THE CHURCH FATHERS: A DOOR TO ROME (fundamentalist warns saying they sound too Catholic)

Way of Life ^ | August 18, 2009

[Mad Dawg]

You’d LOVE this dictionary!

[Zionist Conspirator]

Is it possible you have a split personality?

First of all, this is clearly a personal attack.

Actually, it was a question.

Secondly, I challenge you to find a SINGLE POST of mine where I have EVER indicated that I do not believe in Creation. If you CANNOT do this, I consider it to be bearing false witness on your part.

I'll check and make sure I haven't confused you with someone else, but I honestly don't think so. I'm not so much concerned with "creation" per se as the literal-historical truth of the creation narrative. I'm not interested in any form of "creation" that dismisses the early chapters of Genesis as mythology or allegory.

[Zionist Conspirator]

the Darwinists have been able to do this because they know that deep down most people DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. The Darwinists also know that most people DO believe in God and DO believe that He created the Universe, so they simply shift the debate to an argument about time, biology and geology. The result, they make it appear that most people agree with them, when the reality is that most people haven’t even got a clue about their real agenda.

There you go. Your opposition to Darwinism has nothing to do with the literal truth of Genesis at all but merely with the fact that you believe "G-d created the universe." How dare you accuse me of not reading your post. And how dare you claim that you believe in creation "as written in the Bible!"

[wagglebee]

I wrote:
the Darwinists have been able to do this because they know that deep down most people DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. The Darwinists also know that most people DO believe in God and DO believe that He created the Universe, so they simply shift the debate to an argument about time, biology and geology. The result, they make it appear that most people agree with them, when the reality is that most people haven’t even got a clue about their real agenda.

To which you responded:
There you go. Your opposition to Darwinism has nothing to do with the literal truth of Genesis at all but merely with the fact that you believe "G-d created the universe." How dare you accuse me of not reading your post. And how dare you claim that you believe in creation "as written in the Bible!"

I'll dare again, you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it.

I wrote that the Darwinists know that MOST PEOPLE do not believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days and that MOST PEOPLE do believe in God and that He created the Universe. It has been my observation and I think statistics would back me up that MOST PEOPLE do believe these things. However, I NEVER said that this is what I believed.

The point of my earlier post, which you may have missed entirely is that the Darwinists are quite happy to debate evolution because this removes ALL ATTENTION from eugenics. And I stated that Creationists have allowed them to control the debate in this manner while the Darwinists have succeeded in murdering ONE BILLION PEOPLE.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I wrote that the Darwinists know that MOST PEOPLE do not believe that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days and that MOST PEOPLE do believe in God and that He created the Universe. It has been my observation and I think statistics would back me up that MOST PEOPLE do believe these things. However, I NEVER said that this is what I believed.

Well how was I supposed to know this? You certainly didn't say anything to indicate that you didn't share this view. And where are you whenever your very loud evolutionist co-religionists are shooting their mouths off?

The point of my earlier post, which you may have missed entirely is that the Darwinists are quite happy to debate evolution because this removes ALL ATTENTION from eugenics. And I stated that Creationists have allowed them to control the debate in this manner while the Darwinists have succeeded in murdering ONE BILLION PEOPLE.

I have decided to no longer debate "evolution." From now on I debate "the literal-historical truth of Genesis." That's what it's always been about, and I no longer trust someone who says he's "against evolution." It's not about evolution--it's about the Word of G-d.

[wagglebee]

Well how was I supposed to know this? You certainly didn't say anything to indicate that you didn't share this view.

However, I NEVER said I did and when I later clarified my position you suggested that I have a split personality.

And where are you whenever your very loud evolutionist co-religionists are shooting their mouths off?

I don't have any real interest in debating Creation, as I've stated I think the Darwinists are simply using this as a diversion.

[trisham]

Well how was I supposed to know this? You certainly didn't say anything to indicate that you didn't share this view. And where are you whenever your very loud evolutionist co-religionists are shooting their mouths off?

*******************

Rather than excuses, a simple apology would suffice.

[Alamo-Girl]

Again, I don't understand what "appearance of age" has to do with the creation of a fully developed universe or of the first couple as adults. This is not an "appearance of age" other than by retrojecting current reality into the creation process.

The appearance of age is indeed projecting current knowledge onto the physical evidence, e.g. carbon dating of archeological evidence, geophysical dating of paleontological evidence.

In the term “Gosse Omphalos” the word “omphalos” is Greek for naval. Gosse is Phillip Gosse who wrote the book Omphalos which basically says that no physical evidence of an old universe can be taken as fact. Adam and Eve had no use for a belly button having been created fully formed. So whether or not they had one would be moot. Likewise God could have created the universe in a thought, a fully grown tree, etc. In which case, the rings on the tree would be meaningless, ditto for the cosmic microwave background radiation and so on.

The hypothesis is the basis of “Last Thursdayism” which basically posits there can be no scientific proof that “all that there is” wasn’t created last Thursday.

Or to put it in Christian terms, we believe that Jesus Christ is God enfleshed, born of a virgin, died on a cross for our sins, resurrected and sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven and will come again. We believe that while He was enfleshed, He walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick and so on. We believe everything that was made was made by Him and for Him. So why would we be troubled by Creation week, Noah’s ark, the Age of the Patriarchs, Jonah’s whale, etc.?

And certainly "false memories" are a fantasy.

If God were to create false memories, and I am not saying that He did, they would be “real” to us.

Bottom line, objective truth is known – and knowable – only to God Himself. Only He sees “all that there is” all at once.

I've never met a non-literalist on Genesis who was also a millennarian. Are you the only one of your kind?

I believe the Scriptures are the words of God; they are inerrant.

I do not call myself either a literalist or a non-literalist of Genesis because when people use those terms they usually mean "literal" as in their own understanding of the words themselves.

My testimony is that the words of God must be Spiritually discerned.

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

I gave several examples in my long reply, but I’ll recount one of them here:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Gen 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

Both statements are true. Indeed, a thing is true because God said it. He spoke everything into being.

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

As to whether I am “one of a kind” - I don’t know. And it wouldn’t matter to me because I don’t base my beliefs on what other people believe.

My epistemology (how I know what I know and how certain I am that I know it) is my own. I don’t demand others comply.

To me, the most certain knowledge is direct revelation from God. The knowledge I have that Jesus Christ is Lord did not come from me. It was brought alive within me when I first heard Him.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

The second most certain knowledge to me is indirect revelations from God – i.e. the words of God in Scripture come alive within me as I read them. They are spirit and life. The words of men are neither spirit nor life.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For me, all other sources of knowledge – logic, sensory perception, counsel of others, imagination, etc. – are very much subordinate to these.

God’s Name is I AM.

[Uri’el-2012]

When Man-Made Tradition impugns
the Holy Word of Elohim,
it must be rejected.

As you noted Yah'shua rebuked both Sadducees and Pharisees
for preferring Oral Tradition over the Holy Word of Elohim.

The Roman church follows in the footsteps
of both the Sadducees and Pharisees.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Mad Dawg]

I agree about “Man-Made Tradition.”

[Zionist Conspirator]

Rather than excuses, a simple apology would suffice.

Apologize for what? For not reading the man's mind? Don't you know that's not allowed on these threads?

[trisham]

Very glib. Congratulations.

[Zionist Conspirator]

In the term “Gosse Omphalos” the word “omphalos” is Greek for naval. Gosse is Phillip Gosse who wrote the book Omphalos which basically says that no physical evidence of an old universe can be taken as fact. Adam and Eve had no use for a belly button having been created fully formed. So whether or not they had one would be moot. Likewise God could have created the universe in a thought, a fully grown tree, etc. In which case, the rings on the tree would be meaningless, ditto for the cosmic microwave background radiation and so on.

I see nothing wrong with this view.

The hypothesis is the basis of “Last Thursdayism” which basically posits there can be no scientific proof that “all that there is” wasn’t created last Thursday.

This is a straw man created to ridicule the position you just elucidated. What other purpose does it have? To insist that if Adam was created as an adult then we don't know if our memories are real is absolutely ludicrous and dishonest. It is nothing but an attempt to insist on the natural formation of all things via purely natural means over vast aeons.

Or to put it in Christian terms, we believe that Jesus Christ is God enfleshed, born of a virgin, died on a cross for our sins, resurrected and sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven and will come again. We believe that while He was enfleshed, He walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick and so on. We believe everything that was made was made by Him and for Him. So why would we be troubled by Creation week, Noah’s ark, the Age of the Patriarchs, Jonah’s whale, etc.?

That's what I've been trying to figure out, and I've just about given up. Why are you folks so threatened by the reality of the supernatural events of the Hebrew Bible? Anti-Semitism? Anti-redneckism? Faux-intellectuality? Just like ticking me off? I don't get it. I guess I never will.

Like most of the chr*stians I've debated on this topic, you seem to take one position and then to take its opposite. I can't figure you out and if you refuse to take one position and stick with it then I really don't have any business conversing with you. I do believe you folks do this partly out of sheer spite. Why else would you ridicule the idea that Adam was created as an adult with the "last thrsday" hypothesis and then claim to believe that Adam lived 930 years because G-d said he did?

I still maintain that you're the only non-literalist millennian I've ever encountered. But then, the Protestant Paedobaptists on FR are the very first Protestant Paedobaptists I've ever encountered.

The highest Revelation of all is the Torah. It outranks any Revelation that came before or that will ever come after. It sits in judgment on all "revelations" and is judged by none. As for "interior knowledge," it is forbidden to follow one's eyes or one's heart. All must be in submission to the Torah of Moses.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I don't have any real interest in debating Creation, as I've stated I think the Darwinists are simply using this as a diversion.

That seems par for the course. The only liturgical chr*stians willing to debate the creation issue are on the other side.

There must be something about ritual and liturgy that is inherently anti-literal. It's like religious texts are nothing but a ritual pantomime and they don't have to touch "real reality" at all.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Very glib. Congratulations.

Why thank you. And congratulations to you for proving your loyalty to your Church by refusing to defend (or perhaps even to believe in) the Genesis account of Creation.

[wagglebee]

Apologize for what? For not reading the man's mind? Don't you know that's not allowed on these threads?

Actually, you DID read my mind and assumed (BASED ON NOTHING) that I did not believe in the Biblical account of Creation.

When I said that that was incorrect, you suggested that I had a split personality.

When I corrected you AGAIN, you asked how you were supposed to know this. Did it ever occur to you that when you reach a conclusion about someone it actually IS your job to try to be accurate?

As an aside, I could care less about an apology from someone who doesn't appear to have either the good sense or the manners to figure it out on their own.

[wagglebee]

For the record, this thread has NOTHING to do with Creation, why would I want to debate it here?

Do you take some sort of pleasure hijacking Catholic threads? Why don’t you hijack Protestant threads? Has it escaped your notice that they ALSO believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and that He was born of the Virgin Mary? Moreover, unlike the Catholic Church, there are a great many Protestant denominations that openly declare Creation to be a myth, they endorse homosexuality, and abortion and a whole host of other things.

[wagglebee]

Not to mention churlish.

[trisham]

Reading my mind?

[trisham]

Indeed.