6 Literal Days

Originally posted by CalJust
You see, this is exactly what I am talking about - you also link the 6-Day Theory to other significant parts of the Bible. That is the fallacy of which KH in the video is guilty.

Of course, God COULD have made the earth flat - but we know now he didn't.

He COULD have made the stork bring babies, but at least some of us know that the facts are different ...[text shortened]... ned the universe in 6 days, but massive evidence shows that he didn't.

Any further questions?

You could have been dropped on your head as a baby. That's still up for debate. 😏

Originally posted by finnegan
You are the one who proclaimed that [b]"sin can only be real if there is a standard by which we fall short."

Whatever sin refers to, whatever the relevant standard is or may be, it cannot be morality. I gave the example of Mother Theresa to illustrate the drastic misconception that religious virtue can be confused with morality. It was only an illust ...[text shortened]... nd if we drive on the left or the right as long as we agree on one or the other and stick to it.[/b]

If there are different standards we live by and those are all there is, forget sin. We all have
our versions to live by, your version of right and wrong could be different than mine. Just
as we both could have different standards than Mother Theresa's and if we all have our
own version and there is none that we are all held to, forget sin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there are different standards we live by and those are all there is, forget sin. We all have
our versions to live by, your version of right and wrong could be different than mine. Just
as we both could have different standards than Mother Theresa's and if we all have our
own version and there is none that we are all held to, forget sin.

I forgot sin a long time ago. You continue to promote sin. I have questioned your account and given grounds for my approach. I have not simply scribbled nonsense syllables on the screen.

You are seeking to evade a rational discussion by appealing to the nonsensical notion that every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. This attitude destroys all hope of communication in a world of adults. It leaves one puzzled about why you choose to use a forum at all.

Originally posted by finnegan
I forgot sin a long time ago. You continue to promote sin. I have questioned your account and given grounds for my approach. I have not simply scribbled nonsense syllables on the screen.

You are seeking to evade a rational discussion by appealing to the nonsensical notion that every opinion is as valid as every other opinion. This attitude destroys all ...[text shortened]... ication in a world of adults. It leaves one puzzled about why you choose to use a forum at all.

I've not evaded anything! You forgot sin a long time ago, I imagine about the same time you
forgot other things too.

The notion I've been dealing with is very simple and I do believe you have not seen it yet!
If our bases for all right and wrong starts and ends with us, than all of our rights and
wrongs are all opinions. We can debate opinions, we can go to war over them, it will be
an never ending struggle of who is right and who is wrong.

That changes if there is One we are all accountable too, than right and wrong, sin will be
something we need to go to Him to get the answers for, our opinions on the matter will be
trumped by His. Forgetting sin will not be an excuse for doing it, no matter if you claim
I'm not being an adult while presenting my views on this or not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a matter of faith for me, you are the one looking for proof beyond doubt which you do
not have even now, unless you want to tell me it is impossible for man to be wrong about
all of this! I could buy into what those who claim to know say is true, it would be easier to
agree with those that disbelieve scripture, than just accept God could do it just like it was
written He did.

KJ, everything you write here could have been said by a faithful Christian disputing with someone who believed Copernicus and Galileo.

"Why not just accept what God said in the Bible! Why bring science into it? Don't you have any faith?"

I do not doubt that you are sincere, (as distinguished from RJH, who is a charlatan). If you are happy in your belief, go in peace, I will not try to make you change your mind.

Originally posted by CalJust
KJ, everything you write here could have been said by a faithful Christian disputing with someone who believed Copernicus and Galileo.

"Why not just accept what God said in the Bible! Why bring science into it? Don't you have any faith?"

I do not doubt that you are sincere, (as distinguished from RJH, who is a charlatan). If you are happy in your belief, go in peace, I will not try to make you change your mind.

Not sure why you continuing this discussion with me, as I said, feel free to believe men who
think they know what happen in the distant past. Truth is what it is, be it found in faith, or
observation so what goes on between your ears and your heart is completely between you
and God. If it makes you feel better claiming science the way of truth, feel free. I do
agree that science is a wonderful thing, we have learned so much from it.

Where I part company with you besides your cheap shots at scripture and those that do
believe in it, is that you accept things that cannot be shown true and false, so that if
anyone disagrees with your beliefs you think they are less than and so make fun of their
beliefs and scriptures. I agree some of the very worst things said here are from those
that profess Christ, the hate and belittling they do with others Jesus died for here is very
sad and troubling (I can join this too from time to time I'm sorry to say), but seeing a wrong
doesn't give justification to do the same if you really cared about proper debate.

If some things are believed that cannot be shown to be true or false like God is real, they
must be accepted as matter of faith not fact, True believers will believe, the same is also
true of other things like what happen billions of years ago, or millions of ago, even
thousands of years ago if we cannot prove them true or false we just accept them as
faith, but not so with the likes of you, science is above that. You don't know how the
universe began, but you know the Bible verses on the topic are not right, why, because
you are a true believer in something besides scripture.

If I question it or disbelieve, I guess its open season on me so you felt it necessary to
drag scripture and the storks delivering babies as fair comparision. You should lay off of
RJH, you do the very same thing you accuse him of.

Originally posted by KellyJay
.....you felt it necessary to
drag scripture and the storks delivering babies as fair comparision.

You totally misunderstood my point, so let me clarify lest it stands like this uncorrected.

I did not, and do not, equate the storks story with scripture.

What I DID and DO challenge is your contention that just because God COULD HAVE DONE something in a certain way, that is proof that he DID DO it in a certain way.

Clearly, that is a fallacious argument.

And the point that you have consistently failed to respond to, is my contention that the situation we have today with the creation and evolution debate is EXACTLY like the geocentric debate of Galileo.

The Christian pov then was EXACTLY like the pov you keep on stressing:

1. Why not accept the Word of God?
2. The science is incomplete. How can anybody be absolutely SURE that the earth is not the centre of the universe?
3 If you allow people to believe this, then it undermines their faith in God.

Galileo and Copernicus showed us that what the church fervently believed, was incorrect. The church fought it, but finally (a few hundred years later!) admitted they were wrong. And the church survived!

The situation today is exactly the same. Christians see Darwin and Dawkins as a threat to their faith. THIS NEED NOT BE SO!! I have shown several times that devout Christian scientists, who know what they are talking about (like Francis Collins) have shown that you can believe in God without the ridiculous baggage of the YECs.

You have asked me several direct questions and I have answered them.

My direct question to you would be: Do you see any parallels at all between the geocentricity debate of 1615, and the creationist debate today?

Originally posted by CalJust
You totally misunderstood my point, so let me clarify lest it stands like this uncorrected.

[b]I did not, and do not, equate the storks story with scripture.

What I DID and DO challenge is your contention that just because God COULD HAVE DONE something in a certain way, that is proof that he DID DO it in a certain way.

Clearly, that is a fallaci ...[text shortened]... parallels at all between the geocentricity debate of 1615, and the creationist debate today?[/b][/b]

I have to say that was what you did, you put scripture and the stork story in the same
light, so while I grant that may not have been your intent, it was what you did.

My contention is that scripture points to God doing something, does that mean it happen?
Special events of God doing a supernatural event would never show up in our methods
of discovery, thus it is on faith. We may be dumb founded on why, but like so many things
that we either accept or reject we have to take it on faith. When I'm asked how old the
universe is my response is I don't know, I believe in a young universe created by God.

You think you know how it got here and how old it is, well you may be right! What you are
not if your honest is certain, but you can believe you know. You put your trust in
someone's theory, could they be right, yes!

I've never asked anyone to accept my point of view over their own, I don't claim to know
how old it is, what I do is say that no one else knows either. Including those that think or
believe that it is billions of years old. The question of age is not that important to me, but
having people suggest their faith in some theory should not be thought of as the same as
my faith in God is laughable. It is still faith, it is still a belief that the methods used with the
information we have can tell us something when admittedly no one can show us how all
of this started. If it was started with all the current parts in place functioning as they do
today looking at rates and distances will never tell us about its age, but just rates and
distances. You have faith, and you are putting it where you deem it should be, just don't
mock me when I talk about mine as if yours is somehow more special.

With respect to the geocentricity debate of 1615, yea I do see some parallels, today those
that reject scripture are now the ones in power attacking those with faith in the Bible. It is
the same discussion, except the tables have been turned.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've not evaded anything! You forgot sin a long time ago, I imagine about the same time you
forgot other things too.

The notion I've been dealing with is very simple and I do believe you have not seen it yet!
If our bases for all right and wrong starts and ends with us, than all of our rights and
wrongs are all opinions. We can debate opinions, we can ...[text shortened]... ing it, no matter if you claim
I'm not being an adult while presenting my views on this or not.

If our bases for all right and wrong starts and ends with us, than all of our rights and wrongs are all opinions. We can debate opinions, we can go to war over them, it will be an never ending struggle of who is right and who is wrong.

That changes if there is One we are all accountable too, than right and wrong, sin will be
something we need to go to Him to get the answers for, our opinions on the matter will be
trumped by His.

Your sentences are conditional and you present a false dichotomy. It seems self evident to me that my personal ethical values can be something I take personal responsibility for, with myself as judge and jury. The formula is "be true to yourself and it follows you can be false to no-one." This leaves more than sufficient space for you to base your personal ethical values on your religious faith.

However, morality has to refer to social values, shared by at least many people in the same community and achieving legitimacy by whatever means may be effective for that society. No community or society can function on the basis that its members each devise their own rule of engagement.

Even if you wish to suggest that historically, communities have been able to rely on their religion to hammer out and promote their preferred moral principles, perhaps by giving relevant authority to their priests / imams / rabbis or holy men, that is not and cannot be a workable basis for arriving at morality that is acceptable to people of diverse beliefs and none who are members of the same community.

Whatever God may or may not decide, it is never attractive to leave moral authority in the unaccountable hands of a theocracy. His judgement may be decisive in an afterlife, if you wish to defer matters until then, but the task for morality is not to police the afterlife (that is the task of religious dogma and practice), it is to establish boundaries for social life here and now.

There is I agree little point in endless debate of these matters (or at any rate, this is not enough; perhaps debate can only be never ending) and we need ways to reach some workable and generally accepted conclusions. One decent way to achieve this is democracy.

Originally posted by finnegan
Your sentences are conditional and you present a false dichotomy. It seems self evident to me that my personal ethical values can be something I take personal responsibility for, with myself as judge and jury. The formula is "be true to yourself and it follows you can be false to no-one." This leaves more than sufficient space for you to base your personal ethical values on your religious faith.

Your problem is that you believe you are ethically right based on your own opinion and you are the judge and jury of what is ethical. There is obviously someone higher than yourself that is really your judge and jury since you did not create yourself. 😏

Originally posted by finnegan
[quote] If our bases for all right and wrong starts and ends with us, than all of our rights and wrongs are all opinions. We can debate opinions, we can go to war over them, it will be an never ending struggle of who is right and who is wrong.

That changes if there is One we are all accountable too, than right and wrong, sin will be
something we need t ...[text shortened]... h some workable and generally accepted conclusions. One decent way to achieve this is democracy.

I agree with a lot of you are saying, but now have little time to address what I don't.
I'll come back later, well said though.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your problem is that you believe you are ethically right based on your own opinion and you are the judge and jury of what is ethical. There is obviously someone higher than yourself that is really your judge and jury since you did not create yourself. 😏

You are confused.

Morality is a general concept and is separate from the code of morality that might be adopted in any community at any time. It is a process in which one has the ability to do something, and an inclination to do it, but makes a moral choice to act differently.

I have not dictated what statements must or should be incorporated into any moral code so the question of my being right or wrong does not arise. In making moral choices, one is neither right nor wrong - one is being moral, one is behaving in a moral way.

It is not for me alone to judge that my moral choice was right or wrong I agree. We could wait until Judgement Day to find out what God thinks or we could search for something more immediately practical.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With respect to the geocentricity debate of 1615, yea I do see some parallels, today those that reject scripture are now the ones in power attacking those with faith in the Bible. It is the same discussion, except the tables have been turned.

How exactly have the tables been turned?

Same tables, same sides.

On the one hand, we have the defenders of the literal interpretation of the Bible, and on the other hand the scientific establishment.

Granted, one major difference between then and now is that the church then was much more powerful, and could excommunicate, even execute, the scientist. Today, although the church in especially the US is still powerful and influential, it can no longer execute, say, Dawkins, and I think that at least is progress.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are confused.

Morality is a general concept and is separate from the code of morality that might be adopted in any community at any time. It is a process in which one has the ability to do something, and an inclination to do it, but makes a moral choice to act differently.

I have not dictated what statements must or should be incorporated into ...[text shortened]... ent Day to find out what God thinks or we could search for something more immediately practical.

Okay, I'm glad you came to your sense.

Originally posted by CalJust
How exactly have the tables been turned?

Same tables, same sides.

On the one hand, we have the defenders of the literal interpretation of the Bible, and on the other hand the scientific establishment.

Granted, one major difference between then and now is that the church then was much more powerful, and could excommunicate, even execute, the scientis ...[text shortened]... and influential, it can no longer execute, say, Dawkins, and I think that at least is progress.

You almost got it. The secular establish has the power to censor and such now instead of the Church. That appears to be how the tables have turned.