Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   The Lounge (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Christian at Christmas Time (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=15919)

cheesey 12-22-2006 03:32 PM

How about you Moonlight Graham? Any opinion?

BigBuddhaPup 12-22-2006 04:10 PM

Cheesey,

It is hilarious how the Bible is absolute one minute, and the next it is figurative...

I think GW is in there too... False Prophet, blah, blah, blah...

Jaguar Rick 12-22-2006 05:09 PM

Take a look at bible contradictions online. It gives lists of scriptures with directly opposite meanings. It is true, the bible can be used to prove or disprove everything.

chiefsfan27 12-22-2006 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar Rick (Post 229508)
Take a look at bible contradictions online. It gives lists of scriptures with directly opposite meanings. It is true, the bible can be used to prove or disprove everything.

Just because I know there are no contradictions in the Bible, could you list some on your next post?

CKFresh 12-22-2006 06:33 PM

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Would you like more, I could go on all night, it's real easy

CKFresh 12-22-2006 06:45 PM

my favorite:

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

chiefsfan27 12-22-2006 06:56 PM

As an answer to the "Good to all or just afew" and "war or peace" questions:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-10


1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

The understand the "Equal or lesser than" question, I would have to explain the trinity. I'll try to sum it up:

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same God but m in three seperate entity's.

The "which first beasts or man" question is easily answered:

The second mention of the creation of beasts is simply a restating of this creation. This occurs many times in Scripture.

Finally the the animals question is also simply answered. The seven reffered to the first time in it's original language meant seven pairs, and this is noted in most NIV Bibles and many othermodern texts.

BTW For someone who is down arguing this point with religious zealots, you sure have a lot to say.

Montrovant 12-22-2006 07:28 PM

Don't know this constitutes a contradiction, but since you're already answering questions chiefsfan, I've got one :

It seems to me that God undergoes a personality change between the old and new testaments. In the first, he is a vengeful, wrathful god...in the second, a peaceful, loving god. I realize this is a great simplification, but I don't want to make this a huge post :) Anyway, this change has always seemed wrong to me. Or at least, wrong if god is an all-powerful, merciful, benevolent being.

I'm honestly curious about this and not trying to slam your beliefs; I don't know the bible well enough to speak with any authority on it and want to hear how a Christian might explain this difference. Or explain how I am wrong to see any great difference.

chiefsfan27 12-22-2006 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrovant (Post 229543)
Don't know this constitutes a contradiction, but since you're already answering questions chiefsfan, I've got one :

It seems to me that God undergoes a personality change between the old and new testaments. In the first, he is a vengeful, wrathful god...in the second, a peaceful, loving god. I realize this is a great simplification, but I don't want to make this a huge post :) Anyway, this change has always seemed wrong to me. Or at least, wrong if god is an all-powerful, merciful, benevolent being.

I'm honestly curious about this and not trying to slam your beliefs; I don't know the bible well enough to speak with any authority on it and want to hear how a Christian might explain this difference. Or explain how I am wrong to see any great difference.


God was not all vengeful in the Old Testament, nor was he all peacefull in the New Testament. There is a slight difference, and like you summed up your last post, I will do the same in mine. In the New Testament after the death of Christ, God seems to become less vengeful for this reason:

Jesus' death made a way for a holy God who could not even look upon sin to have a relationship with sinful man.

Ravana 12-22-2006 08:19 PM

Quote:

t seems to me that God undergoes a personality change between the old and new testaments. In the first, he is a vengeful, wrathful god...in the second, a peaceful, loving god.
Not just you, Montrovant—and not just "seems." Essentially, these are two completely different views of god—as if they were two completely different beings. The OT god was derived from early Canaanite beliefs and conformed to them; the NT god is an entirely different take on the matter. Most of what Jesus preached concerning peace and love for one's neighbor does not exist in the OT... and taking the religion beyond the ethnic Hebrews most certainly does not exist in the OT at all—Judaism was not, and is not, an evangelising religion. (I admit that Jesus did not view them as two different beings... but any unbiased religious scholar or historian generally will.) Unfortunately for Christianity, Saul of Tarsus reintroduced the "vengeance" part rather heavy-handedly.

Which is why it always puzzles me that Christians insist on hanging on to the OT....

Ravana 12-22-2006 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefsfan27 (Post 229535)
The "which first beasts or man" question is easily answered:

The second mention of the creation of beasts is simply a restating of this creation. This occurs many times in Scripture.

We've had this out in the past... in the, uhm, "old country." And that answer—the standard one, which you probably got from some website that responded to "apparent" Biblical contradictions—is pure crap. That's not what it says; that's just an attempt at revision in order to dodge a very real contradiction.

Quote:

Finally the the animals question is also simply answered. The seven reffered to the first time in it's original language meant seven pairs, and this is noted in most NIV Bibles and many othermodern texts.
Again, that's not what the book says—though the real contradiction isn't between 7:2 and 7:8 (I agree with your answer there), but between 6:19-20 and 7:2:

Gen 6:19-20: You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. (Quoted from the NIV, to keep things consistent....)

The other funny thing about the "seven" passage is that "clean" and "unclean" were not defined at this point in time....

The Galatians one I'll field myself, to save you the trouble, chiefsfan27. Every man will have to bear his own burdens regardless; the instruction in 6:2 was to aid your fellow man in doing so, to make it easier on him. Doesn't disown him of the responsibility, though.

My favorite, though, is 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. Go check 'em out.

P.S. chiefsfan27: In case you missed it the first time around, I read Greek and can translate Hebrew at need... and have access to the relevant texts in both. Just thought I'd mention it before this went too far....

Ravana 12-22-2006 08:37 PM

IntheNet:

Quote:

Verse silent on insects... don't actually know... but lots of bugs survive floods each year.... Tell me... are there any insects in New Orleans now?
Was New Orleans completely inundated, so that nothing showed above the waters?

This is what I hate most about this kind of discussion: people bringing irrelevant and completely spurious points up to provide an illusion of "support" for their arguments.

chiefsfan27:
Quote:

Ignoring for a moment the sever hostility of your last post, I feel that it is my job to inform you that those two types of evolution were not created by Christians, but rather by secular scientists.
No, the two types of evolution were created by Christians. Science only suggests one type—and you will find that the vast majority of those who have had input into it were Christians themselves. That they were not ordained does not make them less Christian... no less so than you, I'm guessing.

Ravana 12-22-2006 08:43 PM

Quote:

[cheesey]
It appears the bible is written in some kind of code so anyone can define anything in any manner to mean anything at any time to meet any situation to prove (or disprove) any claim that suits their immediate need. Why doesn't some religion decode the bible so it says clearly what it means? Not "Well, it could mean this or that...."

[IntheNet]
Much of history is written like that... go to a car accident and talk to three seperate witnesses to the accident... you will get three seperate stories and not all of them the same... therefore to account for history, especially ancient history, the record has to be general.
Which means that the people who wrote the Bible could be wrong... right?

CKFresh 12-22-2006 08:55 PM

chiefsfan nice dance, but you can't avoid the contradictions.

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

That is a blatant contradiction. No way around it.

same for this one
God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Ravana 12-22-2006 09:01 PM

Quote:

But no scientist would "logically" assume that about anything besides this. Why does this (original creation) become the only thing that does'nt need a creator?
It may need a cause; that cause does not have to be a "creator" (a being). As far as science is concerned, the verdict is still out on the cause. And science does not assume that there was no cause here; it has simply failed to locate one. The cause may well be God—and as soon as science can demonstrate this, it will happily embrace it. Until then, it will keep looking. But failure to find one does not prove that it came from the volition of a conscious source. It's possible, even, that the data necessary to demonstrate where the universe came from is no longer accessible to us... and more than possible that we simply lack the necessary tools to investigate this issue at this point.

Do not assume, however, that science has given up on this... much less that it "assumes" anything. Assumptions are not what science is based on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by catman (Post 229292)
Here is my take on evolution v. creationism. They are not mutually exclusive.
All life-forms evolve. We are not the same as we were 5000 years ago. Horses are not the same, nor are dogs, etc.
The sticking point for the evolutionists is how life began on this rock. No one has, as of yet, created life in a lab and lots of attempts have been made. until someone can replicate the begining of life on this planet, I'll believe some outside power (God) began it.

That's the same argument I keep making... I can't understand why some people continue to insist on taking Genesis 1 (and/or 2) literally. What's the problem with admitting that our less sophisticated, less well-informed ancestors simply didn't understand the processes that resulted in the creation of the universe?

Life has not yet been created under laboratory conditions... though the important chemicals that it requires have been. That particular experiment has been shown to probably be inapplicable to conditions that existed on Earth at the time life was supposed to have arisen; whether they existed—to some greater or lesser extent—prior to that point, allowing the development of the necessary chemicals, which could have lingered for untold amounts of time before "taking the next step," has not yet been shown.

Other theories—very popular ones right now, though I personally have a couple problems with them—suggest that life, or at least organic chemistry, need not have originated on this planet at all: the necessary chemicals, and possibly even single-celled organisms, could have come to Earth during the cometary bombardment of its cooling phase... the same bombardment that brought us the liquid water plenitude that allows life to exist as it does here. These chemicals/organisms could have arisen somewhere else... where the conditions were correct, even under our current understandings. (As I said, I'm not endorsing this view, just mentioning it.)

Alternately, there might quite simply be other ways for the same chemicals to have arisen than those we have already theorized—and demonstrated.

But, no, it is correct to say that no one has successfully created life from non-living matter under laboratory conditions. Of course, nobody has let a stew of amino acids sit for thousands or millions of years, under the same or varying conditions, to see what happens to it yet... so I'd hardly describe this as disproof, any more than demonstrating a different composition in Earth's early atmosphere is disproof that the process could've occurred here under different conditions, or elsewhere under the same ones. Nevertheless, none of this demonstrates a non-existence or non-involvement of a divine being... even if we could prove that life was capable of arising on its own, this would not prove a lack of divine powers.

So I agree with catman: the two are not mutually exclusive. I wish others could see, and admit, this.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.