Re: For my fellow Christians: How should we read Genesis

On Aug 28, 3:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 28, 12:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Aug 28, 9:49 am, "VBM" <v.mcalis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Despite the attempt by ID to present this debate as a scientific one

This tells us that you are a Darwinist.

And learning that the editors of Conservapedia are not quite so
paranoid as yourself tells you that Andy Schlafly is a Darwinist. It
can only be a matter of time before a burned-out light bulb convinces
you that your desk lamp is a Darwinist.


I have exposed the false notion and assumption that persons who are
politically and socially conservative to not necessarily be
Creationists or Designists contrary to any preexisting stereotyping.
Andy is a phony Christian, and of course, a TEist (= Darwinist).

Tell me why, Steven, that the ultra-liberal L.A. Times endorsed
Conservapedia and why Conservapedia ate it up?

Objective persons with a reasonable absence of naivete know something
is wrong here. Refresh yourself with the facts:

http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Martinez_user

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f548712dd5f8d4d2/72c66f0186de305b?#72c66f0186de305b


I think for most of us Christians it comes down to defending our reading of
Genesis. But are we reading it correctly?

Since you are a Darwinist this means you are not a Christian; rather,
it means that you think that you are a Christian. A Christian accepts
the evidence of the Biblical lineages that tell us that your alleged
Savior descended from the first man Adam; and real Christians know for
a fact that reality was produced directly by the Father of our Savior:
design indicates Creator.

I don't recall anyone empowering you to decide who is and who is not a
real Christian.

Here we are on a high traffic usenet, that is a place where ALL CLAIMS
are on the table and debated relentlessly night and day, but all of a
sudden we have one claim that has touched a nerve and is being
presumed out of bounds.

VBM is not a real Christian. He thinks that he is a real Christian,
much like Ken Miller. Common sense and invulnerable logic says real
Christians do not agree with Atheists ABOUT ORIGINS. Objective persons
understand this point. I have explained VBM the way the Bible explains
Judas. We have a perfect match of facts and typology. Again, my on-
going larger point is shown: the Bible, good or bad, corresponds to
reality. In a secondary and indirect manner this correspondence
supports Genesis special creation claims, that is, everytime ANY part
of the Bible is shown true the showing supports the veracity of the
entire Source. The more claims that are shown true the more the Source
it self is verified true, or I should say, the more the claim of
Divine inspiration is shown true. This brings us right back to VBMs
OP. Why has he bypassed Paul and leaning on Augustine? Whatever
Augustine said is said in the silent context that the canon is the
word of God, which, of course, includes much Paul.

VBM: what about Paul? Without Paul you have nothing.


There are, after all, people with equal claims to
scholarship and possibly stronger claims to sanity who claim that one
has to accept the Biblical teaching of a young Earth to be a real
Christian. There are people, like Gerardus Bouw, who are as bright as
you and claim that to be a real Christian, one has to reject
Copernicanism and its denial of the clear statements of the Bible that
the sun orbits the Earth.

"Design indicates Creator" is, I think, not the point of Romans 1:20
(the point of which is the obviousness of the moral law, not the
obviousness of special creation or "design"), much less Hebrews 11:3
(which states that "by faith" -- as opposed, presumably, to scientific
evidence -- Christians know that God is Creator).

Because you are a Darwinist this means you care about defending
evolution even to the point of denying that God created by special
creation in Genesis.

I think that VBM is concerned with defending *reality*. There is
little point to recognizing common descent for the rest of the living
world, and yet refuse to see the implications of the same evidence in
our own bodies.


VBM is concerned with corrupting Scripture to conform with his view of
reality. All rats seek to justify their way by invoking God or
scripture. When Absalom was restored to David he asked his Father if
he could go to Hebron to pay a vow to God for restoring him. In
reality he went to Hebron to take advantage of his status as the
King's son and begin his rebellion by "stealing the hearts of the
people" as the Bible says.

Look, Huxley said it best after the "Origin" had conquered when he
said that the orthodox were now attempting to say Genesis never said
what Darwin "refuted." From this point he threatened to go on a
rampage about exposing [alleged] infanticide in the Bible so they
could change that too.


But are we reading it correctly?

Just like I said: the call to corrupt the plain prose of Genesis and
make it support evolution = corruption = this is how we know you are
not a Christian, but a wolf (= Atheist) in sheeps clothing.

Again, the "plain prose of Genesis" implies that the sky is a solid
dome with hatches in it, that the sun circles the Earth (inside the
dome of the sky),

No, Steven, only your brand of literalism says that. Intelligent
persons know these silly renderings are the renderings of a person
deliberately trying to slander the Bible.

and that breeding animals in front of striped and
spotted sticks increases the chances of their bearing striped and
spotted offspring.

The Bible HONESTLY REPORTS what Jacob did and believed. Other passages
say that God was responsible for his increases.

You corrupt the plain prose every time you
compromise with Copernicanism or Mendellianism. Or perhaps, on these
subjects but not others, you recognize that the Bible must be
interpreted in light of scientific knowledge.


The Bible corresponds to reality, whether scientific, historic,
personal and of course, spiritual.


I have written an article on how Augustine dealt with Genesis and it shows a
very humble, flexible approach that we can all learn from. You can read it
here:

Corruption confirmed again: "flexible approach."

I'm surprised you didn't go after him for "humility." After all, you
obviously don't regard it as a virtue.

Since you are a Darwinist your "interpretation" is predetermined.

That does not address the question of whether his interpretation is
correct.


It tells objective persons what his bias is from the outset. If you
read the first thing I said in the bottom Conservapedia link pasted
above it was to declare my bias.

http://euangelion.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/how-should-we-read-genesis...

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts, either here or there. That is a
Christian blog for Christians, however, so non-Christians can respond here.

Thanks!

I am glad your kind presupposes me not to be a Christian. The approval
of your kind would be the best evidence that I am not.

Is that another bulletin board from which you've been banned for
abuse? Perhaps he merely thinks you're a really bad Christian.

As for your "article" it is very predictable as to what you will say
since you are a Darwinist and closet Atheist with one ulteror motive:
defend and promote evolution and corrupt your enemy the Bible. Real
Christians defend and promote the Bible and do not attempt to twist
what it says so evolution is promoted; again, this is how we know you
are an angry Atheist.

Who is "we?" Are you taking theological advice from your tapeworm
again?


"We" = real Christians.

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: For my fellow Christians: How should we read Genesis
    ... paranoid as yourself tells you that Andy Schlafly is a Darwinist. ... Andy is a phony Christian, and of course, a TEist. ... Darwin showing himself to be a Darwinist when he is ... Conservapedia and why Conservapedia ate it up? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Directed panspermy, Nyikos style
    ... but apparently Darwin dropped it permanently. ... God put you in charge of declaring who is a Real ... Christian and who is not. ... actually be the Last Real Christian standing. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ayala the false prophet
    ... therefore evidenced to not be a real Christian because a real ... Christian would not accept an assumption that says the Father of their ... LEAVE EVOLUTION ASIDE just once. ... They reject ID because they believe the evidence offered for it is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ayala the false prophet
    ... therefore evidenced to not be a real Christian because a real ... Christian would not accept an assumption that says the Father of their ... Those who do accept the same becomes evidence that they ... LEAVE EVOLUTION ASIDE just once. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question for Nashton, or any Christian
    ... I would definately differ between a fundamentalist Christian and real ... A fundamentalist Christian is not a real Christian. ... You are /part of the majority of real christians/ eh? ...
    (talk.origins)