Jump to content

Plankton

Member
  • Content Count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Plankton

  1. Er, yeah, for the record, I didn't ask the question. It was newbie Gravis. I would agree for the most part with what you said; I believe there was a very literal Fall, and a very literal flood (though like you said, they may not have happened exactly as written; certainly both make use of common poetic devices found throughout the Bible). Also, SDG: I didn't read the whole link you posted, but from what I read, it's talking about the same thing that PTC's link was; typology sounds like the same thing as the "Second Temple" method the NT writers used, and was prevalent in that day and age. Anyway, all this helps me greatly; it's a fine line to walk between taking a stance like this and being a relativist, or saying, "Well, that bit of Scripture may have applied in those days, but it doesn't anymore," (e.g. the homosexual debate). Of course, Christianity in itself is a fine line to walk, so I guess this shouldn't come as any surprise to me. I wonder if this debate belongs in another thread ... it's been a while since we discussed anything truly scientific, in relation to evolution, anyway (I've still got loads of stuff to throw at people here! ).
  2. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. But why must they all share a common idea? Perhaps we could have somekind of themed segue between short films. Any ideas? And what I was implying in my post was that we start our own film festival. Unless that's already been done.
  3. Was Star Wars ever on the list? I haven't been here that long. (And just for the record, SW is more fantasy set in space than actual sci-fi.) Invisible, I don't see why you "cheer the lack of sci-fi". Are you insinuating that sci-fi is not as spiritually significant as other genres? If so, this really is something of a narrow view to take; a genre in itself should never be judged (unless in relation to one's particular tastes); only the films within the genre should be.
  4. I'd like to point out that I didn't change my mind about taking GENESIS literally; only the creation account. I agree with Alan; I think that there was a literal flood (though I'm not sure about the forty days; that could be figurative, seeing as it's used a lot in the Bible), and that Sarah got pregnant in her 90s. Most of Genesis reads like it was meant to be taken literally; on the other hand, it seems to me (now) that the Creation account isn't, at least, not completely, due to the literary clues (I denied their existence before) that can be found, such as (from SDG): It seems likely, to me, anyway that either this was written deliberately as poetry, something to not even be taken metaphorically, but rather to "fill the gaps" ... it was obviously written under the Holy Spirit's guidance, but He didn't seem to think it was necessary that we know EXACTLY how creation took place. There's a Bible verse somewhere (Proverbs? I can't remember) that says something about how God likes to hide things so that man can discover them. This seems to be one of those instances. On the other hand, the rest of Genesis is written in a historical narrative voice, as opposed to the poetic language of the creation account(s). And thanks for that excerpt, PTC. It helped clear some things up. (Gravis, I suggest you check out the link. I think you'll recognize the author.) And here's that verse from Proverbs I mentioned: It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. - Proverbs 25: 2 (NIV)
  5. Yeah, is this a joke? 'Cause I'm seriously ticked about 2001 not making the cut.
  6. I'm starting to imagine the possibilities ... what if Ted Baehr saw it? If he gave it a "wholesome" I think I'd go hang myself. Sorry, just had to get that line in somehow. Yeah, forget the festival circuit, why don't we start our own? Or has that already been done, and I'm behind on the news? But seriously. Why doesn't everyone go out and make their own film (some collaborations could be bigger than others), and then we put them all together in a giant film collage? Yea? Nay? Is that how you spell "nay"?
  7. What about Latin? That's pretty dead. I'm seeing potential for several short films here ... what if little groups of you all got together and made your films, and then put them all together as a sort of film collage? And you could call it The Arts and Faith Film. Ooh, I like it. I'm so sad. I doubt I'll be able to participate in this, simply because I won't have time (I'm trying to get my own films made right now). Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah ...
  8. This whole discussion has really opened my eyes to a lot of things; prior to my posting on this thread, I was under the impression that the day-age theory was the only way to reconcile evolution with creation, or more specifically, to not take Genesis literally. So, I'd like to thank everyone who's participated in this discussion. It's really challenged (and changed some of) my beliefs, which I think is a good thing (provided the change is for the better). Like I said on Page 2, a lot of Christians hold those who don't take Genesis completely literally to be heretics, or at best, worldly; and I have a feeling my new unorthodox stance (what DO you call a young-earth creationist who doesn't read Genesis literally? ) won't help things. It makes me sad; a lot of Christians (including myself, prior to my participating in this discussion) really haven't looked at this issue in depth. Oh well. I bet that some of you guys take a lot more flack than I will. One thing that's really struck me is how clear-cut the debate becomes when one adheres to the framework theory; we don't know how God created things, so the evolution debate becomes entirely scientific (as opposed to metaphysical). This is what leads me to the conclusion that many on both sides of the debate have an ulterior motive for defending their position; many six-day creationists just WANT to take Genesis literally, and many atheist evolutionists don't WANT to acknowledge the existence of a Creator. But the good news is: when the next Dark Age rolls around, nobody will care anymore.
  9. Or would it be simpler to force them into posting here regularly? I suppose the equivalent in Protestantism would be believers raised in a "Christian home" who have never turned from the faith (I'm one of these). So, yeah, nothing wrong with that - remember that being a "cradle" member of any denomination doesn't necessarily mean one's faith is unexamined. I think it's spiritually strengthening to have one's faith challenged every now and again. And can someone post a link to the first review SDG does when it comes out? I'm waiting for it.
  10. OK, I've been thinking hard over everthing, and I think that, in relation to the Bible being taken literally or not, I've come to agree for the most part with you guys (I'm addressing SDG and PTC here). Yeah, I caught this one before. The main reason I adhere to the framework theory. Also realized this last night when I was thinking over everything. Yeah, this all makes sense. I definitely wouldn't call this "plagiarism", though. I just realized that if Genesis was written as a whole, early pagan myths really couldn't have stemmed from it, because those myths were there long before Genesis was written. So yeah, this makes sense too. Well, it does seem that Matthew's Gospel is a tad odd. However, I think it's quite a stretch to say that Matthew wasn't an evangelical or fundamentalist - depending on your definitions of the two. An evangelical isn't the same as a literalist. I'd like more info on the whole subject though; I don't really see how you draw our conclusion from the evidence you give. A few thoughts: I still tend towards young-earth creationism, simply because I think the scientific evidence is in favour of it. I can see how an evolutionist view is consistent with a Biblical worldview, though. The framework theory explains why there are two apparently contradictory creation accounts in Genesis. And, to really be fair, it doesn't REALLY matter from a creationist evolutionist standpoint whether mutations can add material to DNA or not - after all, God could have divinely added the material. However, it seems to me that this kind of speculation doesn't matter a whole lot; after all, if Genesis isn't meant to be taken completely literally, then God obviously doesn't think that the specific way in which He created is need-to-know info for us. As I said a Long Time Ago, the real "battle" shouldn't be between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists - it should be between theists and atheists. Even if I believed macroevolution were possibe, I would be comprimising my intellect to think it could have happened by chance. So, let's put this debate in the bin, and go out and argue with atheists instead! Ha ha, no, not yet. Still a few things to clear up. And a question: how does the Sabbath fit into all this? Genesis states that God rested on the seventh day; how can this be read? I'm also considering the verses in both creation accounts that say that God created Adam from the dust of the ground, as well as how He created Eve. Evolutionary outlook or not, I think these verses indicate that Adam and Eve had a were created specially and separate from animals.
  11. I'm wondering if another category should be added: Favourite Sketch. There are a few of them, after all. Or maybe that's for the TV section?
  12. When they find out, heck, yeah. Many of the "followers of Christ" I encounter seem to be living with the conviction that the counter-reformation never happened; in other words, they dismiss Catholics as heretics. I recall talking about Tolkien (the man, not the works) with a fellow believer once, and they refused to acknowledge his Christianity simply because he was a Catholic. Sorry for getting the thread off-topic again ... it's just that this is one of those beliefs among Christians I encounter (another is the Harry Potter debate) that really gets my dander up (even though I'm a Protestant). And excuse my ignorance ... what's a cradle Catholic?
  13. I need to check this thread more often. I simply can't find any literary clues that would suggest otherwise. Jesus' parables were obviously metaphorical; he stated that they had symbolic meanings. Likewise, Revelation is most likely metaphorical; it uses the same kind of "poetic language" that Daniel uses, and the prophecies in Daniel are specifically stated to be symbolic. But like I said, I find nothing to suggest that, apart from the framework theory clues, the account isn't meant to be taken literally. OK, I was wrong. There are evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian explosion. So what are you saying? That the Bible plagiarized pagan myths? I have read that a possible explanation for the similarities between the Bible and the myths of its time is that the said myths "evolved" from the original creation account. Uh, yeah. We can never know for sure. It seems unlikely that God created plants before the sun, but if He wanted to, I bet he could. We'll only know for sure when (like I recall you said, Chashab) when we see Him face to face. However, I think we can gain a pretty good idea from the literary elements and usages that are abundant in the Bible. As to question of being Jews, all Jews had to study the Old Testament thouroughly. I know that they had to memorize the entire Torah. Thus, I tend to think that these guys got their facts straight; there are explanations out there for the supposed "inconsistencies" that occurr in the Gospels (one note; I realize that Luke was a gentile. However, he claimed to be a historian, so I tend to think he would get his facts right, too.). Also, I have yet to hear of any "inconsistencies" that are undisputed; as far as I know, they all have possible explanations. And remember that the Holy Spirit was guiding all this; I highly doubt that He would have let blatant mistakes occurr in His Holy Scriptures.
  14. Cool. Don't want to get too off-topic here; it's just I've always been interested in Orthodoxy (even though I know next to nothing about it ).
  15. ... 'cause I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell! Ha ha. They must have been Python fans. This skit is quite well known amongst musicians.
  16. I'd also like to say: Yay! I remember how long it took me to find a great film review site with regular reviews; CT was like a dream come true. I haven't visited your site often, SDG, but I can say I'll be reading a lot more of your thoughts now. And this is weird. I had no idea PTC was Orthodox. I don't know a lot about Orthodoxy; I know there's Russian Orthodox, but what do you adhere to, PTC? Just curious.
  17. Weird. I don't even remember seeing Fiddler on the Roof on the nominations list. I hope I voted for it. I loved The Miracle Maker, but I must say I'm a bit disappointed to see it third on the list when Donnie Darko and 2001 didn't make the list at all. A bit off topic: is there a thread for films that didn't make the nominations that you wished did? If I were a rich man ...
  18. I can't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter; I only lived there some time after the film's release. Which I guess reconfirms my status as "The Kid" ...
  19. Are you allowed to vote, uh, ten times? I have a feeling that He-Who-Looks-Like-That-Guy-In-GalaxyQuest (Snape) will turn out to be good and that Dumbledore isn't dead. Or maybe he'll be ressurected? Hmm ... I predict muchos plot twists: Harry: I'll never join you! You killed my father! Voldemort: No, Harry; I am your father. Harry: I should've seen that one coming.
  20. OK, so here's why I believe Genesis should be, to some extent, taken literally. I think the Bible as a rule should be taken literally, simply because it is for the most part a history account (or it claims to be, anyway). True, there are the Psalms and Proverbs and Epistles and prophecies etc., but all of the non-history books are relevant to the history discussed in the Bible, as well as being very spiritually relevant. And in general, history accounts should be taken literally; otherwise they would somewhat fail as history accounts. Genesis is also history; it's obvious just from reading the book. So by default, the creation account should be taken literally; it wouldn't really be logical to single out one part of what claims to be a history account and choose to interpret it in a non-literal (unliteral?) way. However, there are definitely places in the Bible where things are not meant to be taken literally. Sometimes they are obvious, such as when the angel explains the symbolic meanings of Daniel's visions, or when Jesus explained his parables. Other times they are less obvious, such as in Revelation, where not all of the visions are said to have a symbolic meaning, much less explained. However, because of Revelation's figurative-sounding language, which is similar to such books as Daniel, as well and its recurring numbers and themes, I can deduce that it is probably not meant to be taken completely literally. I incline to the framework theory of Genesis; that the days of creation are not necessarily recorded in order. This is supported by the literary clues that can be found throughout the passage. But I find nothing to suggest that the days were not literal days (as seems to be required by creationist evolution); the Hebrew word for "day" in the passage specifically means a literal sun-up to sun-down day. This explains the recurring inclusion of the phrase "There was morning and there was evening; the such-and-such day." I find here not only nothing to suggest that the days referred to were not literal days, but evidence to the contrary; that the days specifically refer to literal days. On a side note, I think it's important to note that the Bible wasn't completely consistent with the scientific beliefs of its day, but we now know that many of these apparent inconsistencies are scientifically true. I can cite specific examples (for instance, the belief at the time was that earth sat on a large animal; Job 26: 7 seems to contradict this belief), but I won't bother if it won't contribute any food for thought. I bring up this issue because it seems like the creationist evolutionists here believe what they do because they believe that the scientific evidence suggests it, not because the Bible suggests it. It just seems that throughout history, the Bible has been a more reliable source of truth than the scientific beliefs of the given time; I think that's important to remember.
  21. I'm back! In relation (once again) to the question of apparently inconsistent supper gospel chronologies, I quite frankly haven't done as much research in that area as I should have. I have a feeling, however, that as Jews and personal acquaintances of Christ during His Incarnation, they would have got their facts straight. Perhaps you don't think that; I doubt we're gonna come to any kind of agreement in this area. Well, it does make a difference. When I said that we shouldn't state how God created things, I was NOT saying we shouldn't state that we are convinced that the evidence points to God creating things this or that way. I was simply saying that we should not state, as an absolute statement, how God created things (at least in the regard in question), because we'll never know for sure. That's all. OK, listen. The Cambrian explosion is an impossibility for macroevolution. Dawkins doesn't use that exact word; he calls it an imperfection. But as far as I know, it is an impossibility, unless they've come up with an explanation for it by now. And yes, if it really is an impossibility, by all means, don't believe the theory. That's what I'm advocating, remember. However, Dawkins and his colleagues have nothing better to believe (at least at the time of their quoted writing), because they believed the existence of a divine Creator was scientifically impossible. Obviously you're not coming from an atheistic stance, but what Dawkins' quote ... ... seems to be saying is that the only alternative is six-day creationism. After all, it wouldn't make much difference if God had guided macroevolution; the impossibility is still there. Perhaps you disagree with my statement that the Cambrian explosion is an impossibility with the theory. However, from his writing, Dawkins doesn't seem to disagree. The modern science vs. ancient science issue: Let's remember "we" did not make any contributions to modern science. Maybe you have; I certainly haven't. By all means, praise Edison, praise, Einstein, praise Darwin. But don't refer to the giants of science throughout history as "we". True, Edison, Einstein, Darwin etc. were ahead of their time, and advances in modern science have been brought about because men like these were, in a sense, superior, in terms of intellect at least. However, these advances TOOK TIME. "Modern science" didn't come up with everything; on the contrary, I would say that the advances were made before our time and we have benefited from them simply because we're right behind them. I think I ultimately agree with what you're saying here: the beliefs of modern science are superior to those of the ancients. But let's try to remember that "we" didn't make it happen. Giants of science, throughout history, did. Just trying to keep "us" all humble ... I don't have time to post my theory about taking the Bible literally YET. I wrote it down, but it's quite long, and this post is long enough already. I'll post it tomorrow, if I have time. I know you're all waiting for it.
  22. In relation to the two suppers debate, I'm not convinced either way. I was only suggesting a possible solution to the problem. I highly doubt that such an obvious problem would escape the notice of whatever council decided which manuscripts went into the New Testament. I did not SAY that God created, erm, creation in six days. I said I am CONVINCED that evidence supports this view. Both are absolute statements, but I am only affirming one (the latter). Some day. Not really soon; I've just started Les Miserables. : I used the word "impossibilities" to describe certain aspects of the theory of macroev; the word : does not encompass the entire theory. This is a difference that makes no difference, since if any scientist truly believed that any important aspect of "macroev" entailed "impossibilities", then he or she would have to believe that "macroev" itself was an "impossibility". Not necessarily true; evidence to the contrary may simply be lacking. However, impossibility may have been the wrong word; I used it as somewhat synonymous with "problem". Yes, but our science is only superior because we're on the tail end of it. My ultimate point is that we shouldn't think of ourselves as superior to the ancients, because frankly, we would have fared no better in their shoes. Quite possibly you agree with this view; I just got the sense from your post that you considered our culture (the people, not the science) to be somehow superior to the ancients (the people, not the science). Of course, this was probably a misreading on my part. I don't have time now (it's midnight as I type), and I probably won't be able to post for the next couple of days, but I have outlined why I believe the Bible should for the most part be taken literally. So when I get the chance, I'll post it.
  23. Point taken. Guess I'll stay a bit longer.
  24. OK, listen. We can argue for months over this issue. I'm completely convinced the evidence is for six-day creationism, you're convinced it's for macroevolution. I seriously doubt if either of us is going to "convert" the other. So, I think it would be a good idea to simply acknowledge there are problems with both of our views, part on amicable terms, and when we meet Him face to face and know the truth, the one can say "I told you so!" to the other. And PLEASE do not think I'm "backing down", so to speak; I've got tonnes more stuff to throw at you, as you undoubtedly have for me, but this is taking up way too much of my time. I haven't posted in the Film section for days. Just two more things though, related to the ways you read what I was saying: I used the word "impossibilities" to describe certain aspects of the theory of macroev; the word does not encompass the entire theory. What I was getting at is that modern health care is not a result of our superior intelligence; it is a result of great minds slowly building it up over years of speculation, research, and to a certain extent, standing on the shoulders of giants. Anyway, unless you bring up any other issues, I'll probably just step out of this discussion.
  25. I would say that the burden of proof is actually yours; generally speaking, the Bible should be taken literally, and there should be ample evidence to suggest otherwise in any case. For instance, Revelation seems like it should not be taken literally, simply because many of the prophecies in it are obviously symbolic; I say this because the prophecies in Daniel are very similar in terms of symbolic language, and the angel who was with Daniel specifically told him that they were symbolic. Therefore, we (or at least, I) can say that there is ample evidence that Revelation is not meant to be taken literally. On the other hand, I see nothing in Genesis, other than the framework theory, to suggest that it should not be taken literally. If you do, please supply me with some examples. Judging by the state of health care in Canada, I'll go with theirs. But seriously, I'm using the term "we" collectively. Unless I'm much mistaken, neither you nor I came up with any modern medicines. They were developed over time, and while it's easy to say that "we" are way more advanced than the ancients, "we've" just had more time to come up with these things. And only a few of "us" actually came up with these things; I mean, I certainly didn't discover atomic power, or how to build a rocket, or even that the earth is round. These things happened over time, but "we", at the tail end of discovery, have benefited from all history's discoveries. There's just been lots more time for people to gain more knowledge. Also, compared to God's knowledge, we really don't know anything. That was one of the main points I was driving at. Look. God knows how to create a universe. You don't, I don't. We don't know a fraction of how it works. You and I shouldn't state how God created this or that or how long it took or what he was thinking, just like you shouldn't claim to know what was going through Spielberg's mind when he made Jaws or how he did this or that. The only way we CAN state these things is if the creator in question (God or Spielberg) reveals these things to us; Spielberg does it through the press and documentaries etc., God does it through the Bible. And so far, I have found nothing in the Bible that states how God created the universe or how it was supposed to look; He seems to be content to keep that part hidden from us. Yes. Note that I admitted that. Actually ... Dr. David Raup in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January, 1979: Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, ushc as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information. It would seem that in 1979 there weren't many "intermediate varieties". If there have been any since, please cite examples. See my previous notes; it seems they were short on geological evidence. Dude, macroev DEPENDS on mutation to even exist as a theory. If mutation doesn't work, the theory crumbles. Perhaps you should. Why yes. The forearms of a bats, birds, porpoises, and humans look extremely similar in terms of structure. And if their similarities are a result of having a common ancestor, then the parts of their DNA that contain the information regarding the forearms should be similar. After all, traits are passed from parent to parent to offspring through DNA. If each one of these creatures inherited its forearm structure from a common ancestor, then the portions of DNA which contain information about the forearm would all have come from that same common ancestor. Therefore, those portions of the DNA should be similar from organism to organism. However ... Dr. Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) (which, it is important to note, is not advocating six-day creationism but rather pointing out the flaws in the theory of macroevolution) says: The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species ... With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished. No one specifically states that macroev is impossible, but I wasn't making that claim. I claimed that some scientists have acknowledged the problems with macroev, yet blah blah blah. It's there in my quote. Anyway, about those names: Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker (1996) on the problem of the Cambrian explosion: It is as though they (the fossils) were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists ... Both schools of though (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that thay are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. It appears that the whole of both evolutionary schools of though acknowledge this particular problem. A few more notes ... Er, God didn't say WHEN they would surely die. He said they WILL surely die, implying an indefinite time in the future. I don't see how your "day" and Adam's millennial life argument fits together. It is possible that two different meals are being referred to here; there might have been an evening meal before the actual Passover feast. I note that John in his account of the evening meal doesn't mention Jesus breaking bread. Also, the Feast lasted over seven days, which explains the bit with the Jewish authorites. I used the wrong word here. I meant, it's easy to look at Genesis and think that a literal translation would be impossible. Please look over my argument again, bearing in mind that's what I meant.
×
×
  • Create New...