There is a separate thread for humor (that includes irony).
Good question.
Perhaps St Roymond we might have a reference that explains what the purpose of miracles are to help with your answer (which i kind of agree with)
Am i reading correctly that you believe we will still use resources and technology only in a more harmonious, environmental way?
I find this an interesting concept actually, however i draw the line at any Mormon “Battle Star Galactica” ending.
When I was in university it was probably still possible, but we’ve learned one heck of a lot about the physics of violent storms since then – chaos theory is involved and works fairly well. But we still can’t do an accurate forecast more than about four days ahead because chaos functions veer out of control.
1 Like
On another site just a few days ago I posted a proof that water doesn’t settle “flat”, from when I visited Lake Chelan in Washington state. It involved the fact that we could see the village at the end of the lake when we were standing on shore, but as we waded into the lake the village disappeared starting at the bottom, and by the time we were treading water we couldn’t see any of the village. I expect by now that’s been ‘explained’ away in at least two different ways.
Definitely. Just BTW, that’s something I point out to radical libertarians who want to turn everything libertarian overnight: a libertarian society (if possible at all) requires highly-educated critical thinkers as its citizens; if even 15% can’t do critical thinking then the society will head towards a form of feudalism or at least a patronage arrangement as in ancient Rome.
3 Likes
I didn’t intend to make an argument because the truth of the statement is obvious and I was just affirming it – no generalization involved.
But it wasn’t without merit. It was an “if-then” statement based on what the theory of evolution actually is.
“Ignorant” has an objective meaning and can be used that way. That you load it with subjective meaning does not change the denotation.
It definitely does – the subjunctive clause using “when” rather than “if” is the antecedent. It’s a common sentence structure (not just in English, either).
It’s an easily diagrammed sentence that happens to have a primary and a secondary clause, which together with the subjunctive use of “when” constitute the antecedent.
1 Like
This is off-topic, so it shouldn’t be pursued any more here, and there is no point in pursuing it anywhere else either, because your YEC answers have been repeated a bazillion times as have our replies, but I noticed that you ‘liked’ this above:
All of us who accept the legitimacy and the prodigious quantity of the evidence for the massive antiquity of God’s creation (as well as its enormous size – which can really only be understood in context with its age), all of us I’m sure sincerely wish and even pray that you would learn to accept that Genesis 1 contains poetic elements as well.
That means parts of it are literal – e.g., God certainly created the heavens and the earth and he created what grows in and on them, but it also means that parts of it are metaphorical that do not specify scientific truths such as the length of the figurative ‘days’ or the scientific and historical order in which things happened. Others more educated than I on the matter (it doesn’t take much ; - ) could fill in detail about the structures (e.g. poetic and/or narrative) of Ancient Near Eastern literature. But even understanding a little about repetition in Hebrew poetry should give you somewhat of a clue.
I have only just recently learned a little about chiastic structure. The etymology of ‘chiasm’ comes from the Greek letter X which is used for ‘cross’ and ‘Christ’, so you might appreciate that Jesus is foreshadowed in scripture even earlier than you have imagined.
1 Like
Miracles are events introduced into a fallen world to point to important activity on the part of God and thus beyond to God Himself. Since we will be living with God, no pointers will be needed, and also since we will be living with God reality will be on a higher level anyway so miracles wouldn’t even be special.
2 Likes
There was one who was on the forum some months back who certainly seemed to be serious about firmament and flat earth, given the complaint I remember about naming fake “space missions” after pagan deities.
There’s no professor or manager here asking for proof. The statement relied on the definition of the theory of evolution, which anyone here should know.
1 Like
Glad I missed that. I think,
1 Like
I am not a big fan of eschatology and Revelation is a favorite among the cults because they can make it mean anything they want. It is far from clear to me that Revelation is speaking of the future anyway. A good portion of Christians like the preterist view which holds that it was all about events in the first century.
I certainly see nothing of evil in any of those things. Nothing wrong with the earth. Nothing wrong with technology. The evil is in human beings and what we do with what we have been given. Of course, this is not just about how we treat the earth but how we treat each other.
But like it said in what you quoted it is/will not just be a new heaven but also a new earth. To ask about evolution is to ask about the earth since this has nothing to do with heaven. I see no reason why the purpose of the earth to give birth to more children of God will not continue as it has. But like I explained, the evolution of man is different now. It is not about biology anymore.
Neither of those are applicable.
The Mormons believe everything is in this universe. I do not. The heaven referred to in the Bible is not up in the sky. Paul is pretty clear in 1 Cor 15 that the resurrected body is not a physical/natural body made of the stuff of the earth (i.e. matter) but a spiritual body. And where did the resurrected Jesus go? He is not part of our life on the earth as a physical presence. He went elsewhere because this is not proper abode for a spiritual body.
Science Fiction like Battle Star Galactic is pure fantasy. There will never be star empires. The space-time structure of the universe does not allow this. If we one day travel to other stars, it will be a one-way trip because any earth we return to will not be same. But while the future of the earth may continue, it is not our future individually. Our future lies in heaven with God.
Was I right about irony or was I right, and in pointing to the humor thread? 
1 Like
Ah yes, the broad suitability of Brandolini’s law in the context of YECism and conspiracism (the two frequently not separable):
It takes ten times the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.
(You can be glad, because if percentages count, it is rarely time profitably spent. But then, I used to be a YEC, and after that an OEC and an ID proponent for a several decades, so we shouldn’t be totally despairing of our efforts.)
1 Like
You’re talking about a verb form, I’m talking about linguistics.
And the sentence is easily diagrammed as I described.
Whose definition? “anyone?” More hasty generalizations. EE Cummings wrote a poem about anyone. Here are some lines that match evolution:
anyone lived in a pretty house town…
he sang his didn’t he danced his did…
Women and men (both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all…
noone loved him more by more…
they said their nevers they slept their dream
one day anyone died i guess
(and noone stooped to kiss his face…
The same goes for evolution when Christ comes again, and it meets its fate. Evolution had no part in the past nor will it have one in the future, because all speculation will bend to the sufficiency of the word of God. Since evolution remains a hypothesis, it is speculative with numerous variations of it arising since its first use in the 17th century with the rise of the Bible higher critics. Austruc sought to splice and dice Genesis with a variety of sources from numerous redactors based on speculation. So also did the geologists who were contemporaries of his. The word “evolution” didn’t come into existence until that time, and the speculators ran wild. So enjoy your “theoretical” speculations. Romans 1 warned about the speculations of men.
Bizarre fallacy that, where you defer your entire argument to the belief in some future event. I am reminded of the Millerites selling and giving away their property to await the second coming in 1844. It’s the iconic gold mine in a swamp scam. Who in their right mind is going to buy that one?
Since evolution has repeatedly and continues to be demonstrated in the laboratory, it is obviously both past and future. I have met very few people who make that mistake. Most people know enough to make sufficient qualifications to show they do know some of the facts.
When an hypothesis as been tested and shown repeatedly on demand to be correct, it is no longer an hypothesis.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Speculation is not testable. An hypothesis is testable.
Incorrect. The word “speculation” is not used in Romans 1, nor in the entire epistle of Romans. The word is only found in the epistles of first and second Timothy. And I don’t think those passages are blanket prohibitions of making any sort of speculation whatsoever but specifically regarding Christian teachings, particularly if it is simply to be quarrelsome. And to be frank… I think you are being very quarrelsome.
2 Likes
Factually incorrect: recognizing that the scriptures are human literature, he applied well-established principles of literary analysis. He actually defended Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, something later scholars abandoned. But higher criticism didn’t take off until the late eighteenth century with the influence of Kant and Hegel and the appearance of figures such as Julius Wellhausen. The problem with higher criticism was that it is really two different disciplines, one a sound analysis of human literature, the other a deconstruction of texts based on a denial of divine activity in the human realm. The first has brought immense benefits to the Christian faith, the latter hasn’t benefitted anyone except those authors who managed to make careers of it.
Geology has very little speculation in it.
I make few speculations; I do address the text of the scriptures as what they are: literature addressed to ancient people in forms and within worldviews they understood.
2 Likes
“ Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” Hebrews 10:37
For the Lord himself will descend ofrom heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so vwe will always be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
Do you not believe the Bible and confuse the words of others in 1844 with the Bible? The Millerites spoke of a secret rapture, which the Bible does not teach. I know that story. But the Bible throughout teaches the Second Coming. I will not argue with you on that point, becaue I am not here to try to convince anyone of the truth just to proclaim it.