The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is not the theory of evolution that has revolutionised what we can do with biology. It is the part of the theory it shares with creationism - natural selection and adaption, or the knowledge of how genetics works.
This is not true. Creationism denies that mutation can produce functional genes frequently enough to allow variation. It denies that variations under selection can accumulate to result in larger changes. Both of these concepts are central to the practical applications of evolution.

The natural selection and adaption that Creationism accepts are the only sort we actually observe. Your 'larger' changes are not observed and do not form a part of the scientific advances we have profited from.

If you want to know what Creationism really teaches on this, here's a few examples:
Evolution or Adaptation?
http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/evolution-or-adaptation

Speciation conference brings good news for creationists
http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists

Episode 1: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
http://creation.com/response-to-pbs/nova-evolution-series-episode-1-darwins-dangerous-idea#kinds
[See especially the section: What is the Biblical creationist model?]

Speciation questions and answers
http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers

How does assuming that genetic similarity equals a common designer help us in genetics? What can we predict with that assumption? We'd have to know the motives and aesthetic sense of the designer to make any predictions at all. And yet some how, by making no such assumptions, we can predict the genetics of undiscovered species. We can rule out impossible combinations. Creationism adds nothing to this, indeed the elements of the theory unique to evolution are vital to that process. And it works.

No, all you need to do is observe the function of the genes. That's true for both systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So I could make the claim that creationism has revolutionised what we can do with biology.
Rubbish. You could no more make that claim than anyone else who accepts this or that piece of science. Creationists have not added anything to our understanding of biology. They've accepted the parts of evolution most difficult to deny, and rejected anything with a hint of abstraction or doubt, as they see it.

Strange how the parts of evolution most difficult to deny are perfectly in line with the Biblical case.
Genetics: no friend of evolution
http://creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution

Point out to me one example of something we can practically do because of creationism that we cannot do by accepting evolution. Something unique to the creation model. I've just pointed out several things we cannot do by accepting creationism alone. So go on, show me what creationism alone brings to the table.

But you've taken the things common to creationism and evolutionism and made them the property of the latter alone. Hmm, let me see - if I take the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics for my side, I'm sure the table will be overflowing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to confirmation bias, yes, one has to take care not to force the interpretation into presuppositions. If the findings appear to contradict our presuppostions, we should say so. If our presuppositions are sacrosanct, we can await further light on the findings.
How long will you wait before you cast out your starting assumption? 150 years not quite enough for you? 250 if you count from the time of Linnaeus and the discovery of the Tree of Life.

But those years have not disproved our case - indeed, the accumulating evidence against the evolutionary model has grown with each year. Even the Tree of Life is disputed by some evolutionists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to curiosity, it is improper when we know the matter is beyond discovery.
And by what means do we know a thing to be beyond discovery if we have not attempted to discover it?

Revelation - and Common Sense. When God tells us it was created by His word, Common Sense tells us that event can't be replicated by science.

What is the means by which you test the limits of knowledge? Why, I believe they call it science.

Indeed. Science can investigate anything in the material world. If you know how it can do so in the spiritual world - where the act of creation originated - I would be interested in hearing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
How God created the universe by His mere command, that is not open to examination. But what happened afterwards is available for us to examine.
That attitude would have convinced Galileo that he must be dreaming, Linnaeus that the tree of life was an illusion or coincidence, Leonardo that anatomy was a secret not to be told and Newton that the motion of the planets was God's work, just so, and no more. These men, many of the God-fearing, never saw any boundary beyond which their investigations must not cross.

Really? They thought they could find out how God created the universe from nothing? I don't think so. They at least had the humility to concern themselves with how things work in this world, not in the Other.

Their attitude made countless things possible. Your attitude,the very opposite of science, has given us nothing at all.

Science is about material things. Your attitude, that the spiritual world must be testable with science, is truly unscientific.

wolfsbane

DublinWriter wrote: »

Screwy relationships? Go read the Bible, in particular Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters after their escape from Sodom.

I mean, honestly, have any of you actually read the OT?

You suggesting the Bible approves of the incident described there? Do you think today's news programs condone all that they report???

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

They also conflate planet formation, stellar evolution and the big bang into "evolution". Essentially for them evolution is anything and everything in science that contradicts Genesis. Which is a lot. Abiogenesis is more relevant to evolution, and it will turn out to share many mechanisms, but it's still a different area of study and addresses a different question.

Also, Ken Ham is Ken Ham.

We do use 'evolution' in the different senses - as do evolutionists in their literature relating to cosmology.

While biological evolution can be examined as a stand-alone, the logic for the existence of the model demands a materialistic explanation of the cosmos also. Big Bang - Abiogenesis, all a necessary precondition to evolution.

wolfsbane

darjeeling wrote: »

It's remarkably simple. Evolution tells us how self-replicating organisms change over generations. It doesn't say that organisms evolve only if they first arose in a particular way. There's no need, then, to clutter up the theory of evolution with unnecessary factors.

If you want the short version: Ockham's razor.

Why do people confuse abiogenesis and evolution? Perhaps because they see faith as offering an all-encompassing explanation (of sorts) for the world, and consequently expect the same from science. Evolution, seen by many past and present as the biggest scientific challenge to scripture, then becomes burdened with this expectation.

Er, yes. Set up an impossible circumstance as a given, and off you go. A get upset when anyone points to the impossibility. Very scientific.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

The apostles took a lot of teaching as having allegorical meanings so how we interpret the message changes with the era.

Care to prove this with actual examples?

CDfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Care to prove this with actual examples?

Thats how I would read Galations which I see as very inspirational.

I often see people posting on the Bible and cherrypicking accounts without noticing that it also recounts disagreements that occured.

Popinjay

J C wrote: »

Christians are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law.

Jesus seems to think otherwise

studiorat

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Atheists are shutting out the teaching of anything Christian in our schools.

Who's schools? Christian's schools? I seriously doubt that.

BrianCalgary

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists and evolutionists aren't the same group..

Never said they were.

Húrin wrote: »

You seem to have your mind made up and you seem to think that we all should see it from your POV. The problem is that while evolution could turn out to be wrong science, no other hypothesis is looking anywhere closer to being right science..

yes I do have my mind made up and no I dont think we should all see it frommy point of view. Please do not make assumptions about people.

Húrin wrote: »

Perhaps you're paying as much attention to scientific debate as the militant atheists. That is, not very much..

Lets put it this way, every time the topic comes up in the news it is always stated that evolution is a proven fact.

It is a theory and it could change.

Húrin wrote: »

Why? Evolution isn't about the origin of life.

This statement is getting tiresome. I know, however, if somone is an atheist and they do not believe in God, they understand that man came about through evolution from a sigle cell organism.

They also believe that somewhere back in time living matter came from non-living matter.

i as a Christian also believe that living matter came from non-living matter, yet God breathed that life into Adam (man).

Clear now?

BrianCalgary

studiorat wrote: »

Who's schools? Christian's schools? I seriously doubt that.

No public schools. Why would anyone want to disallow Christian schools from teaching Christianity?

Húrin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Never said they were.

You are using the terms interchangeably.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

yes I do have my mind made up and no I dont think we should all see it from my point of view. Please do not make assumptions about people.

What I mean is that you should not be undermining scientific theories from a non-scientific point of view, with unscientific motives. It seems dishonest.

Lets put it this way, every time the topic comes up in the news it is always stated that evolution is a proven fact.

That's typical media simplification. They surely mean that no competing theory has comparable amounts of evidence.

It is a theory and it could change.

So what is the problem exactly? That the media don't use correct scientific terminology, and this is aiding those who want to shut out competing theories on the origin of species, be they scientific of religious?

This statement is getting tiresome.

Is it not true?

I know, however, if somone is an atheist and they do not believe in God, they understand that man came about through evolution from a single cell organism.

It doesn't matter if someone believes in God or not. This is what contemporary biology says. Science is neither atheist nor theist.

i as a Christian also believe that living matter came from non-living matter, yet God breathed that life into Adam (man).

Clear now?

Clear and agreeable enough but what has it to do with the teaching of evolution?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why would anyone want to disallow Christian schools from teaching Christianity?

There are plenty of reasons why people might want their kids not to have christianity taught as Religious Truth. I'm not aware of anybody on earth -- though I'm sure there must be a few out there -- who don't want their kids to hear about christianity at all.

They're diffr'nt things, and it's not adding much clarity to the debate to mix them up all the time.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Most minority religions said they would prefer a Christian way of life in the UK than a secular one. I found that very interesting.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1154683/Two-thirds-demand-respect-religion-Christianity-place-public-life-says-poll.html


I know it is the Daily Mail but it is based on a BBC poll.

That is interesting but doesnt really relate to teaching creationism as truth in schools. Christian values is all the poll was about, for the most part a lot of the people polled would have the same general values as christians anyway,this is true of people in general. The people weren't polled on what they wanted taught to their children in school.

philologos

Mickeroo: Your post that I quoted spoke of Christian doctrine, not Young Earth Creationism. As such I felt my post was warranted to say that many people of other religions are actually more happy to go to Christian ethos schools than atheists and agnostics are. They generally don't show much of a grievance to a Christian ethos in the school and are respectful of it.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

Mickeroo: Your post that I quoted spoke of Christian doctrine, not Young Earth Creationism. As such I felt my post was warranted to say that many people of other religions are actually more happy to go to Christian ethos schools than atheists and agnostics are. They generally don't show much of a grievance to a Christian ethos in the school and are respectful of it.

Was just using YEC as an example. I wasn't talking about christian ethos, i was talking about people trying to force their view points on others, I doubt these people of other religions would like it if their kids were being told that their beliefs were wrong in school. Besides, the only ethos a multi-denominational school should have is an educational one.

Helix

PDN wrote: »

R
Could you, by any chance, provide any reputable historical source for people being burned at the stake for believing in heliocentrism?

cant offhand think of any burned specifically for it tbh

there were a few who believed it who were burned at the stake (like copernicus who you mentioned, but that wasnt for heliocentrism, it was for various acts of herecy i think)

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

Was just using YEC as an example. I wasn't talking about christian ethos, i was talking about people trying to force their view points on others, I doubt these people of other religions would like it if their kids were being told that their beliefs were wrong in school. Besides, the only ethos a multi-denominational school should have is an educational one.

I don't think people are told that their beliefs are wrong at denominational schools. Rather they are taught about Jesus Christ and God, generally along the lines of Gospel parables if I remember my childhood education in COI schools. Non-Christian theists generally do not object as much to Christian education as atheists do. Even if I remember when I was in school, I found that a Jewish friend of mine (relatively secular, but is proud of being Jewish, and being Israeli), and a Sikh friend of mine (in a relatively religious family) were far far more respectful of the practices of faith that took place in school, such as morning chapel than people who had decided they were atheist and agnostic were. I think the same is also true with parents.

In the UK there has been a broad coalition of theists forming against what they see and what I would see as aggressive secularism. Secularism that goes beyond separation of church and state, and instead insists on interfering in the lives of the faithful. Just saying, objections in the vast majority of cases are raised by atheists and agnostics rather than people of other faiths.

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think people are told that their beliefs are wrong at denominational schools. Rather they are taught about Jesus Christ and God, generally along the lines of Gospel parables if I remember my childhood education in COI schools. Non-Christian theists generally do not object as much to Christian education as atheists do. Even if I remember when I was in school, I found that a Jewish friend of mine (relatively secular, but is proud of being Jewish, and being Israeli), and a Sikh friend of mine (in a relatively religious family) were far far more respectful of the practices of faith that took place in school, such as morning chapel than people who had decided they were atheist and agnostic were. I think the same is also true with parents.

In the UK there has been a broad coalition of theists forming against what they see and what I would see as aggressive secularism. Secularism that goes beyond separation of church and state, and instead insists on interfering in the lives of the faithful. Just saying, objections in the vast majority of cases are raised by atheists and agnostics rather than people of other faiths.

I'm not disputing that atheists/agnostics object more, that is obvious.

I dont think people are told their beliefs are wrong in denominational schools, if this happens its generally because someone is in the wrong school :pac:

I was talking about multi-denominational schools.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by CDfm
Isnt this a bit of cherrypicking.

Originally Posted by J C
...It isn't cherrypicking, as Christians are subject to God's grace ... and the Messiah has already come as Man on Earth, Christians are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law.

Popinjay
Jesus seems to think otherwise

So let us look at what Matthew 5:17-20 actually says in relation to the fulfillment of the Law :-

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Christ is saying in Mat 5:17 that He had come to FULFILL the Law of Moses - with His Atoning death for sin - and He confirmed that this sin WAS defined by the Mosaic Law. Thus He was confirming that the Mosaic Law is there to convict sinners of their sin - and as the Saved are ALREADY convicted (and Saved from their sin) the Law ONLY continues to apply to the unsaved .

The implication of Christ's death IS that we CAN break the Mosaic Law with (eternal) impunity - because we have Christ's promise to Save ALL sinners who repent and believe on Jesus to Save them!!
Indeed the statement (directed at His Jewish listeners) in Mat 5:20 that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" actually shows the impossibility of trying to gain entry to Heaven by 'works' - such as obeying the Law.
NOBODY in His audience considered themselves to have righteousness that surpassed those 'paragons of virtue' who were the Pharisess - and EVERYBODY knew that many of the Pharisess were total hypocrites who ALSO didn't didn't 'practice what they preached'!!!

....so Mat 5:20 is confirming that NOBODY who lives by the Law will enter Heaven by just doing so - and indeed NOBODY fully obeys ALL Law anyway. Jesus gave an example of this when He said that anybody who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart - and show me any hetero-sexual man (who isn't a hypocrit) to which this doesn't apply!!!!
In any event, the solution to this conundrum, is that we MUST also rely on the power of God, manifest in Jesus Christ, to Save us - and if we do, our sins WILL be forgiven - and we will NOT therefore suffer the (eternal) consequences of our breaches of the Law!!!! We will, of course, suffer any temporal consequences - like the distinct possibility of acquiring a nasty disease, if we choose to live in promiscuity - even when we choose to cover less than 1% of our bodies with micron-thin latex rubber!!!:eek:

BTW the Saved Christian is no longer subject to the Ten Commandmants - they are instead subject to the much higher behaviour standard of 'Loving the Lord their God with all their hearts, souls and minds - and loving their neighbour as themselves' - thus the 'loopholes' that are inherent in Mankinds enforcement of all Law don't provide any excuses to Christians who are Saved by God's unmerited Grace!!!:pac::):D:eek:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40;&version=31;

What Jesus Christ is highlighting is the inherent hypocracy of one sinner criticising another sinner for being 'much worse' than him/her.
Jesus is saying that this is merely the 'kettle calling the pot black' - we are all horrenduous sinners on the way to a well-deserved eternity in Hell - for our disobedience to God - and the ONLY difference between ANY of us is that some of us are Saved (through absolutely NO merit on our part) while others remain unsaved!!!
There are many sinners, who have carried out the most horrific deeds possible, that have come in repentance to Jesus and been Saved - while 'paragons of virtue' who 'never hurt a fly during their lives' continue to refuse on their deathbeds to acknowledge their sin against God and therfore remain unsaved as far as we can know!!!

Helix

Helix wrote: »

cant offhand think of any burned specifically for it tbh

there were a few who believed it who were burned at the stake (like copernicus who you mentioned, but that wasnt for heliocentrism, it was for various acts of herecy i think)

Just for clarification, Copernicus wasn't burned at the stake; as far as I know he died of a stroke, which induced a coma.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

Thats how I would read Galations which I see as very inspirational.

I often see people posting on the Bible and cherrypicking accounts without noticing that it also recounts disagreements that occured.

If we take a look at what Paul lists as allegory in Galatians, we will see it is something totally different than you think:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:


“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Paul is not saying Sarah and Hagar were not historical figures. He is saying that these historical figures, in God's providence, were also symbolic of the two covenants that the people of God have been/are under: the Old and the New; the one cut by Moses and the one cut by Christ.

Helix

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Just for clarification, Copernicus wasn't burned at the stake; as far as I know he died of a stroke, which induced a coma.

you are correct

bloody misinformation from those blasted atheists

postcynical

J C wrote: »

The implication of Christ's death IS that we CAN break the Mosaic Law with (eternal) impunity - because we have Christ's promise to Save ALL sinners who repent and believe on Jesus to Save them!!
Indeed the statement (directed at His Jewish listeners) in Mat 5:20 that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" actually shows the impossibility of trying to gain entry to Heaven by 'works' - such as obeying the Law.
NOBODY in His audience considered themselves to have righteousness that surpassed those 'paragons of virtue' who were the Pharisess - and EVERYBODY knew that many of the Pharisess were total hypocrites who ALSO didn't didn't 'practice what they preached'!!!

Referring to the blue part: This is a very dangerous allegation. It is a sin against the spirit to wilfully sin in the knowledge that you will later be forgiven. These sins will not be forgiven.

....so Mat 5:20 is confirming that NOBODY who lives by the Law will enter Heaven by just doing so - and indeed NOBODY fully obeys ALL Law anyway. Jesus gave an example of this when He said that anybody who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart - and show me any hetero-sexual man (who isn't a hypocrit) to which this doesn't apply!!!!

Many men have learned to temper their desires. Christian men are not lecherous. If a man is lecherous and claims to be a Christian, it is only his claim. Jesus says that if you love Him you will obey His commands. Your claims appear presumptuous in the extreme.

In any event, the solution to this conundrum, is that we MUST also rely on the power of God, manifest in Jesus Christ, to Save us - and if we do, our sins WILL be forgiven - and we will NOT therefore suffer the (eternal) consequences of our breaches of the Law!!!! We will, of course, suffer any temporal consequences - like the distinct possibility of acquiring a nasty disease, if we choose to live in promiscuity - even when we choose to cover less than 1% of our bodies with micron-thin latex rubber!!!:eek:

I agree completely with the first sentence here. Can you please clarify it with regard to the rest of your post?

Again, referring to the blue part: This distinct possibility is minimal and a disingenuous line of reasoning. If a Christian opposes artificial birth control or abortion from a moral ground, then we should base our argument on morality, rather than on hypothetical (and often unfounded) scientific arguments (eg future infertility, risks of infection, future depression).

BTW the Saved Christian is no longer subject to the Ten Commandmants - they are instead subject to the much higher behaviour standard of 'Loving the Lord their God with all their hearts, souls and minds - and loving their neighbour as themselves' - thus the 'loopholes' that are inherent in Mankinds enforcement of all Law don't provide any excuses to Christians who are Saved by God's unmerited Grace!!!:pac::):D:eek:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:34-40;&version=31;

Does the new covenant not fulfil the old one? As such our new standard of love supersedes the old covenant (possible only with supernatural help). Much as Einstein's theory fulfilled Newton's theory of gravitation. The old law is not invalidated but rather put in its correct context.

A Christian who loves the Lord with all his heart, all his mind and all his strength will, with God's help, keep the commandments. We constantly need God's help.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

darjeeling wrote: »

It's remarkably simple. Evolution tells us how self-replicating organisms change over generations. It doesn't say that organisms evolve only if they first arose in a particular way. There's no need, then, to clutter up the theory of evolution with unnecessary factors.

If you want the short version: Ockham's razor.

Why do people confuse abiogenesis and evolution? Perhaps because they see faith as offering an all-encompassing explanation (of sorts) for the world, and consequently expect the same from science. Evolution, seen by many past and present as the biggest scientific challenge to scripture, then becomes burdened with this expectation.

Er, yes. Set up an impossible circumstance as a given, and off you go. A get upset when anyone points to the impossibility. Very scientific.

Your comment on my post bears no relation to what I wrote. Still, I see that, almost 16,000 posts in, we are once again at square one - confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Do you know, I think I'll sit the next round out.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

The implication of Christ's death IS that we CAN break the Mosaic Law with (eternal) impunity - because we have Christ's promise to Save ALL sinners who repent and believe on Jesus to Save them!!

postcynical
....This is a very dangerous allegation. It is a sin against the spirit to wilfully sin in the knowledge that you will later be forgiven. These sins will not be forgiven.

Firstly, do you eat bacon - I had a delicious piece of pork for dinner today ... thereby breaking the Judaic dietary law !!!!

Secondly, I wasn't proposing that Christians should sin in the knowledge that they will be forgiven later ... they are already forgiven if they sin while Saved !!!
... but Christians shouldn't wilfully sin BECAUSE this will give scandal to the Unsaved and BECAUSE they love God and don't want to cause Him offence .. and NOT out of fear of eternal damnation!!!
Another good reason for not sinning is the temporal chastisement that will result from such sin !!:eek:

..and it is NOT a sin against the spirit to wilfully sin in the knowledge that you will later be forgiven....although it is NOT a good idea because of the temporal punishment that it will trigger!!!
...every Christian who sins after being Saved, does so in the knowledge that their sin is ALREADY forgiven!!!!:eek:
..and BTW the only sin against the Holy Spirit is to attribute the works of Jesus Christ to Satan!!!

wrote:

postcynical
Many men have learned to temper their desires. Christian men are not lecherous. If a man is lecherous and claims to be a Christian, it is only his claim. Jesus says that if you love Him you will obey His commands. Your claims appear presumptuous in the extreme.

....Jesus wasn't only talking about Lechers ... He was talking about ALL men who sin in the secret of their hearts ... and NEVER reveal their lustful thoughts!!!!
....He was basically illustrating that ALL people are irredeemably sinful ... and the only way they can be Saved is through Jesus Christ!!!

....WHY are my claims presumptuous ... ARE you saying you are without sin ... and specifically, are you saying that you are without sexual sin???

...we should all remember the 'moralisers' who wanted to kill the woman caught in adultery ....
.... when Jesus challenged those who were without sin to throw the first stone...they departed in silence ...starting with the oldest!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
In any event, the solution to this conundrum, is that we MUST also rely on the power of God, manifest in Jesus Christ, to Save us - and if we do, our sins WILL be forgiven - and we will NOT therefore suffer the (eternal) consequences of our breaches of the Law!!!! We will, of course, suffer any temporal consequences - like the distinct possibility of acquiring a nasty disease, if we choose to live in promiscuity - even when we choose to cover less than 1% of our bodies with micron-thin latex rubber!!!

postcynical
I agree completely with the first sentence here. Can you please clarify it with regard to the rest of your post?

Again, referring to the blue part: This distinct possibility is minimal and a disingenuous line of reasoning. If a Christian opposes artificial birth control or abortion from a moral ground, then we should base our argument on morality, rather than on hypothetical (and often unfounded) scientific arguments (eg future infertility, risks of infection, future depression).

Where is the contradiction between the fact that Jesus has atoned for ALL sin and any of my posting??

The distict possibility of catching a non-semen transmitted STD is almost a CERTAINTY for people who engage in promiscuous sex while wearing a condom!!
Diseases such as Syphilus, Genital Herpes, Genital Warts and Crabs (to name but a few diseases) are ALL transmitted via routes where a condom has little or no prophylactic effect ... to say nothing about the semen-transmission disease risk of burst condoms and condoms that come off.
....a condom when used properly is a good pregnancy preventer ... due to BOTH it's barrier AND spermicidal aspects.

I often wonder why condom vending machines are placed in pub toilets ....are we expected to believe that somebody who is legless drunk and incapable of driving themselves home, is capable of using a condom in a responsible manner ... if at all??? :eek:

...also, why do condoms contain spermicide?... IF the manufacturers consider their barrier integrity to be such as to prevent virus and bacterial transmission surely it will also prevent sperm transmission???
....and therein lies the rub ....they obviously DON'T believe that the barrier aspect will always work ... and that is why they back it up with spermicide ... one wonders what is the 'back-up' to prevent AIDS, Gonnorhea and Chlamydia transmission when a condom barrier fails???

...and oral sex is also a very bad idea with multiple partners, as some throat cancers are now known to be caused by HPV ... the virus that causes Cervical Cancer ... and both the man and the woman's throats can be infected by the virus!!!
..and you can read all about it here http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/news/20070509/hpv-linked-to-throat-cancer

...and BTW, Christian argument can be based on BOTH practical established facts AS WELL AS moral reasoning!!!!:):eek:
....indeed, for many Unsaved people, the adverse temporal consequences of sin may often be more persuasive than arguments about its immoralty!!!!

wrote:

Does the new covenant not fulfil the old one? As such our new standard of love supersedes the old covenant (possible only with supernatural help). Much as Einstein's theory fulfilled Newton's theory of gravitation. The old law is not invalidated but rather put in its correct context.

A Christian who loves the Lord with all his heart, all his mind and all his strength will, with God's help, keep the commandments. We constantly need God's help.

...and we STILL sin!!!
...stop making Christians out to be some kind of hypocritical 'Holy Joes'!!!!!

....we are SINNERS in unmerited receipt of Jesus Christ's Salvation and indwelt by His Holy Spirit and with full access to His wisom and knowledge !!!!:D

...the Unsaved are SINNERS who are still not in receipt of God's Amazing Grace .. or the wisom and knowledge of His Holy Spirit!!!

...and that is all that separates us from each other!!!

....mbeep....mbeep!!!:D

postcynical

J C wrote: »

Firstly, do you eat bacon - I had a delicious piece of pork for dinner today ... thereby breaking the Judaic dietary law !!!!

Yep, I had a big fry-up this morning in the pub (after Mass;))

Come on, you know full well that the dietary laws are laws of man. Given the thread that's in it, these laws were beneficial to the survival of the community in their circumstances (time and space). The ten commandments though are God's word. A dramatic intervention in the course of history. This is God's eternal word, not a tradition of His chosen people on Earth. This is a guideline of how God wants us to behave. His son shows us the way.

Secondly, I wasn't proposing that Christians should sin in the knowledge that they will be forgiven later ... they are already forgiven if they sin while Saved !!!

This is the part I don't understand. How are our future sins already forgiven? You claimed earlier that we can sin with impunity, do you stand by this?

....WHY are my claims presumptuous ... ARE you saying you are without sin ... and specifically, are you saying that you are without sexual sin???

Presumptuous in the sense that there is a sense of 'fait accompli' in your salvation. Maybe there's no more need for Jesus now since the job is done. As for me, I made no such claim, but when the spirit of God is within me, yes, I am without sin. However I am a work of art in progress, not a spirit-imbued masterpiece. We pray 'lead us not into temptation' and He protects us. For a while;)

Where is the contradiction between the fact that Jesus has atoned for ALL sin and any of my posting??

It might not be a contradiction, but I don't fully understand your position. Do you really believe you can do what you like now, safe in the knowledge that you are saved? (I understand that out of love for God you will choose to avoid sin)

...stop making Christians out to be some kind of hypocritical 'Holy Joes'!!!!!

Not fair. But Christians are called to holiness. Our past sins are forgiven, but we are called to be holy in the present. Our sins should keep us humble, remind us of how much we love God and His mercy and how utterly dependant we are upon Him.

J C

postcynical wrote: »

Yep, I had a big fry-up this morning in the pub (after Mass;))

Come on, you know full well that the dietary laws are laws of man. Given the thread that's in it, these laws were beneficial to the survival of the community in their circumstances (time and space). The ten commandments though are God's word. A dramatic intervention in the course of history. This is God's eternal word, not a tradition of His chosen people on Earth. This is a guideline of how God wants us to behave. His son shows us the way.

....not so ... the Law of God in Leviticus forbids the eating of pigmeat ... but, as Christians we are NOT subject God's Law ... only His Grace!!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2011:7;&version=31;

postcynical wrote: »

This is the part I don't understand. How are our future sins already forgiven? You claimed earlier that we can sin with impunity, do you stand by this?

...impunity in the next life ...with considerable problems in this life!!!!

postcynical wrote: »

Presumptuous in the sense that there is a sense of 'fait accompli' in your salvation. Maybe there's no more need for Jesus now since the job is done. As for me, I made no such claim, but when the spirit of God is within me, yes, I am without sin. However I am a work of art in progress, not a spirit-imbued masterpiece. We pray 'lead us not into temptation' and He protects us. For a while;)

our Salvation is SURE when we believe on Jesus Christ and are Saved!!!
...and what a glorious fait accompli our Salvation really is!!!:)

postcynical wrote: »

It might not be a contradiction, but I don't fully understand your position. Do you really believe you can do what you like now, safe in the knowledge that you are saved? (I understand that out of love for God you will choose to avoid sin)

...I have neither the desire nor the inclination to do "what I like now" ... although I am safe in the knowledge that I am saved ... I try to avoid sin because I love God and my fellow-man ... and as a logical Human Being I also fear the temporal consequences of sin!!!

postcynical wrote: »

But Christians are called to holiness. Our past sins are forgiven, but we are called to be holy in the present. Our sins should keep us humble, remind us of how much we love God and His mercy and how utterly dependant we are upon Him.

...all true!!!
...Christians are called to holiness ... but NOT the 'fake' holiness of the Pharisee ... rather the true holiness of God's Holy Spirit!!!!

postcynical

J C wrote: »

....not so ... the Law of God in Leviticus forbids the eating of pigmeat ... but, as Christians we are NOT subject God's Law ... only His Grace!!
...everyone else should 'think twice' about eating pigmeat!!!!:)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2011:7;&version=31;

No, I disagree. This implies that eating pigmeat is sinful and that only God's grace allows us to do it. I contend that eating pigmeat is not sinful.

Mark 7:15 (New International Version) wrote:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

It is clear that these dietary proscriptions were 'rules of men'. Jesus does not undermine the ten commandments in a similar way. Even his powerful synthesis of them into the two basic comandments is not a dilution of the ten.

Also, extending the metaphor here a little, if a clean man is one in the Spirit, and sin comes out of him, does that not make him unclean? Frequent batheing in the spirit is required of us, there is no 'fait accompli':)

...Christians are called to holiness ... but NOT the 'fake' holiness of the Pharisee ... rather the true holiness of God's Holy Spirit!!!!

How does this manifest itself? By what fruit is it known?

Popinjay

J C wrote: »

So let us look at what Matthew 5:17-20 actually says in relation to the fulfillment of the Law :-

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

...Very long post...

Yes, let's look. And now, let's look at the little bit you skipped over:

"18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Have Heaven and Earth disappeared? I must have missed that.

If my hunch is right and they haven't disappeared then surely no stroke of a pen or letter have disappeared. So nothing has changed yet. And anyone who says otherwise will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

After years of battling for the inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God in this very thread, it must be quite a blow to realise you'll be called least in His Kingdom.

J C

postcynical wrote: »

No, I disagree. This implies that eating pigmeat is sinful and that only God's grace allows us to do it. I contend that eating pigmeat is not sinful.

....eating pigmeat IS sinful for anybody still under Law ... ask any Jew (or Muslim), if you doubt me!!!:)

postcynical wrote:

It is clear that these dietary proscriptions were 'rules of men'. .

...the dietary prescriptions carried the same weight in Law as the Ten Commandments ... and they still do for Orthodox Jews.

postcynical wrote:

Jesus does not undermine the ten commandments in a similar way. Even his powerful synthesis of them into the two basic comandments is not a dilution of the ten

....agreed!!!:eek::)

....and the standard expected from people under Grace is higher than the standard demanded under Law.

postcynical wrote:

Mark 7:15 (New International Version)
Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

...Jesus is indicating that His atoning death will replace the outward legal standards of the Old Covenant with the inward grace standards of the New Covenant.

postcynical wrote:

Also, extending the metaphor here a little, if a clean man is one in the Spirit, and sin comes out of him, does that not make him unclean? Frequent batheing in the spirit is required of us, there is no 'fait accompli':)

...what ARE you talking about????
our Salvation is accomplished !!!
....once we are Saved ... we are Saved...
....which part of the word 'Saved' do you not understand????:)

...we still keep our Human Nature ... and are therefore capable of sin ... until the day we enter into Glory.

wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
Christians are called to holiness ... but NOT the 'fake' holiness of the Pharisee ... rather the true holiness of God's Holy Spirit!!!!

postcynical
How does this manifest itself? By what fruit is it known?

...it manifests itself in an aversion to sin ... but a love for the sinner.
....it manifests itself in a knowledge and a wisdom about the things of God in an ordinary person that leaves Unsaved Theologians speechless!!!
...it manifests itself in grace towards our fellow man ... rather than merciless legalism !!!!:):D
...it manifests itself in clear thinking that rejects the logically and evidentally challenged myths of Spontaneous Evolution .... and accepts the objectively manifest evidence for Divine Creation!!!!:eek::D

...and if you doubt me .... just look at this thread where two Saved Christians have utterly devastated the arguments of 'legions' of Atheists!!!!:D