Wesley R. Elsberry
Unregistered
|
| Quote |
Comment #59369
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 22, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)
Carol Clouser wrote:
Wesley,
If we had a statement signed by 10,000 evangelicals supporting intelligent design and criticizing evolution this thread would be dripping wet with ridicule, sarcasim and insults directed against those clerics much milder than what I said here and nobody, including yourself, would even have raised an eyebrow. Now that you think you have found new allies in the battle against the great enemy of intelligent design you have developed an inflated sensitivity to the feelings of the clerics issuing the statement.
I am not impressed.
Whatever Carol.s belief system is, by her behavior in this example it is laid upon a foundation of moral relativism. This isn.t about me just as it isn.t about PT. Carol will look in vain for me impugning the faith of those who take stances opposite mine on this issue. And when I moderated the Fidonet Evolution Echo, I was assiduous in enforcing the rule there that the topic was to be on the science, neither promoting nor denigrating religion. Lenny can tell you about that. Here at PT, religious issues are not off-topic, and, yes, we have some people here who are not respectful of religious belief. As atheists, that.s not expected of them. A thought: perhaps Carol is an atheist? An atheist with an obsession to score theists on some personal prejudices concerning what faith theists .ought to. have?
This, though, is about Carol and her continuing glibness in asserting that almost 10,000 clergy.s faith is such that they should .just give it up!.
Yeah, I.m not impressed, either.
As to an antievolution list, well, those things are pretty common. And certainly an evangelical or collection thereof expressing an opposition to antievolution is nothing new. But the big lie being spread about that one needs to choose between faith and evolutionary biology is directly exposed by the success of the Clergy Project. It is this that I think causes some people of faith to forget their manners entirely and fail to listen to their conscience.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59370
Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 22, 2005 10:54 AM (e) (s)
Russell:
I prefer humanocentrism exactly because it doesn.t mix Latin and Greek roots. See, I.ve never studied Greek, but I endured seven gruesome years of Latin, and despite my best efforts some of it stuck.
But of course anthropocentrism is fine too. .Pinnacle of Creation., indeed!
|
| Quote |
Comment #59372
Posted by k.e. on November 22, 2005 11:24 AM (e) (s)
Carol
I know you love Jesus, but who do you love Jesus against?
|
| Quote |
Comment #59374
Posted by Wayne Francis on November 22, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)
|
| Quote |
Comment # 59363
Carol Clouser wrote:
Comment #59363
Posted by Carol Clouser on November 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)
Wayne Francis,
Let me first ask you not to jump to conclusions about what I believe, of which I spoke not at all..
Carol, I asked you a question.
|
| Quote |
Comment # 59275
Wayne Francis wrote:
Comment #59275
Posted by Wayne Francis on November 21, 2005 08:17 PM (e) (s)
Carol, I would like to ask how you can reconcile 6 day creation with science that clearly shows that this is false from a scientific stand point. Some say that .yom. in the original texts does not mean a 24 hour day and I.m just wondering what your standpoint is on this issue. To be candid I.m just starting at the beginning of the bible where I see conflicts if you have a literal reading of the bible.
Looking forward to your answer where I probably will pose another simple question to you.
Let me point out that I said I.m just wondering what your standpoint is on this issue.
to which you replied
|
| Quote |
Comment # 59311
carol clouser wrote:
Comment #59311
Posted by carol clouser on November 21, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s)
.
Wayne Francis,
The translation of the Hebrew .yom. is of course, as you indicate, only the tip of the iceberg. Which is why books have been written on this subject. Hebrew is particularly difficult to translate accurately because it consists of few words, many with multiple and borrowed meanings. But the short answer to your question is this: yom is used hundreds of times in the Bible. About ten percent of these it refers to an .era., a period of time characterized by some development or feature. Other times it refers to a period of daylight and yet other times it refers to a 24 hour cycle of day and night. We cannot take a vote here and follow the majority because it may very well be that the Bible had no need to talk about eras as frequently as ordinary days. It helps if the context leads us to one translation or another. And in the story of Genesis there are quite a few .yoms., besides the first seven at the beginning, that MUST refer to eras. Landa also cites other considerations that point in this direction. So the preponderance of the evidence leads to the yom in creation as era..
So you either evaded answering my or I rightly took this
carol clouser wrote:
And in the story of Genesis there are quite a few .yoms., besides the first seven at the beginning, that MUST refer to eras.
as your answer but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt so I asked for confirmation and if it was correct posed another question
|
| Quote |
Comment # 59344
Wayne Francis wrote:
Comment #59344
Posted by Wayne Francis on November 22, 2005 06:40 AM (e) (s)
Carol, so you say that you believe the days of creation in Genesis refer to era? Do I understand you correctly? How do you reconcile this with the fact that Genesis 1:5-1:23 constantly use .veyhe erev. .veyhe voker. near yom indicating that it is talking about a 24 hour cycle by referring to morning and evening?
So I have to now assume by your statement of
|
| Quote |
Comment # 59363
Carol Clouser wrote:
Comment #59363
Posted by Carol Clouser on November 22, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)
Wayne Francis,
Let me first ask you not to jump to conclusions about what I believe, of which I spoke not at all..
That you indeed did evade telling me your standpoint and try to make it look like I was in the wrong for making a conclusion out of the blue.
When someone asks you a question in good faith to get a better idea of where you are coming from and you evade that question and resite other peoples points of view it is perfectly logical to assume you support those points of view. To come back and blame the person asking the initial question of putting words in your mouth only make you look bad.
I specifically asked a single direct question and you obviously have not answered such a question. This is why people here do not like engaging you because you do not go into discussion openly.
I personally can.t see how .Yom. in Gen 1:9-1:23 can mean era when right next to each use it talks about the morning and evening. They would have no need to be in there if .Yom. was to mean .Era. unless the original writers purposely wanted to confuse.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59380
Posted by k.e. on November 22, 2005 12:31 PM (e) (s)
Carol
I.ll see you on the dark side of the moon. - Pink Floyd
Man if they get the keys we are in trouble.
|
|
