Genetics and evolution

[It's On A Slab]

Let's be fair. Calvin pleaded for him not to be burned, but more mercifully beheaded instead.

I'm sure Mr. Servetus said, "Much obliged." :cool2:

 

[Bamalaw92]

I'm sure Mr. Servetus said, "Much obliged." :cool2:

actually he probabbly said something along the lines of: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!"
:biggrin:

 

[Bamadev]

actually he probabbly said something along the lines of: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!"
:biggrin:

hey stranger

 

[Bamalaw92]

hey stranger

Hey back at ya

 

[blackumbrella]

BU, while I appreciate your spirited debates, I am personally highly offended by your increasing slurs against Christianity and Christ. It is just as offenseive and just as prohibbitted here as racial slurs:
Despite your ridicule of Christ's physique as depicted by medieval European artists and your analogizing him to a car found in a bad David Hassellhoff TV series, many here firmly believe him to be the one true God as part of the Holy Trinity.

I will be glad to answer your questions about Christ's divinity and knowledge, but will not tolerate your ridicule and slurs against my personal saviour.

kindly disregard the pop analogies if they offend. the thread had taken a silly angels-on-a-pin turn and such was the spirit of the post. knight rider, hulk hogan, and the stallone flick, and i'd say the new testamnet as well, are such successful narratives bc they follow the arcetype of the heroic monomyth, as laid out by campbell in 'hero with a thousand faces.' a formula that predates new testament events. the point of the post is still a good one i think--if christ is mixture of divinity and humanity, it stands to reason that his accomplishments are less impressive the more one focuses on his divine aspect over his human aspect.

 

[blackumbrella]

Jesus was more than a man, but He was a man while He walked among us. Yes, he was also the Son of God and a part of God, but he was born into this world a man. As such, he felt the same things that we feel.

Imagine knowing that you are about to be tortured and beaten. Knowing the pain that you were about to suffer. Knowing every blow that would fall, and the pain that would accompany it. Knowing that you had the power to stop it all - and deciding to endure the unendurable for the sake of others. Not for friends or family, but for strangers. Not because they could not get into Heaven without your sacrifice, but to make it easier for them after your sacrifice.

Sign you up? You are not even willing to sacrifice your pride...

that's a nice zinger at the end. unfortunately the whole paragraph preceding it proves my point. i'd look down on anyone as powerful as jesus who, fully knowing all that's at stake, declined the cross. it's been said that 'with great power comes great responsibility.' that seems true to me.

 

[bamabake]

No you don't, because that is the flaw found within evolution and why it is a theory and not a law. I also disagree with your logic regarding admissions. If you admit microevolution, you simply admit that adaptaion and intra speciation can occur - i.e. a dog can become a better more adaptive dog, not that a dog can eventually become a flying reptile or that a bit of ooze eventually became a dog.

If you admit microevolution, you simply admit that adaptaion and intra speciation can occur -


A point that has been made earlier but, as usual, either over looked or just not read by the evolution side.

 

[Bamalaw92]

kindly disregard the pop analogies if they offend. the thread had taken a silly angels-on-a-pin turn and such was the spirit of the post. knight rider, hulk hogan, and the stallone flick, and i'd say the new testamnet as well, are such successful narratives bc they follow the arcetype of the heroic monomyth, as laid out by campbell in 'hero with a thousand faces.' a formula that predates new testament events. the point of the post is still a good one i think--if christ is mixture of divinity and humanity, it stands to reason that his accomplishments are less impressive the more one focuses on his divine aspect over his human aspect.

One cannot simply "kindly disregard" offensive slurs that went far beyond "pop analogies" (referring to the diminutive stature of Christ depicted in medieval art for example). You state one should "disregard" your slurs IF they offend, suggesting that they should not be offensive to Christians, when it was clear from your post that your intent was indeed to offend. Would you be able to "kindly disregard" a post that referred to a widely praised and celebrated black leader as a thick lipped, watermellon eating, Sambo? I think not. Nor would I "kindly disregard" them. I do not need to be told to "kindly disregard" your slurs. You need to kindly apologize for debasing yourself and slurring Christ. You may see peoples beliefs as "silly angels-on-a-pin" arguments, but that does not give you the right to ridicule and slur their personal saviour.

Now, with that being said, you end your false concession that you were "just being silly" by trying to honestly equate the New Testament, the basis of most of the posters on this board's entire belief system, to Knight Rider, Stallone Flicks and Hulk Hogan, continuing your slur of a great religion. There was no need for that except for the need on your part to somehow justify your insensitivity by citing examples of achtypical monomyths. Perhaps next time you should refer only to those monomyths that have inspired countless millons to guide their everyday actions by the teachings found within.

As for the "point" of the post, I totally disagree that it was a good one. It was incredibly silly, to borrow your thought of other people's beliefs. The more one focuses on the divinity of Christ, the more impressive his accomplishments are. You see God acting in all his glory as unimpressive, whereas a man performing a few Godlike acts to be far more impressive. I see God coming to earth, taking on the worldy burdens of his children, and experiencing the suffering, temptation, doubts, torment, humiliation, hate, ridicule, torture, death and ALL the rest of man's inhumanity to masing yourself and slurring Christ. You may see peoples beliefs as "silly angels-on-a-pin" arguments, but that does not give you the right to ridicule and slur their personal saviour.

Now, with that being said, you end your false concession that you were "just being silly" by trying to honestly equate the New Testament, the basis of most of the posters on this board's entire belief system, to Knight Rider, Stallone Flicks and Hulk Hogan, continuing your slur of a great religion. There was no need for that except for the need on your part to somehow justify your insensitivity by citing examples of achtypical monomyths. Perhaps next time you should refer only to those monomyths that have inspired countless millons to guide their everyday actions by the teachings found within.

As for the "point" of the post, I totally disagree that it was a good one. It was incredibly silly, to borrow your thought of other people's beliefs. The more one focuses on the divinity of Christ, the more impressive his accomplishments are. You see God acting in all his glory as unimpressive, whereas a man performing a few Godlike acts to be far more impressive. I see God coming to earth, taking on the worldy burdens of his children, and experiencing the suffering, temptation, doubts, torment, humiliation, hate, ridicule, torture, death and ALL the rest of man's inhumanity to man in an effort to save his children that he so deeply loves as far more impressive than healing a leper or turning water into wine. I will be glad to continue this discussion as I said earlier, but you must leave your offensive analogies at the door.

 

[NYBamaFan]

i'd look down on anyone as powerful as jesus who, fully knowing all that's at stake, declined the cross. it's been said that 'with great power comes great responsibility.' that seems true to me.

Imagine, if you can, the unbelievable selflessness of one that could ask God to forgive those who are torturing him - while they continued to torture him. He died for everyone - including his tormentors.

God did everything for man, only to have man deny his existence. He did many things to prove His existence, only to be ignored time and time again. He told us of the risks associated with living evil lives, only to see us die and lose any chance of life eternal with Him. Finally, because He saw that we were just too weak to do it alone, He sacrificed His only Son to make it easier for us. And you see nothing special?

What will it take to convince you?

 

[bamabake]

Imagine, if you can, the unbelievable selflessness of one that could ask God to forgive those who are torturing him - while they continued to torture him. He died for everyone - including his tormentors.

God did everything for man, only to have man deny his existence. He did many things to prove His existence, only to be ignored time and time again. He told us of the risks associated with living evil lives, only to see us die and lose any chance of life eternal with Him. Finally, because He saw that we were just too weak to do it alone, He sacrificed His only Son to make it easier for us. And you see nothing special?

What will it take to convince you?

Finally, because He saw that we were just too weak to do it alone, He sacrificed His only Son to make it easier for us.


Actually Christ died to make it POSSIBLE, not easier my friend

 

[Bamalaw92]

that's a nice zinger at the end. unfortunately the whole paragraph preceding it proves my point. i'd look down on anyone as powerful as jesus who, fully knowing all that's at stake, declined the cross. it's been said that 'with great power comes great responsibility.' that seems true to me.

Anyone would have looked down on Christ had he declined the cross. That would have been Satan's great victory. That is why Christ's struggle in the Garden of Gethsmene is so integral to the understanding of the divine/man dichotomy that existed within Christ during his time on earth. As NY stated so eloquently, Christ, while on Earth was subject to all the frailties of man including doubt and temptation. The fact that he knew what his fate would be does not in any way, shape, or form, diminish the sacrifice. To me, it greatly enhances it. It makes the doubt increase to the point of supressing the divine and causing the man to pray in anguish "Father, let this cup pass away" or to cry out in pain, "Father, why have thou forsaken me?" To truly understand the sacrifice that God made for us, you must understand the reason why God became flesh incarnate for us and out salvation.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Actually Christ died to make it POSSIBLE, not easier my friend

I think that you misunderstand me. It was possible to see the Kingdom of Heaven before Christ - the criteria were just very different. After Jesus, we were saved by grace with the only criteria that we believe in Him, accept that we are sinners and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Rather than having to live our entire lives according to Old Testiment doctrine, we could now be saved (regardless of our past trangressions) because Jesus died to take on those sins for us.

Otherwise, you are saying that everyone that came before Jesus had no chance of reaching Heaven, something clearly contradicted in the Bible. However, if you are saying that TODAY it is only possible through Christ, we are in complete agreement...

 

[Bamalaw92]

I think that you misunderstand me. It was possible to see the Kingdom of Heaven before Christ - the criteria were just very different. After Jesus, we were saved by grace with the only criteria that we believe in Him, accept that we are sinners and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Rather than having to live our entire lives according to Old Testiment doctrine, we could now be saved (regardless of our past trangressions) because Jesus died to take on those sins for us.

Otherwise, you are saying that everyone that came before Jesus had no chance of reaching Heaven, something clearly contradicted in the Bible. However, if you are saying that TODAY it is only possible through Christ, we are in complete agreement...

Did anyone ascend into heaven before Jesus or not?
Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13

Yes

(Genesis 5:24) - "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him."

(2 Kings 2:11) - "Then it came about as they were going along and talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven."

(Hebrews 11:5) - "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God."

No

(John 3:13) - "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man"

The answer is simple when you understand the Jewish concept of the universe. They believed in three heavens. The first was the atmosphere where the trees, clouds, and birds are. The second is the realm of the stars, planets, sun, and moon. And the third heaven was the very dwelling place of God. In the Old Testament in Genesis 5 and 2 Kings 2 above, they were not taken into the very dwelling place of God, but into the heavens; that is, they were taken up into the sky. Exactly where is in debate. It isn't until after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were those who had died before, in faith, taken into the highest heaven. Ephesians 4:8 is often referred to as a supporting scripture for this belief. It says, "When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men." Furthermore, when Paul said he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), he was referring to the very dwelling place of God.

http://www.carm.org/diff/John3_13.htm

 

[NYBamaFan]

BL92,

Thank you for the clarification...

 

[bamabake]

Yes thank you.

 

[blackumbrella]

'clear that..intent was indeed to offend' > not only not clear--bc nan saw it as trying to be cute--but also not true--bc i say so. but feel free to delve into my unconscious motives.

'silly angels on a pin' spoke to the direction of the thread, the type of argumentation.

'hulk hogan' etc.>
the heroic monomyth archetype is an important critical revelation, important largely due to the popularity of new testament events, which exactly bc of their prominence, like shakespeare, inclines all subsequent narratives to be read in light of or in relation to their example. campbell's formulation is like a more elaborate version of the old frietag triangle, and it's proven successful. i say the succes is owed to the structure, but it could just as easly be said that it's successful bc it happens to coincide with the new testamnet narrative and so benefits from association.

'impressiveness' > i didn't say god was unimpressive while man was impressive, but thet the accomplishents were more or less imp considering who does them, man or god. seems hard to draw any other conclusions so long as we understand and agree on the meaning of the terms god and man, which is perhaps trickier than it seems

'puny jesus' > not puny, just normal for his time.

 

[CrimsonNan]

'clear that..intent was indeed to offend' > not only not clear--bc nan saw it as trying to be cute--but also not true--bc i say so. but feel free to delve into my unconscious motives.

'silly angels on a pin' spoke to the direction of the thread, the type of argumentation.

'hulk hogan' etc.>
the heroic monomyth archetype is an important critical revelation, important largely due to the popularity of new testament events, which exactly bc of their prominence, like shakespeare, inclines all subsequent narratives to be read in light of or in relation to their example. campbell's formulation is like a more elaborate version of the old frietag triangle, and it's proven successful. i say the succes is owed to the structure, but it could just as easly be said that it's successful bc it happens to coincide with the new testamnet narrative and so benefits from association.

'impressiveness' > i didn't say god was unimpressive while man was impressive, but thet the accomplishents were more or less imp considering who does them, man or god. seems hard to draw any other conclusions so long as we understand and agree on the meaning of the terms god and man, which is perhaps trickier than it seems

'puny jesus' > not puny, just normal for his time.

Yeah, you think your comparisons are cute and funny - that's pretty clear. The main point, however, is that you just don't "get it"!!! :frown:

 

[Bamalaw92]

'clear that..intent was indeed to offend' > not only not clear--bc nan saw it as trying to be cute--but also not true--bc i say so. but feel free to delve into my unconscious motives.

Feel free to apologize for your offensiveness.

'silly angels on a pin' spoke to the direction of the thread, the type of argumentation.

Argumentation based on tightly held religious beliefs....same difference.

'hulk hogan' etc.>
the heroic monomyth archetype is an important critical revelation, important largely due to the popularity of new testament events, which exactly bc of their prominence, like shakespeare, inclines all subsequent narratives to be read in light of or in relation to their example. campbell's formulation is like a more elaborate version of the old frietag triangle, and it's proven successful. i say the succes is owed to the structure, but it could just as easly be said that it's successful bc it happens to coincide with the new testamnet narrative and so benefits from association.

Despite your mythos mumbo jumbo, Hulk Hogan etc. did not establish major religions followed by billions of people. As I said earlier, instead of trivializing the New Testamnet, you can more properly analogize it to Herculeanean myths, Egyptian theology, or even Zorasterism, but do not trivializmbrella]'clear that..intent was indeed to offend' > not only not clear--bc nan saw it as trying to be cute--but also not true--bc i say so. but feel free to delve into my unconscious motives.[/quote]
Feel free to apologize for your offensiveness.

'silly angels on a pin' spoke to the direction of the thread, the type of argumentation.

Argumentation based on tightly held religious beliefs....same difference.

'hulk hogan' etc.>
the heroic monomyth archetype is an important critical revelation, important largely due to the popularity of new testament events, which exactly bc of their prominence, like shakespeare, inclines all subsequent narratives to be read in light of or in relation to their example. campbell's formulation is like a more elaborate version of the old frietag triangle, and it's proven successful. i say the succes is owed to the structure, but it could just as easly be said that it's successful bc it happens to coincide with the new testamnet narrative and so benefits from association.

Despite your mythos mumbo jumbo, Hulk Hogan etc. did not establish major religions followed by billions of people. As I said earlier, instead of trivializing the New Testamnet, you can more properly analogize it to Herculeanean myths, Egyptian theology, or even Zorasterism, but do not trivialize a person's belief system to the level of Hulkamania. If you do not see the offensiveness in that, then you simply need to refrain from posting anything regarding religion.

'impressiveness' > i didn't say god was unimpressive while man was impressive, but thet the accomplishents were more or less imp considering who does them, man or god. seems hard to draw any other conclusions so long as we understand and agree on the meaning of the terms god and man, which is perhaps trickier than it seems

It is clear that you have no concept of God or you would realize that anything he does is far more impressive than anything we can do.

'puny jesus' > not puny, just normal for his time.

You are being very disingenuous if you want to now put forth the idea that this was the context you intended the rark in. An apology is simply not in your abilities is it?

 

[It's On A Slab]

I'll give you credit: Freitag's Triangle

'clear that..intent was indeed to offend' > not only not clear--bc nan saw it as trying to be cute--but also not true--bc i say so. but feel free to delve into my unconscious motives.

'silly angels on a pin' spoke to the direction of the thread, the type of argumentation.

'hulk hogan' etc.>
the heroic monomyth archetype is an important critical revelation, important largely due to the popularity of new testament events, which exactly bc of their prominence, like shakespeare, inclines all subsequent narratives to be read in light of or in relation to their example. campbell's formulation is like a more elaborate version of the old frietag triangle, and it's proven successful. i say the succes is owed to the structure, but it could just as easly be said that it's successful bc it happens to coincide with the new testamnet narrative and so benefits from association.

'impressiveness' > i didn't say god was unimpressive while man was impressive, but thet the accomplishents were more or less imp considering who does them, man or god. seems hard to draw any other conclusions so long as we understand and agree on the meaning of the terms god and man, which is perhaps trickier than it seems

'puny jesus' > not puny, just normal for his time.

I learn something new every day.

Now, how do I apply it to this epic thread?

 

[CrimsonNan]

I learn something new every day.

Now, how do I apply it to this epic thread?

And your point is?