50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

bob_2 · 03-15-09 12:41 pm

Just like you don't believe because of Darwin's system, eh??? Now you want me to research Beaton's death for you??

neal · 03-15-09 1:11 pm

A hundred years earlier Darwin wouldn't have been able to write his theories and publish them. People used to write things and have them published after they died. Kinda hard to kill a dead person for something he wrote. As far as belief or non-belief I did my research and came to a conclusion. We live in a society that is tolerant of the different conclusions people reach. I accept evidence from people or institutions that I deem to be credible. You seem to go around looking for writers that support your prior belief. You are not looking for truth IMO. Instead you like "belief confirmation" so you end up quoting junk from Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute. I respect your right to believe the trash they put out. But just because a person has a right doesn't mean they are entitled to some special treatment. If its stupid I tend to say that its stupid, or contrary to evidence, or unethical. You didn't like what I put up recently about Jesus. The problem is that its in your book. There is evidence for my position.

bob_2 · 03-15-09 2:20 pm

See the next series fo posts; What Darwin didn't know. Your premise that I am looking for soming with "Discovery Institute" on it to present is silly at it's best, as silly as saying you are looking for something with Hitchens or Dawkins name on it to present. I'm not going to use that kind of silly logic, you may continue, but it is silly.

neal · 03-15-09 7:41 pm

So I see you have other junk-anti-science sites that have slightly different versions of belief. You are telling me that somehow because one site or groups of sites push the YEC model it is different than what Hugh Ross runs with his multiple-creations theory. They still believe that some deity started life. They argue about when or how. Still the same belief. Your new site admits that Genesis is false. But the God of Genesis still did something and here is how we think He did it. Junk.

bob_2 · 03-15-09 8:35 pm

Junk, you have, that life began from inorganic substances by chance. Did you expect me to quote from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. You think I could find the truth in that heresy???? Hardly.

admin · 03-15-09 11:52 pm

To interrupt your heated conversation, check my edits of certain posts in this thread. Neal: Your interpretation of Mt. 19 is a bit flawed. I'd be quite alarmed if I were to have my testicles physically cut off in Heaven. Fortunately, it appears, quite clearly I may add, that Jesus is speaking metaphorically.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Jesus is stating that it's hard to be a married Christian. I can testify to the truth in that. Then, since this is news to the disciples, his followers gasp: "It's better not to marry!" Jesus responds by saying only to those whom "this word" was given can accept it and then explains in three parts: 1) Some are born as eunuchs (unable to procreate or have sex), some are made that way by men (easy enough to understand), and others choose not to have sex or to marry because they focus on preaching the Gospel (much like what Paul suggested). I believe he is saying that not every man or woman will be able to live without marriage/sex, but those who can should for the same reason Paul mentions later. Ryan

neal · 03-16-09 5:59 am

This passage has been debated since the early church. Origen, in the second century, castrated himself. He seemed to interpret a lot of the Bible as allegory but was literal in this instance. A recurring theme is get married to keep from sinning (Paul), its is to be rewarded in heaven if you don't get married (however you want to interpret the verse) and there will no marriages in heaven just like the angels. Love Jesus. Worship Jesus. Family, friends, earthly possessions, are of no consequence in the final scheme of things. To ask whether a man loves Jesus more than his wife is a pretty clear answer from the NT. Yes, he does or should believe that he does. The NIV version of Matthew 18 says its about renouncing marriage. If you note the [c] it has as the footnote "Or have made themselves eunuchs". Here are some other versions<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:International Standard Version (2008) because some men are celibate from birth, while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." New American Standard Bible (©1995) "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) For example, some men are celibate because they were born that way. Others are celibate because they were castrated. Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone can do what you've suggested, then he should do it." King James Bible For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. American King James Version For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. American Standard Version For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Bible in Basic English For there are men who, from birth, were without sex: and there are some who were made so by men: and there are others who have made themselves so for the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to take it, let him take it. Douay-Rheims Bible For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. Darby Bible Translation for there are eunuchs which have been born thus from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs of men; and there are eunuchs who have made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. English Revised Version For there are eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Webster's Bible Translation For there are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mothers womb: and there are some eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Weymouth New Testament There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." World English Bible For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it." Young's Literal Translation for there are eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive it -- let him receive.'<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm" target=_top>http://bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm</a> Whether you are offended by the idea of castration, and how that state of reduced testosterone will be achieved in heaven, it seems that it is the belief held by the writers of the NT. Maybe it would be like the chemical castration some places do for sex offenders.

neal · 03-16-09 6:08 am

Jesus is stating that it's hard to be a married Christian. Ryan If that is what Jesus is stating so clearly then maybe he would say something along the lines of "Its hard to be a married follower of mine". This passage in Matthew 19 about eunuchs and castration is a repulsive way to say what you think it means. In light of the way we think today I am certain that it is more palatable to claim it was a metaphorical word play. People sit around and claim that the earth was made 6000 years ago in spite of clear evidence in the ice cores that go back 800,000 years. If they can claim, with a straight face, that the earth is a few thousand years old I'm certain that they can figure out how to make the NT clear teachings into some kind of mumbo-jumbo.

neal · 03-16-09 6:12 am

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.

bob_2 · 03-16-09 12:33 pm

Ever seen the movie Cocoon, maybe God has something even more beautiful in mind for interaction of the sexes than we can imagine.

bob_2 · 03-16-09 3:03 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:1 Corinthians 2:9 9However, as it is written:"No eye has seen, no ear has heard,no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Sounds like something better than sex, Neal.

bob_2 · 03-16-09 3:18 pm

Something to think about from Philosopher Peter Kreeft: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Specifically human reasons for intercourse include (1) consummating a monogamous marriage and (2) the desire to express personal love. As to the first, there is no marriage in Heaven. But what of the second? I think there will probably be millions of more adequate ways to express love than the clumsy ecstasy of fitting two bodies together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love. If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. The question of intercourse in Heaven is like the child's question whether you can eat candy during intercourse: a funny question only from the adult's point of view. Candy is one of children's greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant? Only if you know both can you compare two things, and all those who have tasted both the delights of physical intercourse with the earthly beloved and the delights of spiritual intercourse with God testify that there is simply no comparison. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm" target=_top>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.ht m</a>

neal · 03-16-09 3:51 pm

...for those who love him Like I have been saying....

bob_2 · 03-16-09 4:41 pm

So your choice ; Death or Heaven where you don't know what you will experience better than sex with your wife??

neal · 03-16-09 5:10 pm

That is a false choice. The Native Americans have just as much evidence for their Origin Story as your favorite story (the parts you believe or have read). The amount of evidence for both is zero. Actually, they may have a better case because yours is pretty specific which we now know to be false. Maybe the indians win. Jews have one of the lowest belief rates in this country about angels, demons, and an afterlife. There is a reason- its not in the jewish Bible. As far as what you want to fantasize sexually for your next life, have at it. I only pointed out some of the teaching of the NT.

john8verse32 · 03-16-09 5:31 pm

wasn't Pauls opposition to marriage and children based on his fear that the time of trouble may be at hand....and family relationships could be used by the oppressors...to force Christians to recant their beliefs?

neal · 03-16-09 5:46 pm

He seemed to come at it from the point that marriage may have been a necessary evil to keep men from sinning but he also believed it was the end of the world:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Col 1:23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> "Was" is still past tense. There has been 2000 years to come with an explanation for why the past tense can still mean 2000 years later. And no, Bob, I am certain there is an explanation which you accept and would love to CnP here but I am not interested. Sola scriptura, right?

bob_2 · 03-16-09 5:56 pm

You guys remind me of Maggie obsessing over the fire to destroy sin. You seem to be obsessing over sex in the clouds or lack there of when there probably is something far better awaiting those that believe. Neal if I were you I would be obsessing over the consequences of Atheistism.

admin · 03-17-09 2:31 am

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In light of the way we think today I am certain that it is more palatable to claim it was a metaphorical word play.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Perhaps it is more palatable to call a metaphorical interpretation of the last part of Mt. 19:12 simple word play. But, as you state yourself, this passage has never been clear (except for when Jesus first said it), meaning that a metaphorical interpretation doesn't result from "the way we think today." We don't know for sure what Jesus meant by his statement, but I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume he did not mean for men to undergo physical castration, especially on the basis of one verse and given the larger context of Christian marriage in the NT. Interestingly, Wikipedia states: "In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs seem to include men who were impotent with women, and those who were celibate." Biased or accurate translations? Dunno, but worth a look and further research, in my opinion. It's also unclear if Origen actually castrated himself or not. If he did, then that is unfortunate. Keep in mind, however, that some of Origen's teachings were rejected, that he possibly castrated himself so he could better tutor females, and that he was possibly a Gnostic. Probably not the best guy to use as support for the idea that Jesus requires men to be physically castrated. Ryan

neal · 03-17-09 8:17 am

... that he possibly castrated himself so he could better tutor females.... It seems like the parallel in the reported statement of Jesus is to the practice of the kingdoms back in those times- The king had many wives and concubines so the king's top advisors/ministers would castrate themselves in order to get the top positions, becoming "eunuchs for the kingdom". Seems likely it would be a physical sign of your commitment to the Kingdom of God if you castrated yourself in order to show others your commitment to the Kingdom. Jesus seems to make it be worthy of a special reward so if the event (castration) is metaphorical then the reward in His Kingdom would be interpreted as metaphorical.

neal · 03-17-09 8:26 am

Neal if I were you I would be obsessing over the consequences of Atheistism. Bob This has to be at least the twentieth time you have resorted to this fallacious appeal to threat. You may as well tell me to be careful cuz your little green friend in a spaceship is going to come to my house TONIGHT and harm me. Resorting to threats against those you oppose is meaningless unless there is some possibility that your threat might be carried out. If it IS possible that the threat could be carried out it would be considered a FEDERAL CRIME. As these types of threats over thousands of years have never been carried out by the deity after the person is dead I won't waste my time reporting it to the Feds. The threats that ended up with burning people at the stake or being tortured in the dungeons by henchmen of the church are no longer legal.

bob_2 · 03-17-09 10:07 am

Neal, no threat just cautioning you man. Ignor it at your peril. It ain't me, it's the Bible. If that scares you, so be it.

neal · 03-17-09 10:23 am

Neal, no threat just cautioning you man. You claiming that it is not a threat does not change the fact that it is in the form of a threat. Some threats are 'credible' and some are 'not credible'. I do not deem your threat to be credible. Ignor it at your peril. Add that one to the long list of threats. Not credible, but still a threat. It ain't me, it's the Bible. That's what the muslims say too. Its not ME! Its straight from God via Muhammud. Neither the Bible nor the Koran talk. They do not post messages on forums. Those books do not burn people at the stake, run theocracies, kill abortion doctors, blow up federal buildings, or fly planes into buildings. If that scares you, so be it. People have never been scared of words in the Bible. They have been scared of the deity in the Bible and have been killed by believers of the Bible.

admin · 03-17-09 12:03 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:It seems like the parallel in the reported statement of Jesus is to the practice of the kingdoms back in those times- The king had many wives and concubines so the king's top advisors/ministers would castrate themselves in order to get the top positions, becoming "eunuchs for the kingdom". <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Fair enough, but we can also make a different parallel: Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, like the general kingdoms you mentioned. So, He shapes a worldly idea (physical eunuchs) into an other-worldly/spiritual/metaphorical idea (spiritual eunuch? voluntary celibacy?). <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Seems likely it would be a physical sign of your commitment to the Kingdom of God if you castrated yourself in order to show others your commitment to the Kingdom.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> No argument there. I like the views expressed here: (<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/af/eunicize.html" target=_top>http://www.tektonics.org/af/eunicize.html</a>). Basically, if Origen or any other Christian castrated himself for God (believe it or not, even today men pursue castration for personal reasons), it is a meaningful expression for them. The fact that it is meaningful, however, doesn't make it supported by Jesus, but it is most assuredly a physical sign of one's commitment to the Kingdom of God. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jesus seems to make it be worthy of a special reward so if the event (castration) is metaphorical then the reward in His Kingdom would be interpreted as metaphorical.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You'll have to show me where Jesus makes castration worthy of a special reward in Heaven. Right now I see a conclusion drawn from a false premise. I'll let you know apply the proper fallacy label to that one. Ryan

neal · 03-17-09 12:55 pm

I am inferring it to be something that would be rewarded like being persecuted or being a martyr (that was also popular back in the day), taking care of the poor, being ridiculed, loving our enemies, etc. I think being able to accept the title of eunuch would rank right up there. Deny yourself for God and receive significant rewards in heaven would be the bottom line. Rev 22:12: "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. Grace is freely given to all that accept. The reward to individuals is for how you have lived your life. (I could look up a lot of reward promises from the NT if you would like)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 03-15-09 12:41 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#77 03-15-09 1:11 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#78 03-15-09 2:20 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#79 03-15-09 7:41 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#80 03-15-09 8:35 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#81 03-15-09 11:52 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#82 03-16-09 5:59 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#83 03-16-09 6:08 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#84 03-16-09 6:12 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#85 03-16-09 12:33 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#86 03-16-09 3:03 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#87 03-16-09 3:18 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#88 03-16-09 3:51 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#89 03-16-09 4:41 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#90 03-16-09 5:10 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#91 03-16-09 5:31 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#92 03-16-09 5:46 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#93 03-16-09 5:56 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#94 03-17-09 2:31 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#95 03-17-09 8:17 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#96 03-17-09 8:26 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#97 03-17-09 10:07 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#98 03-17-09 10:23 am

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#99 03-17-09 12:03 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

#100 03-17-09 12:55 pm

Re: 50 Reasons to Reject Evolution

Board footer