos to be very good.
Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus?
Run Time: (7:30)
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Christ/strobelT1184.htm
There are a number of videos on this site.
And some videos from a lawyer and founder of the Discovery Institute.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/video/ORIGINS/JOHNSON/Johnson.html
If tomorrow the collective memory of mankind forgot the Bible and Christianity, then they would have forgotten all that distinguished pagan civilization from ours. That includes Plato and the Prohets and all criitism of the gods. The gods would return in a rush and heap their ancient demands on mankind.
In the early 1800's of Greenleaf, Harvard and Yale were religious colleges. The world has changed a bit since then.
An honest scientist would have to say that there is no evidence for the resurrection. You may make the point that the law could hold that witnesses in the Bible is "evidence". But they would also hold as equivalent evidence ancient writings about Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Thor, and innumerable others.
If you want to accept the resurrection, I can't say you're wrong. But I don't accept any "evidence" in favor of it either. There are far too many ancient writings with supernatural claims and I have no way to judge which are true, and which are false, so the prudent thing is to reject them all.
The principles of the rules of evidence and precedent have not. You’re using the worn-out, “if it’s old it must be deficient” argument. Do you feel the same way about the U.S. Constitution???
***”You may make the point that the law could hold that witnesses in the Bible is “evidence”. But they would also hold as equivalent evidence ancient writings about Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Thor, and innumerable others.”
Wrong. Those documents would be subject to the rules of evidence. They would be set aside.
***”There are far too many ancient writings with supernatural claims and I have no way to judge which are true, and which are false, so the prudent thing is to reject them all.”
There are many political positions in this world also - all claiming to be worthy of acceptance. Yet I would imagine you have not applied the above stated principle to your politics and reject ALL political positions!
You HAVE a way to determine what the truth is about God. You have a proposition in the Bible that you can test. In the Bible, God states, “You will find me when you seek for me with all your heart.” Can you honestly say you have done that?
It sounds to me like you would rather not know and that’s why you’ve brushed it all aside. If that’s the case, at least be honest with yourself about it.
*****” The Holy Spirit talks to us through our thoughts and he writes on our hearts the true word of God when we let him in.”
How do you determine the “spirit” that is speaking to you is from God?
If you define religion as “3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.” Then Jesus certainly DID found a religion. He told his disciples to go into all the world teaching people to obey all the things he taught them.
Your contention that you like Jesus Christ yet despise religion is akin to someone saying “I like Liberty” but then despising all the necessary societal apparatus that secures liberty for you and keeps the country in which you live from descending into chaos.
That's debatable. Disagreeing with your interpretation of "what [God] says" is not necessarily the same as disagreeing with God himself. Maybe you're the one who disagrees with God, whether you realize it or not.
Besides, even (if not especially) on the most straightforward and literal reading of scripture, it's seemingly impossible to find a antievolutionary creationist who doesn't also adopt and advocate multiple disagreements with "what God says".
For example the Bible gives zero indication that Noah's flood had any geological (as opposed to geographical) significance. You may so suppose, based on (what is strictly in relation to the Bible) an entirely circumstantial case, but it's not based on any Biblical affirmation.
For instance there's nothing in there, not a single word, claiming, or entailing the claim, that vast quantities of sedimentary strata, and the fossils they contain, were deposited by Noah's flood.
In fact there's some evidence to the contrary, such as a few geographical place names (e.g. the Euphrates, IIRC) being used both before and after the flood. This suggests a tranquil flood, that wouldn't wipe out and utterly remake such features as rivers, mountains and the like. But you'll look in vain for tranquil flood theorists out there. Young earth creationists to a man (they're almost all men, btw) propose a Noachian deluge that, unbeknownst to the Bible, did massive amounts of geological work. Creationists who accept an ancient earth tend to accept a regional flood, or some other scheme.
Nor is this the only example. The Biblical language strongly suggests, for instance, that the "firmament" or "expanse" (Hebrew "raqia") that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below," generally the realm of earth from that of heaven, was indeed firm, hard like a mirror of beaten metal, for instance, birds brush their wings against it, etc. (I can gather up the verses for you if you require.)
But none of this Biblical language ("what God says") stops the majority of creationists from gratuitously and utterly unbiblically proposing that the raqia was something airy like water vapor in the atmosphere, or more commonly a specific layer of water or water vapor high in the atmosphere. Again this is mostly young earth creationists. (Others just ignore the raqia altogether.)
There are few (e.g. dinosaur tracks = "manprint" nutter Carl Baugh) who propose that the raqia was made of ice, and therefore solid. But even they, and other antievolutionary creationists, all join the vapor canopy theorists in a further absolutely unbiblical assumption: That the canopy was destroyed and afterward ceased to exist in conjunction with Noah's flood.
Oh, sure, the Bible doesn't explicitly deny that the raqia suddenly ceased to exist then (or at any other time). But again there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that it did, and plenty to suggest otherwise. All the Bible says touching in any way on the firmament in relation to the flood is that "the windows of heaven were opened" (or words to that effect, I'm not looking up verses just now). That's it! At most this suggests the raqia was NOT destroyed, otherwise why suggest that "windows" were opened up in it to allow the "waters above" to pass through without destroying it? Or the windows of heaven could just be a poetic allusion to simple (if extraordinarily voluminous) rain.
I've studied the antievolution movement fairly extensively. Fact is there is not a single elaboration of antievolutionary creationism that doesn't extensively substitute the "opinions of men" for the actual Word of God (if the Bible is to be taken as such) and doesn't in the process extensively contradict the most simple and straightforward reading of scripture. It just isn't possible to make a fulsome elaboration (that anyone could pretend to believe) without doing so.
Do you buy Insurance?? That means you’re superstitious? Christ is the cheapest insurance going.
Good point! In their way (militantly "scientistic") atheists take Genesis just as seriously as (militantly antievolutionary) creationists do, and interpret it in the same (wooden, simplistic, naive) way. In fact militant atheists and militant creationists agree almost identically on nearly every important philosophical premise in the entire controversy, different as their ultimate conclusions may be. They're really peas in the same pod. They're just at different ends of the pod.
This may surprise you, because you probably think that all atheists are militant scientistic atheists (as offended as you would be if the exactly comparable generalization were directed at Christians) but contrary to most normal Christians, theists, agnostics and even atheists who oppose creationism as science, the real "scientific atheists" WANT creationism taught in schools as much as you (probably) do.
They WANT the controversy. They WANT it to be presented as a diametric and exclusive opposition (pick one and only one). They AGREE, of course, with what you just so much as suggested yourself, that if Genesis (literally interpreted) is false then atheism is the natural conclusion.
Oh, sure, the atheists would want creationism presented as a failed alternative, whereas you would want it presented as a viable one, but the SUBSTANCE of it would be little different. Again just the conclusion differs but the premises are shared.
I have to hand this to you at least: That was a most unusual conjunction of intellectual honesty with anti-intellectual bigotry!
But, to be honest myself, it's such an unusual conjunction that I don't necessarily buy it. I suspect that just maybe you read my post and have no good response. But whatever.
But I'm still curious. You disagree with what, exactly? You disagree that it's even possible for you to misinterpret scripture? 'Cause you claim that's the only part of my post you read. So you couldn't (?) have disagreed with anything else I said.
So, basically you're claiming personal infallibility. If you actually believe this, rare as this attribute is, you should definitely consider starting your own church, maybe even your own religion!
Not always - as we have seen in James.
“Christians are those that follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - The Living Word.”
Then by the definition cited, you are part of a “religion” i.e. “3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.”
“I do not belong to a religion but to My Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Do you not know that the easiest sheep for a lion to pick off are those which allow themselves to be separated for the flock?
Are you a part of a Church body or denomination?
I have found no Scripture which tells me how long ago the beginning was. I have found many places that describes events before man was formed into flesh. Peter says there are three different heaven and earth ages, and that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.....
Seems at minimum what is actually written ought to be at least considered on either side.
Yes! Thank you. Those were my thoughts when I saw the title. Evolution and religion are equally disgusting. In fact evolution is a religion . . . a belief system. It is a religion of godless people who have mastered the terminology of the science elite in such a way a to know how to apply them in the their evangelization of other godless people.
Sorry to disappoint you - all that typing and all. Doesn’t take long to see if I want to use my time for something. When you have the Truth, you do save a lot of time.
Evolution theology teaches that life evolved from creational soup. The problem with soup mythology is this magical life creating substance is that it apparently doesn’t exist.
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.