Evolution? How?

I have not heard of him right off hand. Why was it something I said that was related? What did he teach?

We were supposed to be waiting for real life to answer setanta's question!

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving Everybody!

Where in the world did you find this? I was just about to challenge timber on his razor. . .

Oh well; how about it timber? In what way does the existence of a causer complicate the event caused?

Happy holiday to you as well Wandel . . .

We will likely wait a long time for "real life's" answer . . . he's shown not the least inclination to this point to answer.

And anyway, RR is back, and that means page after page of jibberish to wade through . . . and the thread was going along so nicely without him . . . obviously, he is no more inclined to read and understand the posts of others than he had been in the past, the piano reference went right past him, which strongly suggests that the only posts he ever reads are those which respond directly to his own maunderings . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153657/

I would like to ask the question what are standards?

Can anyone interested give in their own words, to you, what the word STANDARDS means and also, where you think these "standards" come from?

I think the issue of God should be the very first class taught in college. All other classes after that issue are ruled by it...

God is the basis of all other classes.

God is the basis and the classes are the base...

Basis is vertical and base is horizontal...

Happy Thanksgiving!

Who are all you atheists and agnostics going to thank?

It is one who offers their thanks to God...

Could it be all that is expected of us?

Rex! Oh Rex! Where did you get that gibberish about the OT God being mixed with the devil?

If you can't keep a level head, how will you sharpen it into a point?

Once again, the believers make the case of the unbelievers.

Say Neo, you don't suppose the alleged Tower of Babel is still around, and that's where RR got his religious instruction, do you?

RR has religious instruction?

I enjoy arguing with folks who know what they are talking about.

Even if the ARE wrong.

rex and spendius , separated at birth? Dont answer now , think about it.

Everyone have a good Thangsgiving. Im taking a troop of little larvae gold panning. Im askin for trouble I know.

Good on ya, farmerman, and you have a GREAT THANKSGIVING too! The wife and I are gonna go to a restaurant called the Mimi, recommended by our local newspaper.

tomorrow we help in the community thanksgiving meals to the shutins and less fortunate. Ive been promoted to mashed potatos duty and stuffing. Weve been working most of the week and Ill be glad to get out in the field with the kids. Even though many of their parents are a bit overprotective.

I hope we can find some nuggets for the kids < id hate to have them too disappointed. Maybe I should "salt" the streams.

whats the specialty at Mimi ci.? Dont tell me turkey sushi.

It is pure logic my friend...

If the OT prophets, kings and priests etc... were able to "see" God just fine for the people what was even the need for Christ Jesus. Christ triumphed and changed the way we (the faithful) see God... So this only demonstrates the weakness of the old system and the veracity of the new... This demonstrates the fault of the old and the durability of the new. ...and so on.

I have countless threads of logic that tell me the OT God was not "pure"...

One being the book of Genesis in the study of the word "image" and the presence of spiritual "darkness". Another being the actions and motives of the catastrophes and character of a God "more resembling a human image". The other being the NT and it's telling us to "rightly divide" the word of truth... Divide the Word? Huh?

I can show you many instances where things in the OT that were attributed to "God" were in essence actually willed, orchestrated and performed by the the God of this world (lucifer).

Even the actions of the Kings were often orchestrated by the will of the devil.

One example... God did not actually cause "the great" flood (whatever this flood may have represented)... but God did save Noah... Now why does the Bible say God caused it to rain? THAT IS THE QUESTION YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF? Why would you believe that God would cause it to rain?

There are many instances of these things. Did God tell Abimilek to go kill all forty of his brothers? No! But God did spare Nathan his half brother...

I find it is the sometimes unwritten or unpopularized parts of the Bible that have the most striking truth.

Where you stumble over a certain word and wonder how peculiar a word until it hits you the implications.

So can we trust the OT to guide us in faith and practice??? The answer is... no.. not entirely. The OT led the Hebrew people into slavery, near destruction and near obsolescence...

It takes the NT holy spirit to reside within a believer to parse the mysterious collage of the OT and by the fullness of spirit the believer may seek the perfect will of God within.

Thus the OT was not complete and the NT revealed and changed so much... The church went from a static entity to a dynamic and fully functional, personal inner connectedness and perfection.


Also

Humans evolved from early primates
Primates evolved from more simpler animals
These simpler animals evolved from virus, bacteria, mold and fungi.
Bacteria mold and fungi evolved from chemistry and atomic particles.
Atomic particles evolved from plasma which was created from exploding stars.
Stars evolved from hydrogen
Hydrogen evolved from light
Light evolved from energy
Energy evolved from God...

One thing at a time:Because of what I read at Genesis 6:17: "And as for me, here I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth to bring to ruin all flesh in which the force of life is active from under the heavens. Everything that is in the earth will expire."

'Course, I actually read the bible from time to time.

Look at the motives Neo... Does God "really" need to destroy the world because the sin is so great? Why?

Or did the sin, being so great, allow the devil to destroy the world (flood)?

The motive for God destroying the world is weak. I consider people who say God causes natural disaster to be rather oblivious to the way God works.

Why would the devil care if humans lived or died?

Why would God tell Adam and Eve he is going to send a messiah that will right the original sin and then plan to destroy every living creature off of the face of the earth? Then four-thousand years later send the messiah to "save" the world? That is a fickle God indeed I might add at cross-purposes with himself...

So then God's motive for wanting to live on a humanless earth is, he hates sin?

Well that is rather good of God to be so pure that he would rather live in a humanless world rather than deal with a bit of the unruly... Why is God putting up with sin now then? There is allot more of it around than in Lot's and Noah's day...

Yet apparently satan is living it up and he welcomes sin so you may make out better with him?

This logic only makes God an intolerant prude..

Yet we are to continue to believe that God would rather cause the drownding and genocide of the human race rather than to endure sin in his presence.

Let's say what if for one moment I am right and you are wrong.

What if God did not cause the flood?

What if we have a more deadly enemy in our midst than we have ever realized?

We blame God for our troubles and we thank God for our blessings. Does that not sound a bit confusing? Somewhere this conundrum has got to have bounds and a center of logic.

Thus, It can only be a book written by "holy" men that were only so holy as they were unable to see the "whole" (pun) picture. So they attributed certain events, laws and customs to their own God's will (as they were able to perceive him)... God was forced to comply... (because GOD NEVER POSSESSES)

I ask, in your equation of God Neo, What is the need for your "devil" if God is representing himself as both the jealous and vengeful tyrant and the beloved bowels of mercy?

I will agree that is what the Bible says but what I am saying is that there is greater learning in doubting that...

If... As God said in Eden, there would arise a human that would fatally bruise the head of the serpent (devil). This gives the devil a definite motive to live on a humanless earth. Either destroy humans or die...

Also the devil is a God (theos) too...

The devil divides, the true God unites. The devil is like let's make good and bad people and then kill all the bad people. This forced God to save the people who would be responsible for the Christ child to be born.

So this is why there is an old testament. To record that there was in every (biblical OT) generation a messenger of the devil sent to steal kill and destroy any possibility of this messiah arriving. Even Mary the mother of Jesus had to flee with the young child to Egypt...

With David it was Goliath who tried to take his life. Did God send Goliath? With Abimilek it was Nathan who was spared. Benjamin was spared as Joseph was taken on to Egypt and Seth was spared the fate of Able...

It becomes so apparent that when we look at every generation they were beset by the devils murderous intentions.

The Bible even says that God told Abraham to slay Isaac. This is so illogical... Why would God make a plan to redeem mankind with Christ then constantly try to sever this plan from succeeding. You might as well say that God crucified his own son... Where does this crazy logic end? When do people stop and see the true demon that is responsible for all of our hurts and pains. When they "rightly divide" the word of truth. When the love of God becomes so bright that no lie can ever enter within such radiant glory...

When we look at every story of some child in the lineage of Jesus we see something attempting to thwart that child from ever existing and carrying out a successful life.

So when we see such a pattern of an antagonist "some" attributed to God and some not we must then wonder if there is not a compass of the soul in the form of spirit that can point true north toward the virtuous God of liberty and unity.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life...

Thanks, Neo . . . it's not as if the boy needs any encouragement to clog the thread with this drivel . . .

For sure, Happy Thanksgiving to all - whatever they may be thankful for, however they choose to express their thanks. Here at Castle Timber, not much going on Thursday, but we've got a troop of family slated to descend on us Friday. Gluttony - with due moderation of course - is writ large on the calendar; the board indeed will be groaning, and some of us too, no doubt. The main event is to revolve around a huge turkey that will have been slow-smoked for about 12 hours. Drooling just thinking about it.

OK - that's outta the way, now back to work.


Wholly specious; I'm amazed any might fail to see the absurd circularity of that entirely empty rhetoric. I understand and accept as so that many fail, or at the very least refuse, to see the ludicrous nature of such a proposition, but it is beyond me how anyone might miss it. It certainly validates the aphorism that no one ever went broke for underestimating the public. Rex, you present no argument, logical or otherwise; you merely tread endlessly around the sophist circle.


Just be careful not to cut yourself :wink:


The assumption of an eternal omnipotent causer brings nothing of substance to the issue; such an assumption may be based only on speculation. With or without a "causer", the universe appears to get along fine, conforming to expectations as indicated by science, despite gaps in the assembled knowledge of science. Filling those gaps with a diety concept is an unnescessary complication, and serves no real purpose apart from emotional gratification. That "X" be observed in no way entails that "Y" be assumed in order to explain or validate any aspect or attribute of "X" - "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, most particularly in the absence of data or observation. Something unanswered and/or unexplained precisely is that, just that, and only that; unanswered and/or unexplained, neither more nor less. To "answer" or "explain" the unaswered and/or unexplained via the religionist proposition is unsupportable, a counter-intuitive convention of convenience, serving no function apart from comforting those who for whatever reason may be incapable of or disinclined to understand and accept that there are and may always be things unanswered and unexplained.

The ethos of science is logic devoid of emotion. The ethos of the religionist propostion is emotion devoid of logic. Juxtaposing the religionist proposition and the scientific proposition in order to develop a legitimate philosophy is an excersize in futility; the two are antithetical, hence that wholly speculative and artificial alternative to philosophy, Theology. The Creationist/ID proposition, a subset of the religionist proposition, may find a home of sorts within theology, but can lay no claim for inclusion within either philosophy or science. That the Creationist/ID proposition now seeks a home in Politics indicates it may be not entirely comfortable with the welcome extended it by Theology - a reasonable supposition in light of the aphorism "Politics is the last reguge of scoundrels".

So sorry.

Oh; and Rex: