Results 141 - 160 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Earth was without form, and void. | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 20057 | ||
Further Support ............................... Dear Hank, Thank you for this excellent post. I see that you posted basically the same thing on 6-22-01. I really wish that more people would do a search on something before asking a question about it. I am glad that you were here to answer it again though. I think the reason why your answer is the best is that it not only supports there not being any men before Adam and Eve, but also supports the Truth of the KJV. Although the KJV is not my first translation of choice, I have a fundamental belief that God has protected the accuracy of His Word in all major translations. Therefore, I appreciate that you are able to explain this confusion not based on the KJV being wrong and the other versions right, but based on them all being right, and only our ignorance of definitions being wrong. |
||||||
142 | who did cain marry? | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 36662 | ||
Personal Note ......................................... After being gone for several months, I happened to be passing by today, and with both humor and sadness, I see that the forum is still stuck answering who Cain married. I once (and possibly still do) believe that this forum had so much greater potential. |
||||||
143 | who did cain marry? | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 36838 | ||
Personal Note ............................................. Dear Tim and Hank, Thanks for the "welcome back". It is good to hear from old friends again. Regretfully, it will be a while yet before I can return to regular posting. Until then, keep running the race as for the prize. P.S. I like the "Circus Maximus" description of the forum, there is truth in that on so many levels! |
||||||
144 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20091 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear CDBJ, I have never been to the ICR website before, and after your post regarding what you found there, I checked it out myself. I did come across the idea that you mentioned about it not making sense for God to create using evolution because of all the suffering required and the inefficiency of it all. I agree with you that this is not the best reasoning against the "Gap Theory". However, I also came across the point that I'll quote below. I think that it, on the other hand, is very good. It talks about the "Gap Theory"s acceptance of the ancient age of the Earth (assumed due to the geologic record), followed by the re-creation narrative in the rest of Genesis 1. "Thus, acceptance or the geologic ages implicitly involves acceptance of the whole evolutionary package. Most of the fossil forms preserved in the sedimentary rocks have obvious relatives in the present world, so that the "re-creation" concept involves the Creator in "re-creating" in six days of the same animals and plants which had been previously developed slowly over long ages, only to perish violently in a great pre-Adamic cataclysm. The gap theory, therefore, really does not face the evolution issue at all, but merely pigeon-holes it in an imaginary gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It leaves unanswered the serious problem as to why God would use the method of slow evolution over long ages in the primeval world, then destroy it, and then use the method of special creation it to re-create the same forms He had just destroyed." |
||||||
145 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20210 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear CDBJ, I was hoping that you would respond to my post (10-24-01) on this subject. Do you have any thoughts? Also as for the coal, pitch idea. Just because it is organic doesn't mean that it was once alive. As others have pointed out, if we found Adam or Eve's skeleton, we would assume that they were once children and then grew to be adults. However, God just created them at the adult stage of life. Similarly, God could have just created the Earth with those organic materials (pitch, etc.) already there. The presence of tar doesn't prove that the Earth is ancient, and the Gap theory doesn't make sense (see note 10-24-01). |
||||||
146 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Sir Pent | 20801 | ||
Personal Note ............................. Dear CDBJ, I'm still waiting. |
||||||
147 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17685 | ||
I agree with you Norrie. I also believe Genesis is meant to be taken in a straightforward and literal manner. There are some Christians (mainly in academia) who believe that the beginning of Genesis (creation, the garden, etc.) is only figurative. They mainly base this on the idea that the literary style it is written in is an ancient form of poetry. However, even these people do not believe such far-fetched ideas as Cain being the son of Satan. Is your friend a Christian or a member of some sort of cult? I would be a bit concerned for them if they are being taught and believing such ideas. |
||||||
148 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Sir Pent | 17826 | ||
Dear Norrie, It seems that my hunch about the cult background was correct (JW). I agree with Hank that she SEEMS to be very closed to the truth right now. Many people would consider spending time and energy on a person like that to be "casting pearls before swine". However, I would disagree. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist/optimist, but I think that you should continue trying to help her develop a relationship with the true God. Sometimes when people are fighting their hardest to be independent, it is because on the inside, they feel like they're about to fall apart. There is a word of warning here though. Imagine a person standing on a chair and another person standing beside them on the ground. It is much easier for the person on the ground to pull the person down to the ground than it is for the person on the chair to pull the person up to the chair. Similarly, it will be much easier for your friend to bring confusion, misconceptions, and possibly sin into your life than for you to lead them to truth, clarity, and a healthy relationship with God. This is especially true if you have not studied the Bible as deeply as they have (like it sounds like you're saying). If this is the case, then it becomes absolutely critical that you surround yourself with Godly counsel to support you in your own faith. Your local church and even this forum would be, in my opinion essential to your own spiritual well-being. |
||||||
149 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 19965 | ||
Welcome to the Forum ............................. Dear Spark, I am very glad that you have joined our discussion group here. I hope that this forum will be as helpful for you as it has been for me. There are many people here who have pretty well thought out ideas on a broad range of subjects relating to Christianity. I would like to respond to several things in your post. First I would agree with you that animals do have the ability to be "rational". The dictionary defines rational as the ability to reason. It defines reason as the ability to calculate, comprehend, and think in an orderly manner. I think it is obvious that animals exhibit this to a limited degree. A tiger "calculates" what angle to chase it's prey, and exactly when to pounce in order to catch it. Pavlov's dog experiment showed clearly that animals could learn to associate things in an orderly manner. The second thing in your post that I would like to respond to is your desire for no Bible quotations. Since this is a Bible Forum, this request seems a little "unreasonable" :) I do understand that as a non-Christian it would not be authoritative for you though. I would encourage you to do a search on this site for previous posts regarding the Truth of the Bible. There has been some very good discussion on that subject. The final thing that I would like to mention is that I hope that you will continue to dialog with us here on the forum. As a non-Christian, you probably have many questions about Christianity, and I hope that we will be able to help answer at lest some of them. |
||||||
150 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20063 | ||
Clarification, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, I do not think that we actually disagree with each other on this matter. Instead, I think that we are talking about two different things. You are talking about a spiritual rationality and I am speaking of a physical rationality. I assume that we both agree that both of these exist. The Bible clearly seperates Godly wisdom from earthly wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). It also talks about how one could "see without seeing" and "hear without understanding" (Matthew 13:13). It seems clear that human reason and spiritual understanding are two distinct abilities. You seem to be making the case that only humans (due to being in the image of God) have the ability to have "spiritual understanding". I agree completely. I am making the case that animals and humans both have the ability to have earthly "reasoning" (as defined in the dictionary). I think that you would agree as well. I would mention that even in this kind of rationality, there is a matter of degree (1 Corinthians 13:11), and a human has much greater reasoning than an animal. |
||||||
151 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20113 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ....................... Dear Lionstrong, Matthew 10:16 is a passage where Jesus, Himself instructs His disciples to be "shrewd as snakes" or "wise as serpents". Using these words according to their standard definitions (in the dictionary), this is saying that animals can think. Shrewd is defined as clever, which is defined as smart, which is defined as intellegent, which is defined as the ability to learn. 99 percent of people ages 5 and up would say that these are all synonomous with "thinking" and being "rational". I assume you must be using the word "rational" with some specific meaning that it ordinarily doesn't have. Perhaps if you explain how you define the word, it would help us to proceed. I don't want to be rude, but I am truly confused by your ideas on this issue. |
||||||
152 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20339 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Lionstrong, I'm not sure exactly what your point is in this post. However, I'm not sure that this interpretation of the verse is the only possible one. Just because the verse says that the serpent was more crafty than any "beast of the field", that doesn't mean that it is necessarily in the same category. If I say that Curt Schilling is a better pitcher than anyone on the Yankees, it doesn't mean that Curt is a Yankee (in fact he plays for Arizona). Similarly, the serpent could actually be in the category of "creeping things" and yet still be more crafty than the "beasts of the field". |
||||||
153 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20341 | ||
Contrary View, logic ............................ Dear Lionstrong, Yes, I agree that the image of God is uniquely given to humans and not to animals. However, I disagree that "the image of God is rationality." Rationality is merely the ability to think, or to process information in an orderly manner. This ability is not limited to humanity, for animals obviously do this. The image of God is much greater and all-encompassing than just pertaining to our brains. |
||||||
154 | What fruit did Eve eat from the tree? | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20386 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Nazman, I also would like to welcome you to the Forum, and look forward to the ideas that you'll have to share with us in the future. |
||||||
155 | The Serpent's Class | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20670 | ||
Personal Note ................................. Dear Lionstrong, You could be entirely correct, I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the only possible interpretation. I am curious though, why you brought this up. Do you glean something from this passage based on the idea that the serpent changed classes? If so, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. |
||||||
156 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20675 | ||
Confusion ....................................... Dear Lionstron, I must admit that I am very confused by your continuing to post that animals are incapable of thinking. I can only come up with 3 possible explanations. 1. You are using the word "thinking" to mean something other than its typical definition in the dictionary. If this is the case, please share the definition that you are using. 2. You are joking around with me. The "leather shoes" comment was kind of humorous, so maybe this is it. 3. You just want to have the last post. If this is the case, just let me know, and I'll stop responding for you. I really am curious what the original idea was that you were trying to make, but I seem to have lost it in the whole discussion of whether animals had the ability to use their brains. |
||||||
157 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20786 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Hank, Thanks for the oil; may our lamps never run dry. I, too, liked the idea about the typing dog. Maybe I could call him Dautsund Matrix. |
||||||
158 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20790 | ||
Conrary view, Experience ...................... Dear Lionstrong, You said that my definition of "rational" was acceptable, so let's take a look at it. I have defined rationality as the ability to learn or to process information in an orderly manner. This is a pretty standard definition according to dictionaries. Now let's look at some historical facts about animals. There was once a scientist named Pavlov. He had a bunch of dogs that he did an experiment with. He would ring a bell, and then feed them. He did this over a period of time, and noticed a change in the dogs. They associated the bell sound with food, which was demonstrated by salivation. When Pavlov would ring the bell, the dog's mouths would water even before he would feed them. This was not INSTINCT. A wild dog's mouth doesn't water when it hears a bell. These specific dogs were able to PROCESS INFORMATION that they received to LEARN that the food followed the bell. A much more advanced experiment was performed with the famous gorilla named, Koko. She was able to actually LEARN sign language and was able to communicate with her trainers and visitors. She was able to PROCESS INFORMATION not only that she was specifically taught, but was also able to combine concepts in order to learn things that were not taught to her. Her story has been chronicled and documented in numerous books and documentaries. I assume that you were unaware of these events, and share them so that you may be better informed of the scientifically proven exhibitions of animal intellegence. However, you can observe these things on your own as well. If you or someone you know has a dog that can "sit", "lie down", or "roll over" on command, that is also a good example. These are not INSTINCTS. Wild dogs do not understand a human voice command, much less obey it. These behaviors must be LEARNED, and that shows "rationality". This all being said, you did earlier in this thread, quote several good Bible verses, which seem to say that animals are not rational. I would suggest that the Bible is using the word "rational" to mean something beyond what the dictionary defines the word to mean. This would be similar to when Jesus said, "I am the Truth", meaning more than just being a fact and real. |
||||||
159 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20898 | ||
Personal Note .................................... Dear Radioman, I know you're joking here, but some posts would definately indicate that the assertion is false :) |
||||||
160 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 20899 | ||
Clarification .................................... Dear Lionstrong, I think that I am beginning to see what you are meaning when you talk about being "rational". In your last post, you said there was a "line of the personal. Now, what we have above the line is God, men and angels, and below the line everything else." On that point, I completely agree with you. God has personality, angels have personalities (I think), and humans have personalities. Animals DO NOT have personalities. An animal (especially a pet) may appear to have a personality, but I believe that it is not real. Rather, I believe that it is merely instincts and learned behaviors that we associate with personality traits and therefore project onto the animal. This description seems to fit what you are calling "rationality", and if that is what you mean, then we really have no disagreement, other than definitions. In any case, we agree that humans are in the image of God, animals are not, and that is what totally seperates us from them. P.S. Dear Charis, I would have to do some research to know for sure, but I'm relatively certain that some animals (dolphins, gorillas, etc.) have been taught to complete three tasks in a row on command. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [24] >> |