Search This Blog

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Father's Day and Darwin versus Genesis One verse Three


"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

That is the third verse of chapter one in Genesis.

Gen 1:3 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃



~

I do not know of any particular controversy concerning Genesis 1:3. This language is straightforward and uncontroversial. But it is nevertheless strange language were the Genesis account authored by shepards and priests as a part of a creation myth. Why would they even conceive of light being formed before any sources of light had been made? Man would have said that God created the Sun and the Moon and the stars. But God asserts that He made light before having created any stars or the Sun.

Now that we know that light appears to have traveled in space for millions of years and that God asserts a week of creation somewhere in the vicinity of 7,000 years ago, it is of great interest that God made light first. The fact that He made light first opens up possibilities for what was done with that light and, since a God capable of creating all things does not do things for no reason, this tells us that He deliberately created light first and therefore had specific purposes for that light. He created light aside from the source stars and Sun. This points us farther into the scripture but today this is where we end.

Because today is Father's Day I say Happy Father's Day to all dads everywhere! My biological father passed away, but my Father God still remains. I am blessed to have six children and three grandchildren. I have taught them that God is their ultimate Father and I am just the guy in between. They really belong to Him and not to me and to teach them and guide them and help them find their way is my responsibility as well as my pleasure.

Many of you claim that I do not understand evolution, but in fact I do. I just do not believe in evolution. I have often tried to get commenters to disprove my fundamental allegations concerning the paucity of evidence for evolution and they usually either try to take the conversation elsewhere, answer the question with a question or simply accuse me of not understanding or being too dumb to comprehend evolution. Students of logic cannot possibly be impressed.

Conversely, commenters make outlandish claims about God and I could simply tell them that they do not understand the Bible. But I am actually going to take this opportunity to present an overview and an umbrella response to many specific accusations rather than just tell you that you are ignorant or stupid as is often done to me. Here we go -

1) God created everything and everyone, therefore He has ownership of and responsibility for the Universe. He created a set of natural laws that are logical and can be studied and used by mankind. He put in place a law for man's behavior and man broke the law. God has the right to punish man as He see fit. If a painter buys a canvas, a brush, and a set of paints and produces a painting, he then has the right to display it or sell it or rip it to shreds as he sees fit. It belongs to him.

2) God loves everyone. We will see as we go through Genesis that at the end of creation God says that it was good. That includes mankind. God made a spectacular Universe that is fine-tuned to allow for an Earth upon which we live and from which we can observe the Universe and try to understand it and how things work.

3) God is just. God invented right and wrong. God Himself is love and truth and light, but He made a Universe for mankind in which wrong could be chosen so that man could choose to obey God or choose to disobey Him. Adam and Eve had only one rule but unfortunately they decided to break it. A just God therefore had to punish them and the punishment had to be just. No man has the right or the intellect or the information necessary to be able to claim that God's penalty for sin is unjust. If you are not capable of creating the Universe then you do not have the perspective to know what is right and what is wrong. God has that perspective and knowledge.

4) God is merciful. God knew that mankind, having sinned, would be passing on sin down through subsequent generations. So when Adam and Eve sinned, God made changes to all of his created beings both animal and plant so that the world would not be any longer a glorious garden of peace and joy, but all of creation would be in a struggle to survive. This struggle would be instructive to mankind so that if man would be wise he would realize his need for the Creator to eventually redeem him from the struggle and restore him to a joyful relationship in the company of God.

5) God is judge. As Judge of the Universe, which He created and owns, God has the right to make covenants (legal contracts) with any and all of His creatures. God has made several agreements with mankind, all of which they have broken. The first covenant with Adam was broken and sin and death came to the world. God then made a second covenant with Adam and Eve in which they were required to make sacrifices for sin and have belief in God and follow his ways. Undoubtedly Adam and Eve learned a code of behavior from God that they passed on to their descendants. But over the years most of mankind denied God and did as they pleased until mankind in general was so evil that God decided to destroy the world that was in existence and the civilization of man with a world-wide flood, saving basic kinds of animals plus the one remaining believing family, that of Noah.

God then made agreements with Noah, with Abraham, with Isaac, with Moses and the children of Israel and with Joshua. Many of these agreements were complex with laws that were specific to that culture and that time.

6) God's covenant with Israel was more than a belief system. Many commenters take a part of the Books of the Law and accuse God of being mean or inconsistent, But the fact is that the Law was given to the portion of mankind who was willing to follow God. Those who were against God were in rebellion and legally liable for any punishment God would choose. Nevertheless God made provision for unbelievers to change their minds and join His people.

Many of the provisions of the Law were actually the legal code for a nation. Some were instructions specific for warfare, some were moral and ethical codes, some were sanitary laws. In a time in which there were no means of refrigeration and that cooking methods were primitive, prohibitions against pork (prone to salmonella poisoning) and shellfish (that spoil in many seasons easily and threaten health) and various animals prone to be scavengers were provisions meant to protect the health of the people of that day and not God deciding to be arbitrary.

7) God's covenant with Israel was broken and replaced. The Jews did not keep the Law and for many centuries their tendency to defy or ignore God or to simply pay lip service to God is thematic in prophetic literature and led to their nation, once rich and powerful, to be split and conquered and almost eliminated. God warned His people that there would be an end to these days of rebellion and hypocrisy but that He would make a way through a new covenant to bring a new and lasting solution to mankind. God told the Jews they would be conquered and carried away to other lands, and they were. God allowed the devout among the captives to rebuild the walls and the temple in Jerusalem and be a nation again, but a nation prone to be ruled by others. He warned that the temple would be destroyed and the days of The Law would come to an end. These things did happen.

8) Jesus Christ is the New Covenant. Jesus was the Lamb of God, the sacrifice worthy to pay the ultimate price for all of mankind and enact a new covenant. God offers salvation through belief in Christ via faith. If accepted, a man is legally declared free from the Law, his sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ and furthermore there is a literal change in which the spirit within a man is joined with God's spirit. If you receive Christ, you are changed on the inside and not just a criminal with a pardon. You are declared righteous and made different. The old Judaism of sacrifices and offerings was replaced with one sacrifice and offering, Christ.

Jesus died on a cross in Jerusalem and, at that time, the sun was darkened unexpectedly, and some people who had died were reported to have risen from their graves. The massive veil, which surrounded the Holy of Holies in the Temple and separated the presence of God from those in the Temple, that veil ripped from the top down and the Holy of Holies was exposed. But there was no longer any presence of God there, He had abandoned the Temple for the old covenant was gone and a new one in place. As predicted, the Temple itself was completely destroyed within one generation of the crucifixion of Christ in 70 AD as the Romans burned and tore it down stone-by-stone as they killed almost the entire Jewish population of Jerusalem.

Judaism as established by the Mosaic covenant was ended when Christ died and rose again, and God made sure to put an exclamation point on this by having the Temple completely destroyed.
The old Law was no longer in effect. Today you will find no Jews who keep the Law and do the sacrifices and offerings as laid out in the Books of the Law. After Christ rose from the dead, some Jews followed the new Way of Christ and some adhered to the old ways...until the Temple was destroyed.

9) God's Law is Love. We are told in the New Testament that the old laws and ordinances were nailed to the cross with Christ. We are told that the Old Testament is "for our learning" but that our law now is that of love. If we follow the ways of Christ we will seek to obey God by loving others. Loving others means making the effort to not simply adhere to a set of instructions but to proactively seek to do good. Certainly knowing the Ten Commandments and the history of the human race as told in scripture helps us know and understand God and to define love. There are OT books that have much wisdom, such as the Book of Proverbs, and yet Christians do not seek to obey a written set of instructions, they seek to be led by God by a combination of God's leading within our spirits and the wisdom gained by reading and knowing the Bible and understanding which portions are written TO Christians and which are written FOR us.

10) The Bible must be studied and believed to be understood. You must understand the context of each book, sometimes a specific portion of the book. You need to know who wrote the book, to whom it was written and how it fits into the sum of the Bible. Yes, in one place the Bible may tell you to go to war and kill every man and woman and even animal in one area and, in another place, turn your cheek when you are struck. In context these are not confusing but to the outsider looking in it seems like God keeps changing His mind. But it is man and the legal agreements between man and God that have changed, not God.

Example: People are shocked to know that Adam and Eve's sons and daughters married each other but God did not prohibit this behavior at that time and genetically it was not unwise. But by the time Moses was giving the Law to the Jews, relationships between brother and sister and aunts and uncles and so on were now prohibited and genetically this also makes sense, because degradation in the DNA of mankind meant that intermarriage of close relatives would be asking for mutations.

The most common marriage in the history of mankind is between cousins. Now we know enough about genetics to understand that in these times cousin marriage can present some inherent dangers to the offspring. But this was not so in Mosaic times nor was it so in the time of Christ.
The culture of man has also changed. In Mosaic times men were becoming more likely to gather together into bigger and bigger cities and the percentage of those devoted to agriculture and animal herding was beginning to shrink. Now very few of us do what virtually everyone did in the time of Abraham, which was either to plant crops, raise animals, or both.

11) Man has changed, God has adjusted. God has remained a loving father who has adjusted His relationship with mankind over the years just as human fathers do with their children. When my children were very young I had very few rules and allowed very few freedoms. When they got older I worked hard to add both rules and responsibilities as they became more sophisticated and capable. Over the years I relaxed rules and gave over responsibilities to them, having worked on "putting the box inside the kid instead of putting the kid inside a box" during their childhood days.

Now there are four kids that live with us, three of them 21 years old or older and one about to enter his senior year of high school. Needless to say if we had to have an involved set of rules for these kids to obey there would be lots of hassle and grief and conflict. But we have raised our kids to be in agreement with us fundamentally and they respect our position as parents and providers. My kids let me know where they are going and what they are doing and I have almost no rules or prohibitions, giving them free reign because I love them and trust them and they are old enough to be responsible in large measure for themselves. They live here in order to finish their schooling and Debbie and I are glad to provide a launching pad for their lives. We are now in a state of mutual respect and concern for one another.

Because of this, having adult kids living at home is a pleasure rather than a burden.

God has such a relationship with me. We have a trust and love relationship. He has not burdened me with long lists of laws but trusts my judgment and expects that I will make the effort to do as He would do. Like the relationship between me and my kids, my God has given me the foundational absolutes to live by and the freedom to live out my life without a boom hovering over me waiting to be lowered.

12) You can therefore understand in one of two ways. You can read all of this from the outside looking in, understand that God is a Father and a judge and the owner of the Universe and comprehend that He has made legal and binding contracts with man that mankind has broken. You can comprehend that God's mercy has led Him to continue to offer new contracts and new ways for mankind to be redeemed until such time as He could offer a final and all-inclusive one-size-fits-all agreement in which He does all the work and all we need to do is accept. You can understand that from the outside looking in. Or, you could accept the offer and be on the inside looking out.

I have got to tell you, the view is a LOT better from in here!!!!!

God, thank you for creating all things and giving me life and a chance to live and love and know my Creator God! I am thankful I had a human father who loved me and a Heavenly Father who loves me still. He is your Father, too. I hope that, if you do not know Him, that you someday take the opportunity to do so.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Many of you claim that I do not understand evolution, but in fact I do. I just do not believe in evolution. I have often tried to get commenters to disprove my fundamental allegations concerning the paucity of evidence for evolution and they usually either try to take the conversation elsewhere, answer the question with a question or simply accuse me of not understanding or being too dumb to comprehend evolution."

Do we really need to provide you with yet another list of arguments you were unable to respond to, inconsistencies you could not address?

"Students of logic cannot possibly be impressed."

I imagine "students of logic" would have a chuckle at your inability to comprehend either the fallacy of division or the fallacy of composition, and would give you a good rap on the knuckles for your countless strawman arguments.

"Conversely, commenters make outlandish claims about God and I could simply tell them that they do not understand the Bible."

Yes, you could, but you're missing a crucial distinction here: we do not profess to know and understand the Bible inside out (though some of us are curious how believers account for some of its inconsistencies, seeing as every last word of it is supposed to be the Word of God), while on the other hand you repeatedly profess to know and understand the theory of evolution - and at the same time make claims that contains such glaring errors that can only be explained by ignorance or willful intellectual dishonesty.

"But I am actually going to take this opportunity to present an overview and an umbrella response to many specific accusations rather than just tell you that you are ignorant or stupid as is often done to me."

We do not "just tell you that you are ignorant or stupid", we examine your argument and take it apart, show you where it doesn't add up, and in addition to that deduce that you are either lacking in knowledge of the subject matter or willfully misrepresent them.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper,

You don't have any primary points of the teaching of evolution that I have not addressed. You can and will not show any glaring errors that I have presented about evolution. I welcome you to bring it on if you think so...

Anonymous said...

Off the top of my head, the blindingly obvious: your claim that the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar, what do you think: can an atheist be a good person?

Anonymous said...

Creation Story Retold... With Science!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69EHLSnWKNQ&feature=channel_page

- Canucklehead

radar said...

creeper said "Off the top of my head, the blindingly obvious: your claim that the theory of evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into something other than bacteria in a limited lab experiment."

Suddenly ten thousand generations of bacteria in controlled conditions being manipulated in an effort to make them mutate becomes a "limited lab experiment?" These bacteria were given special nutrients, special environments, varied conditions and all in hopes of presenting examples of evolution in action. We did observe some speciation but that fits the creation model, so so far it is a swing and a miss for evolution.

To me, this is an example of evolution being tested and failing to be demonstrated.

~

Now, as to an atheist being a good person. That depends on the definition of "good." Jesus Christ said that there was none good but God. No one is all good. So neither an atheist or a Christian can be all good all the time.

So that means we need to consider it from the level of a common man. Can an atheist be a useful member of society, be basically law-abiding, good to kids and dogs and a good citizen? Absolutely!

I do not think of atheists as boogie men. I know a few atheists personally that are, by the standard of normal society, great guys and a couple of them are friends. Naturally the subject of God and salvation comes up from time to time with my atheist friends but I don't bombard them with the subject.

I believe that most atheists in Western society adhere to a great extent to the moral code that came from Biblical sources and upon which this country was founded. The USA was founded on Christian principles but, like God Himself, one of the tenets of America is freedom first. All Americans are free to worship God or not worship at all within the boundaries of the social and legal limits we have determined to be in the best interests of society.

What concerns me is the continual attack on the moral foundations, the very foundations from which our freedoms spring. Homosexuals want gay marriage, pedophiles want man-boy love, eugenicists and racists and hedonists want easy abortion, some radical atheists want to take the Christian underpinnings of America right out from under us...So many groups with specific agendas who do not know history or simply do not care!


But the average atheist is not involved in destroying the nation or ruining our culture. The average atheist is going about living his or her life.

I live across the street from some friendly atheists. We chat, I gave him some extra drywall I had left over from a project (before I got ill) last year, we helped them find a Rottweiler puppy. They are newlyweds who lived together before marriage. We didn't scold them or judge them, we just treat them as neighbors. I helped one of their friends fix a car that broke down in front of their house.

My wife and I have let them know about our faith and offered to talk with them about it and/or take them to church with us. We don't try to cram anything down their throats. We hope they become believers some day. We are not alarmed to live across the street from atheists.

radar said...

so, creeper, your first blindingly obvious example falls flat.

If tens of thousands of generations of bacteria do not demonstrate evolution, how many generations would you require?

How many generations of mankind could there possibly have been? A generation for a man is usually figured to be forty years but you could hustle the process down to twenty years. At a blinding speed of reproduction, ten thousand generations of bacteria would take mankind between 200,000 and 400,000 years. If no discernible changes happen in long-lived organisms over hundreds of thousands of years and no fossils are ever found with systems in process of forming or changing then where are you?

Anonymous said...

"Suddenly ten thousand generations of bacteria in controlled conditions being manipulated in an effort to make them mutate becomes a "limited lab experiment?""

Umm... could you define what you mean by the following terms?

1. Limited.

2. Lab experiment.

Could you explain in what way you think they don't apply to the experiments in question?

Was it not a lab experiment?

Do you think the experiment was unlimited in scope?

"These bacteria were given special nutrients, special environments, varied conditions and all in hopes of presenting examples of evolution in action."

Which in fact they did present, your obfuscation to the contrary aside.

"We did observe some speciation but that fits the creation model, so so far it is a swing and a miss for evolution."

??? Just because creation has been forced to co-opt some aspects of evolution does not mean that this experiment does not demonstrate evolution.

Do you seriously mean to suggest that this experiment was a "creationism vs. evolution" experiment, and that if the bacteria did speciate, it was a victory for creationism?

I could see how you could co-opt the result for creationism, claiming that it's compatible for that as well, but to claim that the result somehow is a strike against the theory of evolution...

"To me, this is an example of evolution being tested and failing to be demonstrated."

The fact that this means that to you and that you keep repeating this indicates such a substantial gap in your understanding of both biology and the theory of evolution that I wonder if any of your followers are willing to defend this. Highboy? Anyone?

First of all, speciation is macroevolution, not microevolution.

Second, the theory of evolution does not predict that bacteria would turn into "something other than bacteria" within 10,000 or so generations. Bacteria turning into "something other than bacteria" would constitute an extremely high order of macroevolution, and would be extremely unlikely to be observed in a limited lab experiment according to the theory of evolution. Actually, it would turn current understanding of biology and the theory of evolution upside down.

Third, the theory of evolution would not predict that bacteria would sprout arms and legs in such an experiment. You seem to have no idea what bacteria even are.

Fourth... I notice you've avoided responding to scohen taking your reasoning to its natural conclusion, which unfortunately would mean that we as humans would not be able to survive if bacteria routinely "turned into something other than bacteria" every 10,000 generations or so.

And no, this is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I said "you are ignorant and therefore your argument is invalid".

In logical terms, this is a deduction. You making this claim is not compatible with an intellectually honest person who has an understanding of both biology and the theory of evolution, and so we can deduce at least one of the following:

1. You are not intellectually honest, i.e. you're willfully misrepresenting the argument.

2. You don't know what the theory of evolution would predict in the experiment in question.

3. You don't know what bacteria are and what it means for bacteria to turn into something "other than bacteria".

4. You run a parody blog.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"so, creeper, your first blindingly obvious example falls flat."

You wish...

"If tens of thousands of generations of bacteria do not demonstrate evolution, how many generations would you require?"

For a living creature to switch domains... a lot more. Last time around it took about 3-4 billion years. How many generations is that?

"How many generations of mankind could there possibly have been? A generation for a man is usually figured to be forty years but you could hustle the process down to twenty years. At a blinding speed of reproduction, ten thousand generations of bacteria would take mankind between 200,000 and 400,000 years. If no discernible changes happen in long-lived organisms over hundreds of thousands of years and no fossils are ever found with systems in process of forming or changing then where are you?"

Please familiarize yourself with what bacteria actually are. They are not just little animals, they are a separate domain.

Radar, what you keep proposing is tantamount to suggesting that humans turn to trees or vice versa in about 400,000 years.

Can you understand that this brands you as either being entirely unserious this issue or ignorant of current understanding of biology and the theory of evolution, and that it makes a mockery of your claim that "in fact I do understand evolution"?

Can you understand that?

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper,

So I guess you are the one who lacks comprehension. You may understand evolution but you fail to comprehend that other people can also understand the issues and it doesn't require seven degrees in various fields to "get it."

A bacteria is a relatively simple organism compared to a human being. An eyeball is far more complex than an e coli and a human being has hundreds, no, thousands of systems that are more complex than one complete bacterial organism. To equate any evolution from bacteria to any other organism to a jump from a human to a tree is ridiculous in the extreme. That is an amazing statement that implies that you eiher think the readership is not too bright or that you are using "the big lie" method. Because that one is a whopper!

So, do you really think other readers have no understanding of this subject at all or are you afraid to discuss it seriously? How do you expect people to think that organisms evolved into increasingly complex beings from very simple ones when you cannot demonstrate any evolution at all in a simple organism that is in
fact continuing to be what it was initially created to be.

Microevolution is creationism 101. We call it speciation or variation within kind. It involves the shuffling or loss of existing genetic information, and no new information within the gene pool is required. This is how we get wolves and dogs and how we get various kinds of dogs and certain specific breeds of cows from generic wild cattle and so on. Speciation happens in nature as the organisms adjust to conditions and people can breed for specific traits by understanding basic Mendelian principles with a few modern upgrades.

You need Macroevolution. You need brand new genetic information coming into or appearing within the genome that takes one kind of creature and converts it into another kind.

I supppose your last comment truly deserves a post onto itself so I can once and for all expose the canards you use to fool the nonscientific average mindset. I know you are smarter than that but I am trying to get you to quit hiding behind perceived ignorance and bring on the real arguments, if you have any.

WomanHonorThyself said...

HAPPY FATHERS DAY FRIEND!!!

Anonymous said...

Not a single lie in my comments at all. You can repeat your fallacious claim all you want, but any reader of this blog can easily find their way to a dictionary and see my statements confirmed. So please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words like "bacteria", "speciation", "microevolution", "macroevolution".

It is no lie nor a whopper of any kind to suggest that bacteria jumping domain would be a similar leap to a man evolving into a tree over a similar number of generations. It is just as unlikely and absurd. Again, look up what "bacteria" means and ask yourself what "something other than bacteria" would mean.

That is the extent of the absurdity you have been flogging as a supposed test of the theory of evolution. Of course, the theory of evolution predicts nothing of the kind, and what you're presenting - to any "students of logic" out there - is a classic example of a strawman argument: present an argument that is different from what you are arguing against but that is easier to bat down, and then argue against that instead. It's a pity that the actual theory of evolution isn't that easy to argue against, right, Radar?

I'm pretty sure you know what "limited" and "lab experiment" mean, so I'm a little surprised by your incredulity that the limited lab experiments in question were exactly that.

"I am trying to get you to quit hiding behind perceived ignorance and bring on the real arguments, if you have any."

We can gladly go through them all again, I'm sure we've covered a few over the past several years. Since this is your blog, we've mostly been going through your attempted rebuttals of evolution/an old Earth etc.

But surely it would be a lot easier if you ever read this stuff to begin with, wouldn't it? Or, since you claim to have read it, perhaps a massive refresher is in order. You would not be able to make some of these statements if you were actually familiar with either The Origin of Species or any texts on the modern theory of evolution. I know, you think they're all propaganda and so on - but then don't go professing that you understand them or are even familiar with them.

See, when you point out something about the bible that I don't know, I don't go running around boasting that I know all there is to know about the bible. Yet when you display a massive gap in knowledge of biology or evolution, you don't simply acknowledge that and try to find out more - you double down and repeat your nonsense, without addressing any of the problems pointed out to you.

-- creeper

PS: BTW, Woman Honor Thyself - what do you make of this? How about you, Highboy?

radar said...

very well, consider the gauntlet thrown down, creeper, many of your statements are false and I will present my side of the issue and let the readers decide which seems more reasonable to them.

Anonymous said...

Have at it.

-- creeper

Chaos Engineer said...

About bacteria evolving into something else: I guess a good starting point would be the Wikipedia Timeline of Evolution.

It seems like it's hard for bacteria to evolve. As far as we can tell from the fossil record, it took 1.8 billion years for prokaryotes (simple bacteria) to evolve into eukaryotes (fancy bacteria), and then another billion years to get from fancy bacteria to true multicellular life forms. Those two steps are about 75% of the history of life on the planet.

So it's not suprising that we haven't observed bacteria evolving into multicellular life forms.

If we want to try to reproduce macroevolution in the lab, the transition from anthropoid to human is quicker and a lot more theologically interesting. We could take a large population of chimps, and see if we could cause them to evolve into something with more-or-less human intelligence and language ability.

Of course it would be immoral to actually do the experiment, but there's nothing wrong with just thinking about it.

According to the Wikipedia chart, it took about 2.3 million years to do that through normal evolution. I think we could cut that down to a couple hundred thousand years if we really tried. What does everyone else think?

Anonymous said...

There's a very predictable ad hominem argument re. Wikipedia that Radar will be making on this blog any moment now...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

radar said:

I know a few atheists personally that are, by the standard of normal society, great guys and a couple of them are friends.

So, do you think these people will go to hell after they die, to suffer for all eternity?

radar said...

radar said:

I know a few atheists personally that are, by the standard of normal society, great guys and a couple of them are friends.

So, do you think these people will go to hell after they die, to suffer for all eternity?


Yes. For this reason I bring the subject up with them from time to time. If I just talked about it constantly with them they would avoid me and never hear it at all as far as I would know. But if I never bring it up I then have the concern that they may die before knowing God. So I try to use tact and wisdom and patience.

In the case of emergency, such as when my father lay near death in the hospital, I called him out and demanded to know, yes or no, did he ever actually receive Christ as Savior? I would not be put off. He told me that he had, why he had not followed Christianity closely but also that he had kept a relationship with God through the years in prayer and conversation within his thoughts with a God that was very real to him. I did not agree with his philosophy of what Christianity in action should be but I sure was happy to know he was a believer!

If my good buddy Jared was ill, I would confront him with everything I could muster about Christ versus Buddhaism. For now, as he is healthy enough to have run the marathon across the Great Wall of China this year and is much younger than me, I am patient and just bring it up now and again.

I write this blog because I want every reader to consider Jesus Christ seriously, yes, even creeper. Now, in this venue I constantly harp on it but since the blog will not follow you around you, the reader, can access it as you will. So you only get as much of me and my views as you wish.

radar said...

Funny how wikipedia is a terrible source unless it supports evolution, at which point it is linked and trumpeted!!

Not one of you can prove that bacteria evolutionary timeline, so you are speculating and I hopefully will clobber that speculation with my two Canard posts.

Anonymous said...

Radar, do you think these people - who are, by your own words, great people - deserve that fate: to suffer for all eternity?

Anonymous said...

creeper: "There's a very predictable ad hominem argument re. Wikipedia that Radar will be making on this blog any moment now..."

radar: "Funny how wikipedia is a terrible source unless it supports evolution, at which point it is linked and trumpeted!!"

Like clockwork...

Oh and FWIW, I don't think of Wikipedia as a terrible source, at least for an initial summary and link to further sources.

"Not one of you can prove that bacteria evolutionary timeline, so you are speculating and I hopefully will clobber that speculation with my two Canard posts."

It's a little more than idle speculation, but we look forward to your posts and the logical fallacies therein...

"I write this blog because I want every reader to consider Jesus Christ seriously, yes, even creeper. "

That's sweet of you, but just to let you know, anti-science and homophobia may be among the least persuasive pro-Jesus arguments. When you dish out one fallacy after another and refuse to respond to follow-up questions, do you really think that makes people go "Hey, maybe there is something to this Jesus thing."?

"If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up." -- Woody Allen

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Scientific errors in the Bible - an expert speaks