An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[Kababe]

Exactly, so you don't know HOW Jesus did what he did, that's the essence of a miracle. Next time don't use a miracle to claim that the Bible explains How God does things. The Bible tells us God does things and we believe it out of faith. Period.

And PS: The cutting up (DIVIDING) of fish into little pieces is NOT the same thing as MULTIPLYING 2 FISH AND 5 LOAVES into thousands, which is what I asked you to show in the Bible as to its "HOW".

The only way you know how something did NOT happen, is by excluding what is contradictory to what is given, not what is contradictory to your own presuppositions ABOUT what is given.

I can tell you for free and publicly so you are without excuse that you can with little difficulty cut up 5 loaves into 5,000 pieces. The two fish too. You can also assign some people the task of distributing the pieces. What you can't do is to make them full with the pieces seeing they would be very small

So I can RULE out HOW Jesus never did it WITHOUT knowing HOW He did it....

Explain to me WHICH PART of that Gospel explains the HOW of Jesus multiplying 2 fish and 5 loaves into thousands???? All it says is that he prayed and they was multiplied. Tell me the nitty gritty of how two fish divides into thousands. I think you have aserious problem about understanding miracles and mystery if you keep insisting the bible explains HOW these things happened. The Bible only tells us they happened by God's power and we believe it.

The creation story tells us man was formed from the dust. Period. You are forcing a "HOW" that is not there. It similarly tells us the world was made from nothing, it does not tell us how. We accept on faith that is happened by God's power without knowing exactly how it all happened excepte that things that did not exist came to exist.

You can scream illogic till next year, you don't GET to write the Bible and the Bible says nothing about HOW God made anything except that he did through his will and power. If the Bible is silent on the "HOW" you don't get to tell me what is overruled/excluded. What is excluded apriori is what contradicts the text, not what contradicts your beliefs.

[vooke]

kadame,
God is not limited, but He is brutally consistent with Himself and His word
If God created Adam through conception and birth like you, Adam had a father and mother
Adam can't possibly have had a father and mother BECAUSE GOD SAYS ADAM WAS THE FIRST MAN!

So if I say there were no men before Adam, am not limiting God by depicting him as incapable of having pre-Adamic humans; am borrowing from What He said. If God can lie, then may be when He said Adam was the first man, he was lying and there was others before Adam. In other words, we can't trust His very Word!


It reminds me of the heavy rock paradox. I first heard it in High school from my Literature teacher and I was dumbfounded; how can God who is capable of everything be incapable of creating a rock He can't lift?

I'm sorry, have you ever CREATED before ??? Vooke, the liberties you take to prove your point are simply amazing. You simply don't know ALL the ways Adam could've "checked" into this world, since you are no creator. How on earth did you decide that God is limited in any way in the manner in which he could've brought Adam or any creature into the world? Ala??

Moreover, Adam was clearly NOT created out of Nothing, unless by "nothing" we are considering the ultimate creation of the world from nothing. Adam's body was made from the dust. If you didn't know, dust aint "nothing".

[Kababe]

Termie or RV Pundit believes the bible is Jewish folklore.
The point is they believe. Both are not Christians and I can't quarel them. I respect them for being candid. How I wish everyone was!
You purport to be one yet you don't believe in what is recorded in Genesis something Paul believed in

2 Corinthians 11:3 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
3 But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a complete and pure[a] devotion to Christ.

 1 Timothy 2:14 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

My imagination and hopefully yours ought to be WITHIN scriptures otherwise you are no different from Jehovah Wanyonyi. Or do you believe those portions of scriptures which are convenient for you?

This is a false dichotomy. To believe that the creation story is symbolic does not mean all of Genesis is a metaphor. For example, I don't believe that there was a biological plant in Eden that could make a person a genius simply by taking a bite of it. Neither do I believe that there was a leafy biological plant in Eden that some how sourced "life". I also don't believe that the animal we call a snake caused Adam to sin. That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Devil tempted Adam to sin and that Adam sinned and fell along with the rest of the human race.

You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Stick to the debate.

You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way.  I BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE 100%, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.

[vooke]

Termie actually is keenly following so there is no need to rope him in.
He also thinks man born out of non-humans is schizophrenia

We are not debating literal vs symbolism here. What am saying is CALLING WHAT IS CLEARLY PRESENTED AS LITERAL SYMBOLIC is wrong. For instance, in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. What if somebody tells you that no water was turned into wine, that that was a metaphor/symbolic?  Why couldn't it have been a literal serpent? But that is digressing.

You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Y\Stick to the debate.

You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way.  BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.

[Kababe]

You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.

kadame,
God is not limited, but He is brutally consistent with Himself and His word
If God created Adam through conception and birth like you, Adam had a father and mother
Adam can't possibly have had a father and mother BECAUSE GOD SAYS ADAM WAS THE FIRST MAN!

So if I say there were no men before Adam, am not limiting God by depicting him as incapable of having pre-Adamic humans; am borrowing from What He said. If God can lie, then may be when He said Adam was the first man, he was lying and there was others before Adam. In other words, we can't trust His very Word!


It reminds me of the heavy rock paradox. I first heard it in High school from my Literature teacher and I was dumbfounded; how can God who is capable of everything be incapable of creating a rock He can't lift?

I'm sorry, have you ever CREATED before ??? Vooke, the liberties you take to prove your point are simply amazing. You simply don't know ALL the ways Adam could've "checked" into this world, since you are no creator. How on earth did you decide that God is limited in any way in the manner in which he could've brought Adam or any creature into the world? Ala??

Moreover, Adam was clearly NOT created out of Nothing, unless by "nothing" we are considering the ultimate creation of the world from nothing. Adam's body was made from the dust. If you didn't know, dust aint "nothing".

[vooke]

What the Bible accurately records is Adam being the FIRST MAN
This eliminates possibilities of pre-Adamic men as well as Adam's parents, unless you discard your brains and entertain a man being born of animals

The only way you know how something did NOT happen, is by excluding what is contradictory to what is given, not what is contradictory to your own presuppositions ABOUT what is given.

[mya88]

Not to be drawn into the debate  but I think the serpent in genesis is literal not symbolic. As we now know, satan can use anything or appear as anything even disguised as a person.

[vooke]

If there were no men before Adam but we had other creatures, none of them could have sired Adam.
In all of creation, kind produces after its kind so anything producing a man must have been a man!

You are insisting that since God can do anything, He could have had man created in his image born of an animal not formed in His image. I hope you are joking

Belief that Adam was born contradicts Scripture teaching that Adam was the FIRST MAN

You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.

[Kababe]

Termie actually is keenly following so there is no need to rope him in.
He also thinks man born out of non-humans is schizophrenia

We are not debating literal vs symbolism here. What am saying is CALLING WHAT IS CLEARLY PRESENTED AS LITERAL SYMBOLIC is wrong. For instance, in Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. What if somebody tells you that no water was turned into wine, that that was a metaphor/symbolic?  Why couldn't it have been a literal serpent? But that is digressing.

You are really desperate to get Termie and Pundit to join and help you in your fight. That's just pathetic. Y\Stick to the debate.

You just don't get it. I know the Bible says there was a serpent. What I am telling you is I also know it was not a literal serpent but a symbol for Satan. In revelation, that symbol is a dragon. That doesn't mean I believe in a fire-breathing flying dinosaur! Stop trying to preach AT me as if your way is the only way.  BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE, and I know that not all the Bible is literal. Good chunks of it are symbolic and there is in fact no Christian on this planet who believes in a 100% literal reading of the Bible. So save the dramatics, you just pissed I don't read your "literal" parts literally but only symbolically, the same way I read revelations.

How do you know "what is clearly presented as literal" from what is not? The creation story, for example, follows the same style of creation myths from the middle East of the same time, it was part of the Hebrew oral tradition before it was written down. Plus I've also read it follows a stylistic devise from the same era in which genesis was written, so you have a problem presented: formless and empty earth, then three days of solving the first problem (giving form by diving and creating day/night etc etc, different realms) then three days of solving the 2nd problem (emptiness) by filling each of the three realms/forms with created beings in chronological order.

My point? Deciding whether a passage is literal depends on a lot about its History/linguistic styleetc. Moreover, if there is a clear fact of contradiction (only apparent) between a known fact of reality and the Bible, it is not open to a Christian either to decide the bible is erroneous or to deny plain realities of life. What happens is you employ the interpretation that reconciles both. this flows from the basic assumption that the Bible is true and authored by the same entity that authors reality, hence truth never contradicts truth. So when people claim that the Bible is scientifically in error to say "the sun stood still" at that battle with Joshua, they are wrong, because the passage is described as "it appears" from the perspective of the author, not as it actually is in reality, hence the bible is not in error to say the sun stood still, because the bible isn't talking about science.

[vooke]

I can tell it is LITERAL if parts of divinely inspired scriptures present it as LITERAL
Genesis account is not a 'superior' myth to the Babylonian tales; it is the real deal

I can also tell it is literal if historically it has been held to be literal unless I assume am more intelligent that all the believers who was before me

The moment I run into any contradiction (real or apparent) of scriptures with reality, am boarding the next atheism flight

How do you know "what is clearly presented as literal" from what is not? The creation story, for example, follows the same style of creation myths from the middle East of the same time, it was part of the Hebrew oral tradition before it was written down. Plus I've also read it follows a stylic devise from the same era in which genesis was written, so you have a problem presented: formless and empty earth, then three days of solving the first problem (giving form by diving and creating day/night etc etc, different realms) then three days of solving the 2nd problem (emptiness) by filling each of the three realms/forms with created beings in chronological order.

My point? Deciding whether a passage is literal depends on a lot about its History/linguistic style etc. Moreover, if there is a clear fact of contradiction (only apparent) between a known fact of reality and the Bible, it is not open to a Christian either to decide the bible is erroneous or to deny plain realities of life. What happens is you employ the interpretation that reconciles both. this flows from the basic assumption that the Bible is true and authored by the same entity that authors reality, hence truth never contradicts truth. So when people claim that the Bible is scientifically in error to say "the sun stood still" at that battle with Joshua, they are wrong, because the passage is described as "it appears" from the perspective of the author, not as it actually is in reality.

[Kababe]

If there were no men before Adam but we had other creatures, none of them could have sired Adam.
In all of creation, kind produces after its kind so anything producing a man must have been a man!

You are insisting that since God can do anything, He could have had man created in his image born of an animal not formed in His image. I hope you are joking

Belief that Adam was born contradicts Scripture teaching that Adam was the FIRST MAN

You keep insisting "first man". Hello?? Those creatures before him would not be men, so again this is a false dichotomy. adam is called first man because he WAS and no Christian doubts that. What we are doubting is if there were no other creatures like him in a biological sense from whom he could've been formed. My point is that the BIBLE does NOT rule it out, the Bible says very little except that Adam was made from the dust and God's spirit. That being so, Christians are free to believe science as long as there is no contradiction and what I am saying is that there is NONE.

Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.

[vooke]

So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?

You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?

You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?

Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word

You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?
It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is

Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories

Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

These are tough, if not impossible, debates to settle.

I grasp that Kababe says man only becomes man with a soul.  That is clever.  Because there is no way to tell when a soul entered the man.  If someone conclusively establishes that physiologically modern hominids were farted out by T-Rex in a fit of fury.  It is still cartered for by this view point.

Basically it says.  No matter what you eventually find out, God did it.

vooke's view point is riskier and exposes him to all manner of sensible challenges.  Yet, it seems more faithful to an omnipotent who does not bow to nature.  One who can violate well known laws with impunity.

[Kababe]

So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?

The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?

You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?

Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks?

You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?

There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.

Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word

So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!

You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?

Please. Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.

It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is

Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories

I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.

Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.

[/quote]

[Kababe]

And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Semantically though.  A miracle.  Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?

[vooke]

Another problem with this is the body that was made from the dust was lifeless until God breathed into it. How were the pre-Adamic creatures propagating lifeless? Or shall we presume that God killed the pre-Adamic creature and then breathed spirit into it?

So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?

The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?

You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?

Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks?

You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?

There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.

Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word

So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!

You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?

Please. Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.

It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is

Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories

I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.

Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.

[/quote]

[Kababe]

And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Semantically though.  A miracle.  Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?

A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.

[Kababe]

Another problem with this is the body that was made from the dust was lifeless until God breathed into it. How were the pre-Adamic creatures propagating lifeless? Or shall we presume that God killed the pre-Adamic creature and then breathed spirit into it?

So what you are saying is there was no 'spirituality nor capacity to know and love God or enter into a relationship with God' BEFORE Adam?

The animals certainly didn't have that capacity, do you think they did? Also, you think man's body is God's image? How/in what sense?

You also claim that these attributes/qualities was injected into Adam and they are what distinguished Adam from animals?

Of course. What do you think sets you apart from a bonobo, your good looks?

You are silently claiming that a creature possessing everything Adam had but these could have sired Adam but it would not have been human seeing it is these attributes that make a human?

There's no "silently claiming" nothing, I'm stating it PLAINLY. Adam's body and souls were clearly not created the same way, the body is what this debate is about.

Why we eliminate Adamic conception has nothing to do with vooke but scriptures. Genesis 1:20-25 is clear that animals reproduce after their kind. In Genesis 6, Noah took animals in pairs male and female precisely for this reason. So when I say non-humans can't produce a human, am quoting God's own Word

So a homo sapien could not produce a homo sapien body? Shocker!

You understand that outside kadame's nipate.org NOBODY has ever entertained man being born by animals?

Please. Just speak for yourself. Majority of Christians AND Jews have zero problems with evolution, so quit pontificating for them.

It is not that they don't share your unique brand of Catholicism inspired intelligence, it is because they see dumbness for what it is

Some of the most derided folks are atheistic creationists who are really fence sitters. Everybody but themselves can see the illogic of their theories

I told you before, your cheap dersive tactics wont work on me, I think you're confusing me with nuff sed. Try another one.

Man being made in God's image has nothing to do with his body but his spirituality, his capacity to know and love God and enter into a relationship with him, so give that one a rest. Telling me "no creature could've sired/produced" Adam is another one of your claim to know exactly how God does things he has nowhere indicated methods for, so that's just your belief. My concern is simple; there's nothing that necessitates a literal reading of all of genesis, especially the story of creation and fall. That being so, no Christian is compelled to believe in a 6,000 year old universe and in fact, most Jews and Christians don't. only creationists are twisting themselves into knots over nothing.

[/quote]Like I said, no one knows HOW, he could've simply taken their DNA and no more. He could've also used their live offspring. Whatever "life" it had would not be a spiritual one, and not a soul. He may also merely have used a lifeless body. Bottom line, all the Bible requires me to believe is that Adam's body was formed from matter by God and his soul directly by him. The rest, I am free to speculate along with science.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

And Kababe's view is that nature and revelation are not in contradiction, not that God cant "violate" laws of nature. When he does, we call it a miracle.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Semantically though.  A miracle.  Is it the same as a contradiction of nature?

A miracle means only suspension of natural laws.

So God does not violate or contradict the laws of nature.  He suspends them with miracles.  vooke would seem to suggest that a few of these suspensions have happened around the genesis story. 

Is there any criteria to distinguish the miraculous from the merely metaphorical in the Bible?