[_ Old Earth _] The churches today agree with Bill Maher...

[cupid dave]

Both say that Genesis defies and contradicts modern science.
Isn't that true?

While I alone promote readership by people who might understand Genesis to agree with Science, the churches and the people on every rligious site insist that Bill Maher is right, in that Genesis denies what Modern Science teaches.

Are they all on the side of Satan?

 

[cupid dave]

Its OK if you guys don't post here, because there is no defense against my charges.

De facto of this site, you all oppose Theistic Evolution Interpretations of Genesis which use Science to confirm Genesis.

(There have been a number of exceptions and exceptional people who have been very supportive of my work here, which I have noted and exclude from the above criticism)

 

[Danus]

Why would anyone compare science and the bible? That seems pretty short sighted. If you where heading to a science class, why would you take your bible? Seems like a science book would be in order.

The problem with people who compare science to the bible is that they don't understand the bible. They keep looking into the bible to answer scientific questions. Why?

The book of Genesis, for example, was never ever intended to prove or show how God created the world. It is intended to say "THAT" He created the world, not how. No where in the book of Genesis does it attempt to age the world. It never gives a date of the world. No where in the book of Genesis does it attempt to explain how exactly God created things, yet people who claim to be intelligent are looking at it for those answers....

Bill Maher, in case you don't know, is a comedian. He host a show on TV. He is a professional clown, a court jester. He is paid money to attract a certain element of people by saying things those people might like, and every once in a while on the show, they have commercials designed to sell things to the crowd of people who have gathered to see and hear the funny man. His whole purpose is to move laundry detergent, deodorant, beer and other products and services for the sponsors of the show.

He is not a scientist, or a theologian. He get's paid to stand on a stage and make funny witty remarks. They designed the show to have an intelligent feel to it so that the people who watch it will be able to equate themselves as credible, relevant intellectuals. That makes them feel better about what they think. It makes then think they actually have a legitimate platform for their opinions, and along the way they are able to solidify what they think they think because the man on TV says so. He should know, he's on TV, Right?

 

[Arch Angle]

that's like comparing the brain to the heart.

 

[cupid dave]

Why would anyone compare science and the bible?
?

Yeah,...

Its funny today how people confuse the Truth we discover using the Scientific Method with the theological truth that men deduce from tryingtto understand the Bible.

The poblem seems to center around the crazy idea that this Modern Age came about since science and tecnology got a leg up on the ancient astrologers.
But none of this matters much in regard to fact that "the churches today agree with Bill Maher...." that Genesis contradicts Science and Science contradicts the Bible.

 

[Danus]

The poblem seems to center around the crazy idea that this Modern Age came about since science and tecnology got a leg up on the ancient astrologers. But none of this matters much in regard to fact that "the churches today agree with Bill Maher...." that Genesis contradicts Science and Science contradicts the Bible.

I don't know about the "church" making any agreement like that. Some people maybe. The two are unrelated. However, many people hold to that agreement. I would not call them the church.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't know about the "church" making any agreement like that. Some people maybe. The two are unrelated. However, many people hold to that agreement. I would not call them the church.

Perhaps you confuse the weak and begrudging comments from religious people that they believe in evolution as evidence that they do not all oppose science based upon Genesis.
But that statement they make from time to time beoies their universal commitment to the Medieval intepretations that hy still manttain anf\d teach in Sunday School through Christian College.

Only here, on this site or others I have visited has anyone enumerated every verse in Genesis and supported it with what is at least a correspondence with Science and facts.

What I have seen with an occassional very rare exception has been either total avoidance of discussion and reasoning on the issue of Theistic Aevolution or angry, empassioned item y item fine opoint criticism and road blocking to the consideration of changing the Middle Age teachings and updating the reading comprehension on Genesis.

I must insist that you, here, are not being OBSERVANT, and would otherwise realize that the Church, Catholic and Protestant, has not related Genesis to the facts of Science,... IN SPITE it can be done.
You are (unwittingly) intellectually misleading us to believe that there is even a slight movement in the direction of making the interpretation of the church compatible with what we now know about the Creation.

There is not.

 

[Sparkey]

I must insist that you, here, are not being honest,

really? cupid dave, please do not speak about reading comprehension while failing to comprehend the clear meaning of the ToS. Here's what I'm talking about specifically:

Within the Terms that each Member has agreed to in exchange for the Service rendered here we find Section 2.5 describing behavior expectations for each of us.

NOTE: From your top blue menu bar, click [Quick Links] for the Drop Down Menu and then choose "Terms of Service" to view.

Here it is, in part, for your reference:

Terms of Service (ToS)​

Section 2: Specific Rules, Guidelines and Processes (the “meat” of the ToS)

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

• It is a violation to misquote or misrepresent another member.
• Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.
• No harassing members via PM.
• No public posting of PMs. Publicly announcing who is on a member's Ignore list is prohibited.
• Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

Section 2.15: Please do not use the message board to air your grievances against other fellow members.

• If you have observed a violation of the Terms of Service please let a Moderator or Administrator know. (This includes violations or allegations of inappropriate actions by the moderators and administration.)
• If the grievance is with a staff member please contact them privately. If you deem it necessary to go beyond that then take it to the next level of Leadership authority.

Notice how this conforms with the Mission Statement here at ChristianForums.net

ChristianForums.net Mission Statement:​

ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now then, notice that I have taken pains to highlight the portion of the Terms that are agreed and settled and that apply directly to such things as have been said in this thread. I've got three rules of my own. They comprise "Sparrow's Law" and were designed by a Primary Care Giver and Parent who had children in mind, knowing that they would seek to test them in every way they could. Here they are too, given at no extra charge.

Do not hurt yourself nor allow yourself to look like you are willing to hurt yourself.
Do not hurt others nor allow yourself to look like you are willing to hurt others.
Do not break things.

There's only three (3). They are paired down to the vital necessities of life shared with others. The state of Washington has collaborated with me in the forming of what is known as "Sparrow's Family Laws." They neither affirm nor deny the authority contained therein, but I'm just mentioning it to give credit where credit is due and also because I like the sound of it as it makes me, as a parent, seem more of a big deal that way.

Hope it helps, and that there will be no further need for Moderator action or concern here.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[cupid dave]

really? cupid dave, please do not speak about reading comprehension while failing to comprehend the clear meaning of the ToS. Here's what I'm talking about specifically:

Within the Terms that each Member has agreed to in exchange for the Service rendered here we find Section 2.5 describing behavior expectations for each of us.

NOTE: From your top blue menu bar, click [Quick Links] for the Drop Down Menu and then choose "Terms of Service" to view.

Here it is, in part, for your reference:




Notice how this conforms with the Mission Statement here at ChristianForums.net

ChristianForums.net Mission Statement:​

ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now then, notice that I have taken pains to highlight the portion of the Terms that are agreed and settled and that apply directly to such things as have been said in this thread. I've got three rules of my own. They comprise "Sparrow's Law" and were designed by a Primary Care Giver and Parent who had children in mind, knowing that they would seek to test them in every way they could. Here they are too, given at no extra charge.

Do not hurt yourself nor allow yourself to look like you are willing to hurt yourself.
Do not hurt others nor allow yourself to look like you are willing to hurt others.
Do not break things.

There's only three (3). They are paired down to the vital necessities of life shared with others. The state of Washington has collaborated with me in the forming of what is known as "Sparrow's Family Laws." They neither affirm nor deny the authority contained therein, but I'm just mentioning it to give credit where credit is due and also because I like the sound of it as it makes me, as a parent, seem more of a big deal that way.

Hope it helps, and that there will be no further need for Moderator action or concern here.

Cordially,
Sparrow

I assume you draw my attention to the use of the word "honest" above, and see it as a personal attack on the person.
I apologize if that was the way it was taken.
"I must insist that you, here, are not being OBSERVANT, and would otherwise realize that the Church, Catholic and Protestant, has not related Genesis to the facts of Science,... IN SPITE it can be done.
You are (unwittingly) intellectually misleading us to believe that there is even a slight movement in the direction of making the interpretation of the church compatible with what we now know about the Creation."
Does the following re-satement which I edited above meet the rules as you stated above?

 

[Sparkey]

I assume you draw my attention to the use of the word "honest" above, and see it as a personal attack on the person.
I apologize if that was the way it was taken.
"I must insist that you, here, are not being OBSERVANT, and would otherwise realize that the Church, Catholic and Protestant, has not related Genesis to the facts of Science,... IN SPITE it can be done.

Thank you. Oh, by the way, no need to "assume" because I'm here for questions and can affirm that this is precisely what was meant. I also appreciate your willingness to be governed by the terms we've all agreed to. That's all that counts to me. It's a fine point, no question there. "Even the appearance" *like picking up pebbles not stones and holding them in visible sight and not throwing* is to be shunned and I will mark this thing that has been done in my sight. The avoidance of the appearance is a balm that may be applied to hurts suffered in the past. Nobody knows where they are, those hurts, or if they exist, but it is good to hear this well. This, I do value, when seen and acted on, in the heart of the matter.

 

[cupid dave]

Alls well that ends well.

What is your opinion?
Do you too agree with me, that de facto, the church people may dodge the contradition in the way they continue to view Genesis while paying a token acknowledgement to evolution as if that is enough to avoid the companionship with Bill Maher?
Do you see that both the church people, in fact and by their discussions on the subject, confirm Maher's observation that Genesis does NOT agree with Science?

 

[Sparkey]

I don't know Mr. Maher and consequently have no opinion about what he says or doesn't say.

Does the church miss an opportunity to reach out by not considering all sides of a discussion? It's difficult for me to follow the reference without knowing more about Bill Maher, but if that's a fair re-wording of the question, some do consider what the Bible says, including Genesis, vital enough to to use it as a plumb-line.

Jesus is the only true plumb-line. The only one who Heard and who rightly interpreted God for us. None other. There is no need to re-write Genesis. What did Jesus say? I've heard that he quoted Genesis. Haven't heard that any changes were proposed at all.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't know Mr. Maher and consequently have no opinion about what he says or doesn't say.

Does the church miss an opportunity to reach out by not considering all sides of a discussion? It's difficult for me to follow the reference without knowing more about Bill Maher, but if that's a fair re-wording of the question, some do consider what the Bible says, including Genesis, vital enough to to use it as a plumb-line.

Jesus is the only true plumb-line. The only one who Heard and who rightly interpreted God for us. None other. There is no need to re-write Genesis. What did Jesus say? I've heard that he quoted Genesis. Haven't heard that any changes were proposed at all.

Why do you imply that I am recommending changes in Gnesis when clearly it is the change in the medieval interpretations of a dozen or so men who are the fathers if the dominant major mainstream churches of today???

What we are dicussing in just about every thread is whether you peoplke on that side of the issue realize that you have interpreted genesis, or accepted and continue to transmit the interpretation of Genesis that is NOT necessarily so, NOT the only choice available, NOT the only way to understand what is written in the Bible.

And, you do this without noting that other views even exist, but rather speak for Christianity and insist that Genesis opposes Science.

 

[Sparkey]

What we are dicussing in just about every thread is whether you peoplke on that side (sic)

(Sparrow: "emphasis mine")

that you have interpreted

(Sparrow: "emphasis mine")

you do this without noting that other views even exist

(Sparrow: "emphasis mine")

Okay? How about this then. Every course of study that I've taken or have been exposed to in any field of science requires one thing of me. Often this requirement is presented first thing and some have spent more than a full week on the requirement. What common teaching am I speaking about? Well, you know. You may know it better than me. Each class, each field of scientific discipline requires that the student accept and use a very specific method of investigation. You know the method. It is the one that is taught universally. All modern scientific endeavors (especially in the "physical sciences") require that investigations, no matter the field, if they are to count, must comply with a very formal set of rules. Those ruled do not include the invisible, or the unobserved. They specifically exclude such things.

You've seen my cartoon before, right? I think it makes the point rather well:

The point you make has caught the eye of some rather sophisticated humorists. But they seem to disagree with your assessment.

 

[Adam]

I don't believe there is any advancing the discussion as long as anyone, including Cupid, continues to enertain the idea that this false dichotomy (and strawman) is valid.


Cupid Dave has presented an "either...or..." that boils down to this:


Either you believe the interpretation that Cupid Dave presents and erroneously refers to as "theistic evolution" or you follow a "medieval interpretation" though he hasn't even been clear on what that means except to say that doing so puts one on the side of Bill Maher.

This argument is DOA.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey Dave

Why don't you go one to one on the debate forum rather tham monopolising all the threads you seem to go on?

Here are you battling it out with Sparrow, and not many others seem to be either interested or care.

Make your case in the one to one forum and battle it out there.

Genesis is not a science textbook, and if it was nobody would understand a word of it. However, the statements it does make MUST BE consistent with the facts because of who the Author is.

I personally reject evolution for scientific reasons, not least of which is its incompetence to explain the origin of anything of any importance.

Because of that rejection, I have to square Genesis with the scientific facts as I accept them e.g. the age of the earth, the existence of dinosaurs etc etc.

In order to do so, I propose the theory that the Days of Creation are days on which the orders were given, in the form 'Let there be...'

the next bit 'and it was so' took however long it took to bring that about, millions of years or otherwise.

So I have no problem reconciling the two, and I fear that you are wasting a lot of time and effort trying to prove I know not what.

 

[Sparkey]

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that we could look back to the time of Jesus and the experts (so called) and remember that they had the wrong idea about things. No, they didn't argue about "important stuff" like how many days there were in a week but I do recall that they said something about "marriage in heaven" and "brothers marrying sister-in-law" and other things. Jesus always kept the purpose of God, His Father, in mind as he taught such things and I could make a case that he also included "his other sheep" in mind too.

So then, if Jesus spoke about these things, while keeping me, a member of the "other flock" in mind, why is it wrong for anyone to advance the idea that Gentiles were not the only other flock. What about what the Bible says about "The Nations"? Isn't that part of our ministry and as such are they not due as much consideration as we were when Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His time?

I could make a case for what I hear cupid dave saying, it might be difficult because the waters are clouded with various things, but if I were to, it would be simple. If you love me? Obey me. Some of these things are not salvation issues. When that is the case, the argument comes before us about gnats, flies and camels.

 

[cupid dave]

In order to do so, I propose the theory that the Days of Creation are days on which the orders were given, in the form 'Let there be...'

the next bit 'and it was so' took however long it took to bring that about, millions of years or otherwise.

I agree with this.
That satisfies the factual information available to the younger generation which can see how science complements the Bible story.

I don't go away, as you suggest, because you are here.

All that it takes for the evil of people who bash the Bible is for knowledgeable comprehensive Bible readers with science training and expertise to let the church keep pushing a tired medieval archaic explanation of Genesis in this modern world when Theistic Evolution is both appropriate to enhancing religion, supporting scripture, and educating the next generation in the facts as they support Genesis.

Why are you here, on a Science and Christianity Forum if not to show how the Truth emerges from God's word????

 

[cupid dave]

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that we could look back to the time of Jesus and the experts (so called) and remember that they had the wrong idea about things

... true,...
But not in the days of Galileo, when your denomination church realized that the RCC was stone walling against the very Truth, the spirit of Christianity which the church was supposed to endorse.
Right?



John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hey Dave

Why don't you go one to one on the debate forum rather tham monopolising all the threads you seem to go on?

Here are you battling it out with Sparrow, and not many others seem to be either interested or care.

Make your case in the one to one forum and battle it out there.

I usually find myself not agreeing with Dave, but I'm glad he's here. There aren't enough members who frequent here. It gets so dead in here sometimes, we're lucky to have a colorfully-worded moderator like Sparrow, who even makes his "moderator-mode" posts interesting and often humorous. Dave's posts are interesting to read sometimes because he is the main guy who we find debating against both popular sides of the argument concerning Evolution of Species.

If you ask me, we need all we can get in here.

Now, if the action ever picks up in here, we can walk Dave out the door and slam it in his face.

No, just kidding.