Answers in Genesis indeed…

Posted by Shaye on Friday, October 01, 2004 at 04:30 PM. Read 9013 times. Tags: ,
{name} pic

A few days ago, I received one of those little books. You know the ones I mean. It said, “What REALLY happened to the Dinosaurs?“ on it. I was intrigued, “Hey, I want to know!“ and I proceeded to read it. I had the best laugh that I’d had in a long while, it was so funny.

It is written by a man named Ken Ham (it’s a very apt name) and he tries to explain the ‘mystery of dinosaurs’ and how their bones just prove creation science even more. I was going to scan the entire 40 page booklet, but I’ll just type out some of the more amusing passages, but I will be scanning the terrible and cartoony images of the dinosaurs, they are just awful.

Mr. Ham begins with, “Dinosaurs are used more than anything else to indoctrinate children and young adults in the idea of millions of years of Earth history. However the Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs in terms of thousands of years, and solving the mystery of what happened to them.“ Well, I could say this booklet is indoctrinating children and young adults into believing your nonsense, but let’s just read on.

He continues by explaining what those dirty evolutionists think, dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the earth (his exact quote) and somehow for some unbeknownst reason to any scientist they just disappeared 65 million years ago. But wait, no he says, some silly scientists think birds evolved from dinosaurs, why that’s even more absurd than a flying dragon! Or is it?

He says that obviously dinosaurs were created 6,000 years ago, as were all life forms, and that Adam lived in the same time as these (all 600… he actually believes there were 600 ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs) gentle creatures who all ate plants. But wasn’t Tyrannosaurus Rex a carnivore? Well not to worry paleontologists, because Ken Ham says that you really can’t tell what a dinosaur’s teeth say about the eating habits because you can’t even tell what skin color was by bones! He says, “Scientists generally do not dig up a dinosaur with all its flesh intact”, which is true, does this man know anything about real science? So, T-Rex ate plants like all the good animals, until someone sinned and, uh-oh! Here comes that flood.

He also says that of course scientists are wrong about explaining the origins of dinosaurs, simply because they make mistakes all the time. Look at brontosaurus, it was really an Apatosaurus skeleton with an incorrect head and labeled mistakingly. Okay, so he got us there, but science is self-correcting, once new evidence shows up it replaces the old, outdated stuff. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it was wrong, but it was human error in the case of brontosaurus.

So Noah comes, and there’s the flood, but aren’t dinosaurs too big to fit on the ark? No! says Ken Ham, there’s plenty of room on the boat. Remember, out of the 600 ‘kinds’ of dinosaur, only like four or five were actually really big. So the smaller ones got to live, and they went on the art with Noah.

Now he gets really funny. He tries to give examples in the bible where it mentions dinosaurs, he finds ones about sea monsters, and flying monsters and ties those to Mosasaurus and pterodactyls. He references a movie entitled The Great Dinosaur Mystery and explains that in all ancient cultures, they had legends about ‘dinosaur-like’ animals which the called “dragons”. From Gilgamesh (ironic he chooses an epic that a lot of Near East texts are based off of) to a book published in the 1500s, there is evidence that dinosaurs were actually dragons, now gone due to hunting by humans.

He comes back the bones and teeth thing again. “Movies like Jurassic Park and The Lost World portray most dinosaurs as aggressive meat eaters. But the mere presence of sharp teeth does not tell you how an animal behaved, or necessarily what food it ate—only what kind of teeth it had (for ripping food etc.).“ He just obliterated his own statement. Why would a plant eater need sharp teeth for ripping plants? He sites bears as a good example, “bears have teeth similar to a carnivore’s but are mostly vegetarian”. Bears are omnivores, eating whatever they can to survive. A lot of times, plants are more easily accessible than fish, or other meat. He claims that claws and fangs came about because sin was introduced and they are wicked. This guy is nuts.

Ken Ham tries to explain just why it is that dinosaurs can’t be seen anymore even though they were on the ark with Noah, and why people are still so fascinated with these creatures. He blames evolutionists (surprise) as spreading evil evolutionary propaganda to poor, little hapless Christians, who are so gullible they tend to think of dinosaurs as being ‘somewhat mysterious’. He goes on to say, “If you were to ask at the zoo why they have endangered species programs, you would probably get an answer something like this: ‘We’ve lost lots of animals from this Earth. Animals are becoming extinct all the time. Look at all the animals that are gone forever. We need to act to save the animals.‘ If you then asked, ‘Why are animals becoming extinct?‘ you might get an answer like this, ‘It’s obvious! People are killing them; lack of food; man destroying the environment; diseases; genetic problems; catastrophes like floods (HMM CONSPICUOUS!)—there are lots of reasons.‘ Ken Ham has some good examples of why animals start to fall into an extinction vortex, and ultimately end up not existing anymore, perfectly good reasons as to why the dinosaurs might have died off, except the flood one. Now Ken explains quite enthusiastically the real reason that dinos aren’t here anymore. ‘Maybe one of the reasons dinosaurs went extinct is that we didn’t start our endangered species programs early enough!‘ What a moron!

Birdosaurs? Ken Ham tries his best to debunk the theory that some dinosaurs may have evolved into birds. This man, like many others, has such a poor knowledge of how evolution works its appalling. He says dinosaurs and birds aren’t the same, birds are warm-blooded not cold-blooded like a dinosaur would be according to science. “Sadly, the secular media have become so blatant in their anti-Christian stand and pro-evolutionary propaganda that they are bold enough to make such ridiculous statements as, ‘Parrots and hummingbirds are also dinosaurs.‘ I’ve never heard that. I personally do see evidence currently that some species of dinosaurs evolved into birds, what Ken Ham fails to remember is that the Jurassic age was just one of three periods in the Mesozoic era, Cretaceous, Jurassic and Triassic. Each one of those periods is marked by significant extinction, and spanned some 500 millions years, much, much longer than humans have been around.

Ken Ham is a creation science moron, and I find his drivel funny. It’s not funny when people are stupid enough to believe it. Someone from the Answers in Genesis website wrote in about the booklet, “I wanted to thank you for sending me the package of booklets for my office. I put them out yesterday and I saw at least one patient with the ‘Dinosaur’ one in her hand. At the end of the day, the young woman who ‘floats’ on our wing was reading the ‘Does God Exist?’ booklet. She commented, ‘This is really interesting!’ Her name is Laura. I already use the Focus on the Family pamphlets in my office but had never thought of using yours. I plan to keep them in stock. People really like having literature like this in the office and I get lots of comments on them and it opens up lots of avenues for conversation. Thank you again for your ministry and thoughtfulness. — Debbie E., Oregon” How nice… looking around I think more and more that Ken Ham and people like him are retarded, and deserve to go live on the moon.

Comments:

Page 12 of 15 pages « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 >  Last »

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 12:22 PM

Kerry Green pic

In short, it’s the Jew’s fault that Jesus refuses to heal the amputees.
Blaming the Jews to still be popular with some Christians it seems.

Thanks for visiting my site, Les.  But I believe you have misread part of it, judging by your statement quoted above.

There is not a single ounce of condemnation intended for the Jews.  Jesus Himself was a Jew.

In fact, you quoted my article ...

Now don’t get me wrong, that is not an indictment or a judgement of them - in fact, it was necessary for them to reject Him, so that He would be crucified. In His death, He paid for the sins of the world. Had that not happened, there would have been salvation for no-one.

I think that adequately indicates that I am not blaming the Jews, therefore, your criticism that I am blaming the Jews is clearly unjustified.  Once again, you misrepresent what Christians say and believe, to disparage them even though there is in fact no basis for criticism.

I say - I am not blaming the Jews
I say - In fact, had they not crucified Christ there would have been no salvation for anyone.
You say - blaming the Jews is apparently still popular.

You ignore the bits that don’t support your argument in order to make baseless accusations which the article itself refutes.

As I have stated previously, God has dealt in different ways with different people groups at different times (that’s what “dispensationalism” means).  For a long time salvation was through the Jewish people, but as you have quoted me, following their rejection of Christ as their Messiah, God put them aside for a time, and declared salvation was now available to the Gentiles directly. Note that this setting aside was for a time, not permanently.

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew… I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
- Romans 11:1,2,11.

I am not accusing the Jews of anything, or blaming them for anything.  In fact, their loss is our gain. Bear in mind that most Gentiles reject Christ as their Saviour, just as the Jews as a people rejected Him as their Messiah.

The Jews can still be saved individually through acceptance of Christ as their Saviour, even though they as a people rejected Him as their Messiah.

In a coming day the Jews will accept Christ as their Messiah.  God’s dealings with the Jews are postponed, but not cancelled.

So my comments about the Jews rejecting the Messiah are an explanation of why Christianity exists, and of why we recognise that they were in a different dispensation to us.  This is a necessary distinction to make, if one wants to understand the Scriptures. My comments are not in any way a condemnation, neither am I blaming the Jews for anything.

Neither do I say that God refuses to heal amputees.  I am saying that God is not performing miracles everywhere at this time, and that there is a logical reason for that.  However, God can heal, and in response to prayer He may still elect to heal - though I’m pretty sure it won’t be in a “charismatic” healing circus.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 12:44 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Elwed: Are we just about done feeding the troll?

Almost.

Hermit/KG: You ignore the bits that don’t support your argument in order to make baseless accusations which the article itself refutes

Pot, meet kettle. I’m sure you get that a lot.

I am not accusing the Jews of anything, or blaming them for anything.

Bullshit. I see no other way to interpret to your little missive above, no matter how much you edit your intended meaning after the fact.

I have just one little mission for you to complete, Hermit/Kerry: in five hundred words or less, explain in an acceptable manner why you consider the Bible the final authority on all matters concerning “truth”—and not the Koran, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, the Tipitaka, the Tao Te Ching, the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. etc. Let me remind you that circular logic does not qualify as acceptable. Mind you, I don’t anticipate an acceptable answer from you. I do suspect that we will encounter much dancing around, much snark, and a whole lot of projection in your reply (should you even attempt it).

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Les United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 06:05 PM

Les pic

Mr. Hermit Green writes…

Thanks for visiting my site, Les.  But I believe you have misread part of it, judging by your statement quoted above.

Allow me to borrow one of your tactics for a moment: My interpretation of your article is clearly correct, as is obvious from the text.

There is not a single ounce of condemnation intended for the Jews.  Jesus Himself was a Jew.
...
I think that adequately indicates that I am not blaming the Jews, therefore, your criticism that I am blaming the Jews is clearly unjustified.  Once again, you misrepresent what Christians say and believe, to disparage them even though there is in fact no basis for criticism.

I never said you were condemning the Jews, I said you were blaming them, which you clearly are in the text I quoted. You can consider someone responsible for something — that is you can blame them — without condemning them.

Why isn’t that what Jesus does himself? He blames mankind for our fall from grace, but he doesn’t condemn us… well, not so long as we’re willing to sit around and tell him what a great guy he is anyway.

I say - I am not blaming the Jews
I say - In fact, had they not crucified Christ there would have been no salvation for anyone.
You say - blaming the Jews is apparently still popular.

If the Jews were just doing what God apparently required of them to do in order to open up salvation to everyone, then why is God so pissy about not doing miracles anymore? That’s some twisted logic you’re using there, Hermit Green. You say the reason God isn’t doing miracles anymore is because the Jews didn’t believe him when he did them the first two times and yet it appears that it was God’s will that the Jews wouldn’t believe him so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease his anger at his own faulty creation.

And you consider your belief rational?

As I have stated previously, God has dealt in different ways with different people groups at different times (that’s what “dispensationalism” means).  For a long time salvation was through the Jewish people, but as you have quoted me, following their rejection of Christ as their Messiah, God put them aside for a time, and declared salvation was now available to the Gentiles directly. Note that this setting aside was for a time, not permanently.

But God knew the Jews would do this, right? So why screw around with the Jews to begin with? Why not just open up salvation to everyone right from the get go? Why change the rules as he goes along and give the appearance that he hasn’t a clue what he’s doing?

I am not accusing the Jews of anything, or blaming them for anything.

I disagree. It’s clear from your own writings that you’re attempting to use the Jews as an explanation as to why God won’t heal amputees. You’re attributing their actions as a direct cause of God’s apparent disinterest in helping amputees to regain lost limbs, or to do much else in the way of miracles these days. It’s obvious from your own text.

In fact, their loss is our gain. Bear in mind that most Gentiles reject Christ as their Saviour, just as the Jews as a people rejected Him as their Messiah.

Something a couple of well placed miracles would probably do a lot to correct, as you yourself admit in your article. Seems kind of stupid to withhold the one thing that might actually change a few minds if he’s really interested in winning his cosmic popularity contest against Satan.

So my comments about the Jews rejecting the Messiah are an explanation of why Christianity exists, and of why we recognise that they were in a different dispensation to us.  This is a necessary distinction to make, if one wants to understand the Scriptures. My comments are not in any way a condemnation, neither am I blaming the Jews for anything.

Again I disagree. Your article is all about why God won’t heal amputees and you use as your argument that God doesn’t perform miracles like he did back in the day and the reason you give for why God isn’t doing his parlor tricks anymore is because when he tried that shtick previously the Jews denied him as their Saviour. Logically then the Jews denial of their Saviour is the reason why God won’t heal amputees today.

If you’re not laying the responsibility on the Jews then why bring them up at all?

Neither do I say that God refuses to heal amputees.  I am saying that God is not performing miracles everywhere at this time, and that there is a logical reason for that.  However, God can heal, and in response to prayer He may still elect to heal - though I’m pretty sure it won’t be in a “charismatic” healing circus.

What’s the logical reason? He’s feeling pissy that he failed to impress very many people with them the first time? Because one group of people rejected him everyone else should be denied the miracles he gave to a few?

And if he might still, occasionally, when he feels like it, heal someone because of a prayer then show me a single confirmed example of an amputee who was ever granted such a blessing. Are you seriously going to suggest to me that there hasn’t been a single amputee somewhere in the world in the 2,000 years or so since God last visited the planet that wasn’t worthy of having a limb miraculously restored?

In your own article you recount the story of Brother Andrew’s miraculously healed ankle after he accepted God’s mission to take Bibles into lands where they were banned. You said that you could believe that story to be true because you believed that “If God has a special job for a person, and it is necessary for that person to be healed in order to be able to serve, then God in His power and authority, can step in and perform a miracle. “ Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn’t been a single amputee who God felt might be able to spread his word effectively if he suddenly regained a lost limb?

I guess that’s just too much effort for God when it’s so much easier, and ambiguous, to just heal a gimpy ankle.

 Signature 

Agnostics are just atheists without balls. - Stephen Colbert

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 05/29/2007 at 07:57 PM

Last_Hussar pic

Answers in Genesis?

The day Phil Collins is the answer to the world’s woes will be a dark one indeed.

 Signature 

To be human is to look at the vast, cold, uncaring universe, and to say “We stand alone, together.“

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 08:05 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Answers in Genesis?

The day Phil Collins is the answer to the world’s woes will be a dark one indeed.

I’d say he’s preferable to Steve Windwood.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 08:17 PM

elwedriddsche pic

The day Phil Collins is the answer to the world’s woes will be a dark one indeed.

Can’t say I like Phil Collins. I was once sitting two rows behind him on a flight from Zurich to Heathrow and he raised a fuss with immigration because they wanted his Swiss girlfriend to use the line for non-EU citizens that she’s supposed to use as a (duh) non-EU citizen. I distinctly remember him bullying the staffer and complaining to a buddy that “These days it doesn’t take much to get my goat.“ It’s not that I ever was a fan of his, but ever since I’m an anti-fan.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 08:49 PM

Kerry Green pic

Bullshit. I see no other way to interpret to your little missive above

Then you are obviously a very stupid person, intent only on “bashing the Christian” without regard for the facts or any appeal to reason.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 08:53 PM

Kerry Green pic

Mind you, I don’t anticipate an acceptable answer from you

It would not be possible to provide an answer acceptable to you, as you happily disregard the facts and reason in order to baselessly “bash the Christian”.

The Bible advises me not to cast pearls before swine.

If you had showed any interest in an honest discussion, where you would give due and honest regard to my arguments, then such an exercise might be worthwhile.  This and preceeding pages indicate that such is not the case.  There is no point making logical arguments to someone who has a complete disregard for logic and reason.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:03 PM

Sadie Jane pic

It would not be possible to provide an answer acceptable to you, as you happily disregard the facts and reason in order to baselessly “bash the Christian”.

Just as I thought. Nice attempt to play the persecution card, too.

If you had showed any interest in an honest discussion, where you would give due and honest regard to my arguments, then such an exercise might be worthwhile.

Translation: if only you showed an interest in “honest discussion,“ you’d come to see things my way. Next!

There is no point making logical arguments to someone who has a complete disregard for logic and reason.

And thus bringing us to another round of “pot, meet kettle.“ Your predictability is getting old. Have a nice life, Mr. Green. I’m sure Jesus would be proud.

/done feeding the troll

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:05 PM

Last_Hussar pic

There is no point making logical arguments to someone who has a complete disregard for logic and reason.

Yes, that’s why we have ceased making logical arguments to you and started taking the piss out of Phil Collins.

We have many threads of science, many of which arrive at the same conclusions seperately. You have the oral tradition of a wandering desert tribe, which was written down hundreds of years later, then translated through 3 different languages.

Let me try you with the ‘one God further’ principle.  How do you know that Sikhism is wrong, and the Bible correct?

Did you explain the Kangaroos?

 Signature 

To be human is to look at the vast, cold, uncaring universe, and to say “We stand alone, together.“

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:07 PM

Kerry Green pic

Hermit/Kerry: in five hundred words or less, explain in an acceptable manner why you consider the Bible the final authority on all matters concerning “truth”

So you’re the school teacher and I’m the student?  Or you’re the Judge and I’m on trial?

Why should I?  I do believe the Bible to be true and the Word of God.  There are good and logical reasons for that belief.  However, I don’t much care whether you think my reasons are good or not.  You are not open to the truth, so I shall not waste the truth on you ...

unless you care in 500 words or less to tell me why the Big Bang (nothing went bang and became everything) is the truth.  Please show me the verifiable facts, and no inconsistencies, please. And while you’re there, an account proving microbes-to-man evolution has occurred.  Again, verifiable facts, please.  Oh, and circular reasoning, and appeals to Darwin or other scientific writings are not acceptable.  Neither are “gaps” in the fossil record.

Thanks so much.

Last_Hussar Great Britain (UK) Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:11 PM

Last_Hussar pic

writeback to spammers, and clearly states that he doesn’t want to give his partner multiple orgasms?  Priceless.

No, give him credit. That is a well written humorous letter. Pity about the multiple orgasms though.

 Signature 

To be human is to look at the vast, cold, uncaring universe, and to say “We stand alone, together.“

Les United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:35 PM

Les pic

The irony of some of Mr. Hermit Green’s retorts is almost too much to bear. I noticed he skipped my last reply to him, probably best not to poke him too much.

 Signature 

Agnostics are just atheists without balls. - Stephen Colbert

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:44 PM

Kerry Green pic

hmmm, once again my reply cannot be processed, and so must await moderation.

Funny how that happens to me, isn’t it?

I shall try again.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:47 PM

Kerry Green pic

and now “unable to receive my comment at this time”.  How convenient.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:48 PM

Kerry Green pic

Hermit/Kerry: in five hundred words or less, explain in an acceptable manner why you consider the Bible the final authority on all matters concerning “truth”

So you’re the school teacher and I’m the student?  Or you’re the Judge and I’m on trial?

Why should I?  I do believe the Bible to be true and the Word of God.  There are good and logical reasons for that belief.  However, I don’t much care whether you think my reasons are good or not.  (hopefully continued below)

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 09:49 PM

Kerry Green pic

You are not open to the truth, so I shall not waste the truth on you ...

unless you care in 500 words or less to tell me why the Big Bang (nothing went bang and became everything) is the truth.  Please show me the verifiable facts, and no inconsistencies, please. And while you’re there, an account proving microbes-to-man evolution has occurred.  Again, verifiable facts, please.  Oh, and circular reasoning, and appeals to Darwin or other scientific writings are not acceptable.  Neither are “gaps” in the fossil record.

Thanks so much.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:01 PM

Kerry Green pic

I never said you were condemning the Jews, I said you were blaming them, which you clearly are in the text I quoted. You can consider someone responsible for something — that is you can blame them — without condemning them.

So, in the funny little way you interpret the world, blaming someone for something isn’t condemnatory?

Dictionary.com has this to say:

blame

1. to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don’t blame you for leaving him. 
4. an act of attributing fault; censure; reproof
5. responsibility for anything deserving of censure

condemn

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of
3. to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring

As I indicate clearly that the outcome of the Jewish action has been beneficial to the Gentiles, and as I am a Gentile who has appropriated that benefit, I fail to see why I would censure (whether that be blame or condemn) the Jews.

What I did, in fact, do, is explain why the actions of the Jewish people instigated a change in the way God deals with people today.  This is of historical interest and is a key to understanding the Bible.

You simply have no argument, and you are persisting with trying to find fault where none exists.  It is a stupid and futile argument, and no person of intellect would promote it.  You are grasping for straws.

We can go over this as many times as you like, I don’t mind, but, as disabled as you evidently are, I do hope you are able to come to an understanding of the subject eventually.

Perhaps you could ask your mummy or your daddy to explain it to you?

Les United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:09 PM

Les pic

Hermit Green writes…

hmmm, once again my reply cannot be processed, and so must await moderation.

Funny how that happens to me, isn’t it?

Yeah, I think so, but don’t blame me. It’s not my fault that the blog software seems to think your comments look a lot like what the spammers tend to leave behind.

 Signature 

Agnostics are just atheists without balls. - Stephen Colbert

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:10 PM

Kerry Green pic

I know Les won’t get this, but maybe some of you might ...

The Jews are not “to blame” for the death of Jesus.  This was hinted at in Genesis, and foretold many times in the Old Testament.  Further, Jesus came into this world with the express purpose of dying for the sins of the world.

Jesus’ death was necessary because of the sins of all humans, not those of any particular race or nation.  My sins put Jesus on the cross just as much as anything any Jew or Gentile did.  If I had been the only sinner, I believe Jesus would still have come and died for me.

Les United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:13 PM

Les pic

Ooo. Getting a wee bit pissy are we? You’re cute when you’re annoyed. How come you didn’t address the rest of my comment? No easy answers?

 Signature 

Agnostics are just atheists without balls. - Stephen Colbert

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:22 PM

Kerry Green pic

/done feeding the troll

Just as I thought, pathetic.

You’re happy to make challenges, but as soon as one is put back at you, all of a sudden you’re done and out of here?

Ha Ha Ha.  I love it.  Classic.  Put shit on the Christian, then run like hell if he comes back at you.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:26 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Les [to Hermit Green]: Ooo. Getting a wee bit pissy are we?

 

LOL  Not only that, but he’s now resorted to fivefold dipping. That’s a telltale sign of a struck nerve if I’ve ever seen one.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:39 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Not only that, but he’s now resorted to fivefold dipping. That’s a telltale sign of a struck nerve if I’ve ever seen one.

I have an idea, though.

Les runs the Akismet extension, so why not manually submit them as spam? If enough people do this, fundie comments will eventually be tagged as spam all over the blogosphere wink

I wonder how hard would it be to modify EE’s Akismet module to make this happen?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Kerry Green Australia Posted on 05/29/2007 at 10:42 PM

Kerry Green pic

If the Jews were just doing what God apparently required of them to do in order to open up salvation to everyone, then why is God so pissy about not doing miracles anymore?

In order for the Jews to have every possibility of accepting Him as their Messiah, He very reasonably gave hard cold factual evidence that He was able to do miracles.  Remember, He was living amongst them as a man, and these miracles were seen to be done by Him.  This was to authenticate His claims that He is indeed God.

Now, God requires us to come to Him in faith (that doesn’t mean blind faith).  He is not now living as a man on earth, doing verifiable miracles to authenticate His claims.  If He did do miracles for everyone, who knows who would get the credit, seeing that He cannot be seen to be doing them as a man amongst us.

That doesn’t mean He’s “pissy” about doing miracles - it simply isn’t necessary, and isn’t His plan.  That so many of the Gentiles receive Him as their Saviour, will be a rebuke to the Jewish nation that rejected Him despite the evidence He gave them.

We get sick, and suffer, because we are sinners. Why should God let us be sinners, but shield us from the end results of sin?

(This does not mean that people who get more sickness are more sinful - just that sickness generally is the result of the fall, when man first sinned, and affects us all because we all have the sin nature.)

But God knew the Jews would do this, right? So why screw around with the Jews to begin with? Why not just open up salvation to everyone right from the get go? Why change the rules as he goes along and give the appearance that he hasn’t a clue what he’s doing?

God has always been giving a progressive revelation of Himself, and the covenant He had with the Jewish people was a part of that.  That covenant has not ended, and will be fulfilled in full.  There are good reasons for this progressive revelation, but I do not propose to go into them here.  Neither do I pretend to know the mind of God fully.  He is God, He can do whatever He wants.

Page 12 of 15 pages « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main