Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Wicknight wrote:
Well it might not be evolution. Being a scientific theory it is of course faslafiable, so the possibility that it isn't in fact evolution is a (very slim) chance. The evidence, and the models suggest quite strongly that it was evolution, much stonger than any other plausable theory, but science can always be wrong.
But it certain wasn't Biblical Creationism.
The Biblical Creationist model just doesn't work at all. Everything else in known science (physics, chemistry and biology) would have to be wrong, everything.
So JC and Wolfbane can attack evolution all they like, it doesn't make Biblical Creationism any more likely to have happened. Biblical Creationism didn't happen, this fact is independent to if evolution does or does not happen.
Yes, it's interesting to consider that, along with wolfsbane's suggestion that I support evolution in order to avoid facing the reality of God. That would suggest that it's more than a mere tactical position - wolfsbane genuinely believes that evolution is the only alternative to Creationism that needs to be discussed. Presumably he has good scientific and/or logical grounds for dismissing all other religio-mythical origin stories?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
> Presumably he has good scientific and/or logical grounds for dismissing all
> other religio-mythical origin stories?
Hardly scientific or logical -- but when belief's the thing, that's not too important. All you need to do is to believe that something is false, and hey presto, it's false! I'm sure I've said this about five hundred times, but that seems to be a feature of this thread
0 -
-
Hovind also believes that as workers of God, he and all employees of the theme park and his ministry are exempt from paying taxes.
Classic 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Scofflaw
I keep meaning to ask - is this Law of Large Numbers the generally known one that goes:
"The law of large numbers is a fundamental concept in statistics and probability that describes how the average of a randomly selected sample from a large population is likely to be close to the average of the whole population."
I don't see how it's relevant to your case. Perhaps you mean the "law of truly large numbers", which goes like this:
"The law of truly large numbers says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen."
Yes indeed many odd coincidence may happen – BUT coincidences with odds in excess of 10E+100 are a statistical impossibility!!!:D
Of course, the application of basic Human intelligence can reduce the ‘combinatorial space’ to the point where something with odds of 10E+100 (and therefore impossible by random processes using all of the matter and time in the Universe) can be done with certainty in less than 20 minutes!!!
Materialistic Evolutionists have rejected the reality of ID in living systems because of it’s direct support for Divine Creation and it’s direct denial of Atheism.:D
Scofflaw
There is plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts the Creation as portrayed in Genesis, particularly when you include the Flood - but there is no evidence, or scientific theory, that contradicts the Resurrection.
As usual, the correct position is in the ‘polar opposite’ direction on both Creation and the Resurrection!!!!!
Question to a Molecular Biologist: “Have you ever observed irrefutable evidence of creation by an intelligent agent?”
Answer ”Yes, every time we sequence a genome we observe tightly specified precise information and irreducibly complex systems which are the irrefutable ‘fingerprints’ of intelligence!!!!"
Question to a Geologist: ”Have you ever seen any rocks that were originally laid down under water and full of dead things?"
Answer “Yes, fossiliferous sedimentary rocks are found ALL OVER the Earth!!!”
Question to a Medical Doctor: ” Have you ever seen any dead people come back to life?”
Answer “NO!! It is physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!”
So, the physical evidence for Creation and The Flood IS out there and therefore accessible to examination and evaluation by Forensic Science.
However, there is NO physical evidence for The Resurrection.
Christians believe in the resurrection THROUGH FAITH in the veracity of the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments – and the integrity of ‘the Resurrection Account’ therefore rests on the credibility of The Bible.
It a condition of being saved, that Christians must BELIEVE through faith alone, in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and His ability to forgive sins – but it is a ‘well founded’ faith based on a credible Bible and a God whose Creation activities are objectively i.e. scientifically proven.
So Wolfsbane is correct when he says that “the arguments against supernatural Creation some 6000 years ago, apply just as well to those against a supernatural Resurrection some 2000 years ago. So the gospel of God's saving work in Christ is as vulnerable as His work in Creation.”
The only thing that I would add to Wolfsbane’s comment is that the physical evidence for Creation and The Flood IS accessible to Forensic Science – so faith ISN’T needed to believe in Creation or The Flood – bur faith IS required in order to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and be saved!!!.
Scofflaw
So, er, about 15% of Christians by denomination, then? And pretty much the most recent of the denominations, as well.
I guess you will have to use your intelligence as well as the discernment of the Holy Spirit on this one!!!
I would point out AGAIN that St Paul attached no conditions to being saved in Acts 16:31 other that having faith in Jesus Christ’s ability to save you.
As we are all sinners and unable to save ourselves by our own efforts, and Jesus Christ offers salvation to ANYBODY who repents and asks for it, the logical conclusion is that no Christian, who repents and believes on Jesus Christ will be ‘flung into Hell’.
Scofflaw
I don't know why you think I'm taking a gamble. I have to be entirely wrong - you only need to be a little bit off.
You aren’t gambling with your eternal destiny, you appear to be deliberately rejecting salvation.
Acts 16:31 is QUITE CLEAR about what is required in order to be saved – so nobody needs to gamble on this critically important issue.
Scofflaw
I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that St. John's Revelation of the "vast number" is to be taken literally, while the rest of Revelations isn't. Can you explain the basis for this a little further, perhaps?
The words “a great multitude, which no man could number” in Rev 7:9 certainly does indicate very, very large numbers of people in Heaven – WHETHER you interpret it literally OR metaphorically!!!!.
gosplan
Disproving evolution does not make creationism correct.
As the two ‘front runners’ in the ‘origins stakes’ are Evolution and Creation - evidence AGAINST one DOES constitute indirect evidence FOR the other.
Equally, I have presented the following proofs FOR Creation :-
1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful tightly specified information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God
Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-
1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The deep sedimentary rock layers observed all over the Earth indicate a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!
2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial in Noah’s Flood.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. In other cases their location relates to water sorting characteristics such as their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.
3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Scofflaw
At this stage, though, the gloves have been off for quite a while, so new Creationist posters tend to get hurt quite quickly. JC, wolfsbane and BC are tough enough for the bare-knuckle stuff,
Yes this thread certainly isn’t for the ‘faint hearted’ and the ‘heavy duty’ arguments underway on it does require Christian participants to present the truth in love and without compromise, whenever they come onto the thread.
hairyheretic
STD infections and so forth were in fact higher in those areas that relied on the likes of 'just say no' for their sex education.
Scofflaw
In brief, this suggests that STD rates are not linked to promiscuity, but to "social factors such as poverty, mobility and gender equality".
I can understand how a condom will act as a pretty effective barrier method of contraception in preventing pregnancy.
However, I cannot understand how diseases such as Syphilis, Genital Warts, Herpes, Crabs and indeed AIDS can be SECURELY prevented by covering less than 1% of one’s anatomy in micro-thin latex rubber!!!!!!!!
Apart from the obvious risk of condoms coming off or bursting as well as the psychological and spiritual damage that casual sex may cause, condoms will NOT act as a barrier to Syphilis lip cankers, Genital Warts in the groin, Herpes lip & groin blisters, or HIV infected blood exchange from bleeding mouth and gum ulcers – while Crabs will freely migrate groin-to-groin, while totally oblivious to the superfluous presence of a condom.
The usual comment when this is pointed out is that “it is better to use a condom when engaging in casual sex, than not to use one”.
However, this has about as much validity as saying that “it is better to use a seat belt when doing 100 mph, than not to use one”!!!
The most important action is NOT to engage in casual sex and NOT to do 100 mph, in the first place – because the seat belt or the condom probably WON’T protect you if you hit a wall at 100 mph or ‘become intimate’ with an infected sexual partner on a ‘one night stand’.
The safest solution is indeed to ‘just say NO’ – to both speeding and casual sex.
Wicknight
The fact that teenagers want to have sex makes perfect sense biologically, with in an evolutionary framework. And evolution has no moral outlook either way.
Sexual attraction makes perfect sense within a Creationist framework.
However, if you are saying that teenagers are incapable of CONTROLLING their sexual desires then you are being quite unfair to most teenagers who actually do have enough self-respect to exercise sexual self-control.
Your comment does say something very profound about the amorality of ‘Evolution’ which has told our young people that they are descended from animals and then blames ‘religion’ and a supposed ‘lack of sex education’ when some of these young people actually begin to behave like animals!!!!!
Robin
Gods messengers in trouble
I follow Christian principles and reject sin, while praying for and loving ALL sinners.
The good news is that Jesus Christ came to SAVE sinners – and NOT to condemn them.
We are all sinners (the 'best' and the 'worst' of us) and St Paul confirms this chastening fact in Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast".
Of course, in the case of Ken Ham, he has done NOTHING wrong – and your inclusion, of AIG's legitimate appeal for funds to complete their Creation Museum, along with the Ken Hovind and Ted Haggard stories is somewhat disingenuous.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
I keep meaning to ask - is this Law of Large Numbers the generally known one that goes:
"The law of large numbers is a fundamental concept in statistics and probability that describes how the average of a randomly selected sample from a large population is likely to be close to the average of the whole population."
I don't see how it's relevant to your case. Perhaps you mean the "law of truly large numbers", which goes like this:
"The law of truly large numbers says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen."
Yes indeed many odd coincidence may happen – BUT coincidences with odds in excess of 10E+100 are a statistical impossibility!!!:D
Of course, the application of basic Human intelligence can reduce the ‘combinatorial space’ to the point where something with odds of 10E+100 (and therefore impossible by random processes using all of the matter and time in the Universe) can be done with certainty in less than 20 minutes!!!
Materialistic Evolutionists have rejected the reality of ID in living systems because of it’s direct support for Divine Creation and it’s direct denial of Atheism.:D
Ah. So you're dropping that claim, then? I presume that from your complete failure to answer the question, either directly or indirectly, and your recourse to more of your usual page-filler.J C wrote:Scofflaw
There is plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts the Creation as portrayed in Genesis, particularly when you include the Flood - but there is no evidence, or scientific theory, that contradicts the Resurrection.
As usual, the correct position is in the ‘polar opposite’ direction on both Creation and the Resurrection!!!!!
Question to a Molecular Biologist: “Have you ever observed irrefutable evidence of creation by an intelligent agent?”
Answer ”Yes, every time we sequence a genome we observe tightly specified precise information and irreducibly complex systems which are the irrefutable ‘fingerprints’ of intelligence!!!!"
Question to a Geologist: ”Have you ever seen any rocks that were originally laid down under water and full of dead things?"
Answer “Yes, fossiliferous sedimentary rocks are found ALL OVER the Earth!!!”
Question to a Medical Doctor: ” Have you ever seen any dead people come back to life?”
Answer “NO!! It is physically IMPOSSIBLE!!!”
So, the physical evidence for Creation and The Flood IS out there and therefore accessible to examination and evaluation by Forensic Science.
However, there is NO physical evidence for The Resurrection.
You are a dullard. Read what I said. The Resurrection of Christ is in conflict with no established scientific theory because we have no scientific observations on the Son of God. We do have scientific observations of the world, and theories thereof, and these conflict directly with the claims made by Creationists.
In addition, the remark is made from a (rationally) theistic perspective. If one believes in Christ, then one therefore believes in the Resurrection. However, if one believes in Christ, it is not therefore necessary to accept the literal truth of Genesis. Millions of Christians believe in Christ, while taking Genesis to be allegorical, or non-literal - you are the minority who don't believe it's possible to do both.J C wrote:Christians believe in the resurrection THROUGH FAITH in the veracity of the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments – and the integrity of ‘the Resurrection Account’ therefore rests on the credibility of The Bible.
It a condition of being saved, that Christians must BELIEVE through faith alone, in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and His ability to forgive sins – but it is a ‘well founded’ faith based on a credible Bible and a God whose Creation activities are objectively i.e. scientifically proven.
If the Bible is scientifically true, as you like to claim, then the need for faith is completely removed. If the Genesis account were literally verifiable by experiment, then there is no room for doubt. Without doubt, no need for faith - Christianity would be reduced to a mere scientific observation about the Universe.
The Bible can be credible without being scientifically verifiable - and must be, for faith to have a role.J C wrote:So Wolfsbane is correct when he says that “the arguments against supernatural Creation some 6000 years ago, apply just as well to those against a supernatural Resurrection some 2000 years ago. So the gospel of God's saving work in Christ is as vulnerable as His work in Creation.”
The claim above exactly contradicts the claim below.J C wrote:The only thing that I would add to Wolfsbane’s comment is that the physical evidence for Creation and The Flood IS accessible to Forensic Science – so faith ISN’T needed to believe in Creation or The Flood – bur faith IS required in order to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and be saved!!!.
Faith is needed for the Resurrection because it is a single unique historical event, and the level of forensic examination available is close to zero. The Creation and the Flood, on the other hand, are massive events of Universal and worldwide scope, with enormous ramifications for the observable world around them.
If the Genesis account can simply be experimentally verified, then it is true. If it is true, why on Earth should the Resurrection be false, or even surprising? Iit would be clear from his CV that God could undoubtedly do such a minor thing as bodily resurrection, and it would be there in the same book. That would be like dropping the entire theory of evolution simply because one cannot find a very specific fossil.J C wrote:Scofflaw
So, er, about 15% of Christians by denomination, then? And pretty much the most recent of the denominations, as well.
I guess you will have to use your intelligence as well as the discernment of the Holy Spirit on this one!!!
I would point out AGAIN that St Paul attached no conditions to being saved in Acts 16:31 other that having faith in Jesus Christ’s ability to save you.
As we are all sinners and unable to save ourselves by our own efforts, and Jesus Christ offers salvation to ANYBODY who repents and asks for it, the logical conclusion is that no Christian, who repents and believes on Jesus Christ will be ‘flung into Hell’.
I will point out again that Paul was not Christ, and that even his claim to be an Apostle rests entirely on his own word. If the Devil wished to pervert the course of Christianity, he could hardly have chosen a better vessel.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I don't know why you think I'm taking a gamble. I have to be entirely wrong - you only need to be a little bit off.
You aren’t gambling with your eternal destiny, you appear to be deliberately rejecting salvation.
Acts 16:31 is QUITE CLEAR about what is required in order to be saved – so nobody needs to gamble on this critically important issue.
I do without hesitation renounce the God of the Bible, and all his works, as they say.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that St. John's Revelation of the "vast number" is to be taken literally, while the rest of Revelations isn't. Can you explain the basis for this a little further, perhaps?
The words “a great multitude, which no man could number” in Rev 7:9 certainly does indicate very, very large numbers of people in Heaven – WHETHER you interpret it literally OR metaphorically!!!!.
Since it took place in the context of something the rest of which is allegorical at best, and hallucinatory at worst, I think your confidence is entirely misplaced...
That is to say, that since the rest of his vision clearly does not relate to real things, I can't see how you come to claim it of one particular bit, except that it is comforting to do so, and in line with your beliefs.J C wrote:gosplan
Disproving evolution does not make creationism correct.
As the two ‘front runners’ in the ‘origins stakes’ are Evolution and Creation - evidence AGAINST one DOES constitute indirect evidence FOR the other.
Er, no, it doesn't.
1. evidence against one possible solution to a puzzle, for example, does not constitute evidence for any other solution.
2. as I've said before, there is no debate between Evolution and Creation - the debate is between Science and Creationism.
3. Creationism is a specifically Christian doctrine, so it is only a "front-runner" within Christian circles.J C wrote:Equally, I have presented the following proofs FOR Creation :-
1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful tightly specified information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God
I'll...I'm just going...I'm going to go over there for a bit and laugh. JC, JC, these are "proofs" in the same sense that an aspidistra is a world leader. They are quibbles - coffee table logic.J C wrote:Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-
1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The deep sedimentary rock layers observed all over the Earth indicate a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!
I have a BSc in Geology. This claim is utterly false.J C wrote:2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial in Noah’s Flood.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. In other cases their location relates to water sorting characteristics such as their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.
This claim is false.J C wrote:3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
My BSc minor was Botany. This claim is probably unprovable, because there is no definition of a kind, nor any agreement as to what the "original Created kinds" were - so the goalposts can be shifted as often as you like.
However, I will say that modern genetics shows no such thing - so this claim is false also.J C wrote:hairyheretic
STD infections and so forth were in fact higher in those areas that relied on the likes of 'just say no' for their sex education.
Scofflaw
In brief, this suggests that STD rates are not linked to promiscuity, but to "social factors such as poverty, mobility and gender equality".
I can understand how a condom will act as a pretty effective barrier method of contraception in preventing pregnancy.
However, I cannot understand how diseases such as Syphilis, Genital Warts, Herpes, Hepatitis, Crabs and indeed AIDS can be SECURELY prevented by covering less than 1% of one’s anatomy in micro-thin latex rubber!!!!!!!!
I daresay you can't, JC, I daresay you can't. As usual, this says more about you than it does about the issue.J C wrote:Apart from the obvious risk of condoms coming off or bursting as well as the psychological and spiritual damage that casual sex may cause, condoms will NOT act as a barrier to Syphilis lip cankers, Genital Warts in the groin, Herpes lip & groin blisters, or HIV infected blood exchange from bleeding mouth and gum ulcers – while Crabs will freely migrate groin-to-groin, while totally oblivious to the superfluous presence of a condom.
And no-one claims that they do. This is a straw man. The main route for STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) transmission, however, is, you know, sexual transmission. It's why they call them STD's.J C wrote:The usual comment when this is pointed out is that “it is better to use a condom when engaging in casual sex, than not to use one”.
However, this has about as much validity as saying that “it is better to use a seat belt when doing 100 mph, than not to use one”!!!
The most important action is NOT to engage in casual sex and NOT to do 100 mph, in the first place – because the seat belt or the condom probably WON’T protect you if you hit a wall at 100 mph or ‘become intimate’ with an infected sexual partner on a ‘one night stand’.
The solution is indeed to ‘just say NO’ – to both speeding and casual sex.
Briefly, I'll make the same point as to wolfsbane - we're all sinners, so "just say NO" is ineffective.J C wrote:Wicknight
The fact that teenagers want to have sex makes perfect sense biologically, with in an evolutionary framework. And evolution has no moral outlook either way.
If you are saying that teenagers are incapable of CONTROLLING their sexual desires then you are being quite unfair to most teenagers who actually do have enough self-respect to exercise sexual self-control.
Your comment does say something very profound about the 'amorality of Evolution’ which has told our young people that they are descended from animals and then blames ‘religion’ and a supposed ‘lack of sex education’ when some of these young people actually begin to behave like animals!!!!!
Or you could look at what Wicknight actually said. But your way is more fun.
amazed anew by your idiocy,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Wicknight
They (young people) aren't incapable, they don't want to because it is unnatural and perverse to ignore one sexual emotions.
So, do you believe in the ‘urban myth’ that young men get migraine unless they satisfy their lust once a day???
Claiming to be incapable of (or simply not wanting to) control your sexual impulses ISN’T an excuse for behaving sexually irresponsibly.:eek:
Wicknight
Its like refusing to go to the bathroom on religious grounds. That ain't going to stop your bladder exploding. Most normal people learn when and where is appropriate to go to the bathroom, but they still go when they need to.
Could I gently point out that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between INVOLUNTARY toilet activities – and VOLUNTARY sexual activity.
I do agree that both need to be appropriately exercised.:)
Wicknight
You want to breed ignorance in the hope that this will change human biology allowing everyone to ignore their sexuality until they are married. Unless you plan that everyone should get married at 13 like in the middle ages that idea is as stupid as asking everyone to simply not go to the bathroom until next thursday
Christians believe that the truth will set us free – so Christians certainly DO NOT encourage ignorance of any aspect of God’s Creation, including Human sexuality.
Age appropriate sex education including BOTH it’s physical and moral aspects is fully supported by most Christian parents.
In modern society it isn’t appropriate for 13 year olds to get married – but it also isn’t appropriate for ‘early teens’ to engage in casual sexual activity either!!!!!!!!!
Yes, 13 year olds can freely go to the bathroom – but they should NOT be engaging in risky and inappropriate sexual behaviour!!!:eek:
Wicknight
That theory would work if the ones who are not told about natural sexual desires and how to deal with them were the ones that are able to easily control them.
……and that theory would work if Christian parents DIDN’T fully educate their children about ALL aspects of sexuality, BOTH physical and moral.
It is a fact that most Christian parents support COMPREHENSIVE age-appropriate sex education.
The problem with teen pregnancy and the explosion of STDs amongst young people ISN’T due to a lack of knowledge about the physical aspects of sex – it is largely due to a lack of understanding of the proper place of sex within a committed monogamous relationship between adults AKA marriage.
You have already confirmed that “evolution has no moral outlook either way” – and so it is philosophically incapable of providing the critical moral framework within which to enjoy the proper use of sex – and this is precisely the area of knowledge where most ‘modern teens’ are so sadly lacking.
Wicknight
those who are ignorant of their own biology, and feed religious nonsense about sex is a sinful shameful act, end up with the most sexual related problems and put themselves at the most risk, because they don't understand their natural biology urges and desires, or how to manage them in an adult and responsible manner.
Sex, engenders powerful emotions, and it therefore must to be controlled and used responsibly.
Sex within marriage is neither shameful nor sinful and comes with the direct recommendation of God – and you can’t get a better endorsement than that!!!!:D
When it comes to ADULT sexuality, prudence and prayer would seem to be the correct approach to meeting and marrying the correct person.
One of the greatest blessings from God is to be married to a compatible loving spouse that you also love!!!
Wicknight
The Christian right absence problem creates far more problems than it fixes, by completely ignoring the reality of the situation and feeding kids biblical nonsense that in no way prepares them or enables them to take mature responsible control of their own sexual identity and natural sexual desires.
BUT taking mature responsible control of your sexual desires DOES require abstinence if you are not in a committed relationship.
The alternative of casual sex, may actually lead to people HAVING ‘to say NO’ to normal sexual intimacy with their ‘life partner’ because they have acquired an incurable STD from somebody else.
Wicknight
Its like try to make people safer drivers by telling them over and over to just take the bus
No, it is ACTUALLY like telling people to stop speeding – or else they will lose their driving licence and will then HAVE to take the bus!!!!
Scofflaw
if people are going to do wrong, and they are, it is better that they understand the wrong they are doing. If you wish to cut yourself with razors, you should understand septicaemia, and learn the basics of sterilisation. If you are going to have extra-marital sex, it is better that you (a) understand the risks, and (b) protect yourself in order to protect your innocent marriage partner.
If somebody is (deliberately) cutting themselves with razor blades then they need to seek immediate psychiatric help.
Information on Septicaemia may assist in 'shocking' them out of such self-destructive behaviour, but such information on it’s own is unlikely to be of ANY use unless accompanied by intensive psychiatric treatment.
If people are going to do wrong – they should be told that it is wrong and unsafe.
Scofflaw
I understand that this is contentious, because by educating people, and letting them protect themselves, they can more easily sin. However, they can also repent, whereas AIDS is fatal for them, their wife, and their children.
We all can easily sin, with or without education.
IF you were correct, that education and condoms would FULLY protect people from the ‘downsides’ of casual sex, you might even have a valid point.
However, this is certainly not the case.
The only way to avoid fatal incurable STD’s is abstinence before marriage and faithfulness afterwards.
Everything else is ‘gambling’ to some degree with disease and death.0 -
Scofflaw
Only if your agenda is concerned more with the opportunity for sin (and that in itself denies the possibility of repentance) than with the health of the innocent (and indeed the guilty), does the fundamentalist Christian agenda on sex make any sense.
The Christian is concerned with BOTH the eternal destiny of people as well as their temporal welfare.
On BOTH counts abstinence and faithfulness make eminent sense, as does a fulfilling marriage commitment to somebody that you love!!!
Scofflaw
Faith is needed for the Resurrection because it is a single unique historical event, and the level of forensic examination available is close to zero. The Creation and the Flood, on the other hand, are massive events of Universal and worldwide scope, with enormous ramifications for the observable world around them.
If the Genesis account can simply be experimentally verified, then it is true. If it is true, why on Earth should the Resurrection be false, or even surprising? Iit would be clear from his CV that God could undoubtedly do such a minor thing as bodily resurrection, and it would be there in the same book. That would be like dropping the entire theory of evolution simply because one cannot find a very specific fossil.
I agree with EVERY WORD you have said above.
At last agreement between a Creationist and an Evolutionist on the thread – who would have ever predicted such a thing???:D :cool:
Scofflaw
I will point out again that Paul was not Christ, and that even his claim to be an Apostle rests entirely on his own word. If the Devil wished to pervert the course of Christianity, he could hardly have chosen a better vessel.
You might hold such a position as an Atheist – but such a belief would be incompatible with EVERY Christian denomination that I am aware of!!!!
Scofflaw
I do without hesitation renounce the God of the Bible, and all his works, as they say.
…….. at least it has the merit of telling us where you are ‘coming from’ on this issue!!!!
Scofflaw
Since it took place in the context of something the rest of which is allegorical at best, and hallucinatory at worst, I think your confidence is entirely misplaced...
You have already said that you renounce the God of the Bible – so renouncing His Word in Revelation is in full conformity with your ‘faith position’.
However, ALL Christians believe that the Book of Revelation is fully the Word of God.
Indeed, Rev 1:8,11 and 18-20 as well as Rev 2 and 3 are believed to be the ACTUAL WORDS of Jesus Christ HIMSELF to St John The Divine.
Scofflaw
The main route for STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) transmission, however, is, you know, sexual transmission. It's why they call them STD's.
……but the point is that ALL sexual acts DON’T involve the penetrative use of a condom – and the ones that don’t CAN ALSO transmit some STDs as well!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
I can understand how a condom will act as a pretty effective barrier method of contraception in preventing pregnancy.
However, I cannot understand how diseases such as Syphilis, Genital Warts, Herpes, Crabs and indeed AIDS can be SECURELY prevented by covering less than 1% of one’s anatomy in micro-thin latex rubber!!!!!!!!
Wicknight
As Scofflaw points out, what you cannot understand could fill a barn
OK, so please ‘help my understanding’ by telling me HOW a condom does FULLY prevent the transmission of all serious STDs?
Wicknight
Its better to use a condom when engaging in sex, casual or otherwise
A condom is a good barrier method of contraception.
However, if your main motivation for using a condom is because you are unsure whether you or your ‘sexual partner’ may be infected with a serious STD, then I think that the most responsible course of action would be to NOT have sex until yourself and your partner are tested - and then you should follow ALL medical advice, depending upon the result of the test.
Wicknight
Its better to wear a seat belt at all times, driving 100mph or doing 20mph
It is indeed good advice to always wear a seat belt – but it will be a pretty USELESS gesture towards safety IF you also do 100 mph!!!!
Wicknight
If casual sex with random strangers is driving at 100mph I would imagine sex only inside a marriage is taking the bus. Most people live their lives some where in the middle, driving their own car but doing so with in the speed limit wearing a seat belt.
Most people actually live their lives within committed long-term relationships – and this is analogous to driving within the speed limit and wearing a seat belt.
Taking the bus is analogous to abstinence (from both driving and sex)!!!:D
Wicknight
The vast majority of unmarried people sex isn't casual sex. They engage in sex in long term monogamous relationships. Which you also have a problem with I imagine.
Monogamy certainly has the benefit of removing the disease risk.
Indeed, as marriage is the public solemnising of an existing life-long commitment between the contracting parties, a long term monogamous relationship may indeed be a ‘marriage’ of some standing - although it should be solmenised for validity from a Christian perspective.
Wicknight
The safest solution is to never have sex.
Monogamy is every bit as ‘safe’ as abstinence – and it has the benefit of sexual pleasure with somebody you love as well as the possibility of having children and ultimately grandchildren to spoil and adore!!!
Wicknight
Just like the safest solution to avoiding a road accidents is to never drive a car or go near a road.
The safest solution to avoid road accidents is to drive with courtesy and within the Rules of the Road – letting some young fella drive you, for example, would be a decidedly much more RISKY option!!!!0 -
Yes, but you've got to admit that wild homosexual sex with a male prostitute whilst smacked up on meth has its own pleasures.J C wrote:Monogamy is every bit as ‘safe’ as abstinence – and it has the benefit of sexual pleasure with somebody you love as well as having children and possibly grandchildren to spoil and adore!!!
On a more serious note, how do you know that the bible is the inerrant word of God? What's your opinion on say the book of Mormon or the Koran?
Are they also the word of God or merely the work of man?
How given any text that someone claims is divinely inspired do I distinguish that from a fake, something someone made up?
Also you never quite explained ...
If that's not a galaxy, then what is it?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It wouldn't be an "urban myth" if it was true, now would it?J C wrote:So, do you believe in the ‘urban myth’ that young men get migraine unless they satisfy their lust once a day???
No it isn't.J C wrote:Claiming to be incapable of (or simply not wanting to) control your sexual impulses ISN’T an excuse for behaving sexually irresponsibly
Claiming you need to buy a pint of milk isn't an excuse to drive 150mph down to the local shop without a seat belt on the wrong side of the road. It is an excuse to drive to the local shop within the speed limit, wearing your seat belt on the right side of the road.
It is possible to drive dangerously and put yourself and others at risk. The alternative to this is not simply to never go anywhere, or to only go places on the bus. It is also possible to drive responsibly with steps to protect yourself and others around you. That won't completely limit the chances something bad will happen to you at some point, but then life is for living isn't it. If we wanted to make sure nothing bad would ever happen to us we would never leave our homes.
Likewise it is possible to have unsafe dangerous sex with random high risk strangers. The alternative to that isn't simply to never have sex, or to only have sex when you are married. It is also possible to healthy loving protected sexual relationships inside a trusting relationship but outside of marriage. That won't completely limit the chances of something bad happening either, but then neither will getting married. As I said, abstinence won't stop you catching HIV is some bleeds on you.
Are you telling me your toilet movements are involuntary? You simply go when you have to where ever that may be.J C wrote:Could I gently point out that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between INVOLUNTARY toilet activities – and VOLUNTARY sexual activity.
JC I would have a doctor look into that ....
They why do they follow lies?J C wrote:Christians believe that the truth will set us free
What about non-risky, appropriate sexual behaviour?J C wrote:Yes, 13 year olds can freely go to the bathroom – but they should NOT be engaging in risky and inappropriate sexual behaviour!!!:eek:
No actually they don't.J C wrote:It is a fact that most Christian parents support COMPREHENSIVE age-appropriate sex education.
Actually that is exactly what the problem is. Teenagers are ignorant of how to protect themselves when having sex, because the Christian right is pressuring schools, in Europe and America, to not teach children anything about safe sex except for abstinence programs.J C wrote:The problem with teen pregnancy and the explosion of STDs amongst young people ISN’T due to a lack of knowledge about the physical aspects of sex
Its all very well to simply tell a teenager not to have sex. But if they then choose too have sex they have no clue about how to protect themselves or their partner. So they put themselves at great risk of pregnancy and STDs
It doesn't aim to. Your "critical moral framework" is ignored by most teenagers, which is why the problem exists in the first place.J C wrote:You have already confirmed that “evolution has no moral outlook either way” – and so it is philosophically incapable of providing the critical moral framework within which to enjoy the proper use of sex
They aren't lacking the knowledge JC, they are ignoring it, because it is unnatural and goes against their biological instincts. Everything in their body wants them to have sex, because that is exactly what they were designed to do. Instead of trying to teach them to simply ignore this, schools and parents should be teaching children how to manage their sexual desires in safe and responsible manner. Simply telling them never to have sex is as ridiculous as telling a person to simply never go to the toilet.J C wrote:– and this is precisely the area of knowledge where most ‘modern teens’ are so sadly lacking.
Most people these days aren't getting married until their 30s.J C wrote:Sex within marriage is neither shameful nor sinful and comes with the direct recommendation of God – and you can’t get a better endorsement than that!!!!:D
Telling someone to simply ignore their sexual identity for 15 years is ridiculous JC. As I said, its like asking someone to simply not go to the toilet for 2 weeks.
The person will eventually burst, because they are biologically designed to go to the toilet. But unlike normal people who have been taught responsible adult aspects of this and who go to the toilet at regular but appropriate times, this person is likely to just crap their pants when and where they burst.
Likewise someone who is ignorant of how to control and release their sexual desires in an adult and responsible manner will be far more likely to have irresponsible risky sexual encounter when they eventually burst, resulting in an increase risk of STD or unwanted pregnancy. Or they are far more likely to rush into an inappropriate marriage just so they can have sex.
"correct" to whom?J C wrote:When it comes to ADULT sexuality, prudence and prayer would seem to be the correct approach to meeting and marrying the correct person.
Which is why it would be a great shame to simply get married so you can have sex. But that is what the religious right is driving people to do.J C wrote:One of the greatest blessings from God is to be married to a compatible loving spouse that you also love!!!
You should get married because you love a person, and want to spend the rest of your life with them. You shouldn't get married because you are a pressurised biological sex time bomb desperate for a shag. Sex should not be a reason to get married. You should have developed a mature and responsible experience of sex before you get married.
It does. But "committed relationship" DOES NOT HAVE TO EQUAL "marriage"J C wrote:BUT taking mature responsible control of your sexual desires DOES require abstinence if you are not in a committed relationship.
Like I said, most people don't get married until their 30s, when they have had the relationship experience to know what mature adult love is. But people have committed relationships from their teens. In fact I would be very worried if someone went straight into marriage with someone, without experiencing a series of relationships, because the only way you learn is through experience. It is hard to know if someone is "the one" if they have been "the only one"0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement