For starters, I would not call anyone a "so-called 'scientest'" just because I disagree with them. Some of the authors that I have read are not crack-pots. Read the resume of Russel Humphreys at this site: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/humphreys.ht ml
This is not a "so-called scientist" but a brilliant and well-respected nuculear weapons researcher.
As far as my use of the word "Christians," the Bible only uses the term for those who have trusted in the work of Christ for their redemption. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is a gift from God that man must accept and that man cannot work to earn. God will never weigh a person's works as a means to enter Heaven. Salvation is given through the name of Christ alone, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy because all of our righteousness is as filthy rags in His sight.
If a person has met the qulaifications of salvation, then they are a Christian regardless of their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. BUT, I struggle to comprehend how a person who trusted in Christ for their salvation would be unwilling to trust Christ's interpretation of Genesis. I supose it could be so, but I admit that I do not understand that logic. So, no I cannot state dogmatically that a person must believe in 6-day creation to be a Christian.
I am as narrow as Scripture in my interpretation of "Christian." If you disaprove of my use of Christian, I respectfully ask that you demonstrate from the Bible how it is in error. I will always change my opinion if I err from Scripture. It is my goal to always have my thinking conformed to the teachings of my Savior.
Tis true. Many Christians deny the literal interpretation of Genesis. Please understand that I do not hate Catholics - most of my relatives are active and practicing Catholic and I love them despite my disagreement with their beliefs. If I speak against Catholicism, I am against the teachings not the people.
But, I ask you to consider two things. First, the great number of scientists who have begun rejecting traditional evolution for Inteligent Design. Many of these refuse to acknowledge the Bible as absolute truth, but they admit that the Earth had to be created. Consider Philip Johnson, who is a lawyer and who rejects a literal 6 day creation. He has several books including Darwin on Trial that disect evolutionary theory. Or consider Behe's Darwin's Black Box . Behe is a Catholic scientist who argues persuasively against evolution without arguing for a specific 6 day creation. Evolution is dying despite what textbooks and the media attempt say. Whether or not one believes in a literal 6 days, it is becoming harder to defend evolution.
Secondly, when someone rejects the literal nature of Genesis, they reject the foundation of all Scripture. The rest of Scripture bases itself upon the accuracy of Genesis. Even Christ Himself treated the creation account as accurate. To deny Genesis would make Christ less then the omniscient God that He was before, during and after the incarnation. The Apostle Paul argued from the accuracy of Genesis when he wrote about the place of women and men in marriage. Peter referenced the Flood of Noah.
If you reject Genesis, then you reject the inspiration of all Scripture. Not many Catholics are willing to say that Christ was in error, or that the Apostles who founded the church were mistaken. Some may reject Genesis and hold to the inerrancy of the teachings of Christ. I can debate them, but I will not critcize their point of view. They are people and as such are allowed their own interpretation regardless of what I believe.
Thank you for not responding in a derrogatory manner as so many do. What specific roots are you addressing? The only one that I am particularly familiar with is the worship of a "Queen of Heaven" who gave birth to a son. This son then marries the mother. (This is actually tracable back to the tower of Bable with Nimrod who actually married his mother the queen. Nimrod and his mother founded the confessional among other things.
Christianity states that God created the earth in six literal days and that the Son of God was incarnated into human flesh. Man sinned and from that point forward, man needed a redeemer to pay for those sins. Jesus Christ's life began prior to birth, which is why John the Baptist (being six months older) claimed that the "one who came after me is before me" and that he (John) was "unworthy to loose His (Christ) sandle." Christ is God who became a man to redeem men from their sins. After His death, He arose through His own power where He now dwells in Heaven.
Furthermore, I would argue that since all men were created by God and descended through Noah, then it would make sense for similarities to exist between ancient religions. Each of those religions had the same tradition and teaching. If the cult of Osiris twisted that teaching of truth, it would make sense that thr truth could be seen in their actions.
Before you argue that all Christianity is from the cult of Osiris, please check your facts. You will find that much Catholic doctrine has been drawn from the cults of the world, but that does not mean that all Christians agree or hold that doctrine. I have studied religious history. I have a MA in Bible Interpretation and have studied Hebrew and Greek as well as read many Church Fathers.
I for one do not agree with the vast majority of Catholic teaching and yes I am a Christian. I am even a Fundamentalist (which is one who holds certain doctrines as foundational or fundamental to faith). That said, I am not a bigot or unwilling to talk reasonably. I only ask that you not equate Catholic teachings with all Christians.
How about classic children's literature? Tom Swift was great as were many of the boys fiction from the 40's and 50's (e.g. Dave Dawson). Give a gift that will last.
It seems that most people posting are approaching from the IT or the User side. But there needs to be a balance. I agree that employees should not be able to install programs. I have seen a situation where a user installed a personal program worth hundreds of dollars. When asked why, he said that his personal computer was unable to handle the software and he needed it for his side business.:-) I have also seen, the users install lots of "free" screen savers.
IT has been known to heavily lock down systems, and I have helped to do just that. But, I think that this should be the last resort. TO much limitation prevents users from accomplishing their work effectively.
A company should lock down the system to the minimum amount necessary to protect the user and network. For different companies and different departments, that means different things. There is no simple solution. Both sides have legitimate greivances and reasons for their requests. (I stand in a unique position as not being IT, but being almost IT.)
All that said, SpywareBlaster does not remove spyware but does block it from being downloaded.
Truth is always objective. History occured and it occured in a certain way. The facts of that history are objective truth. If we spin the facts based upon our bias, we distort those facts away from the objective truth that they represented. The facts may be correct, but the truth that they represent no longer exists properly.
So yes, we understand that every person has a bias through which they filter the facts that they see, but we should strive to filter out our bias. We whould seek the objective truth represented by the facts.
When a IBM ThinkPad is under warranty, they replace the inverter card. I work on a campus that promotes IBM ThinkPads and we are the first line of tech support. The only issue we have had is resolving a warranty dispute. Beyond that, they have the nicest laptops and service of any that we have dealt with.
Slashdot Mirror
For starters, I would not call anyone a "so-called 'scientest'" just because I disagree with them. Some of the authors that I have read are not crack-pots. Read the resume of Russel Humphreys at this site: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/humphreys.ht ml
This is not a "so-called scientist" but a brilliant and well-respected nuculear weapons researcher.
As far as my use of the word "Christians," the Bible only uses the term for those who have trusted in the work of Christ for their redemption. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is a gift from God that man must accept and that man cannot work to earn. God will never weigh a person's works as a means to enter Heaven. Salvation is given through the name of Christ alone, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy because all of our righteousness is as filthy rags in His sight.
If a person has met the qulaifications of salvation, then they are a Christian regardless of their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. BUT, I struggle to comprehend how a person who trusted in Christ for their salvation would be unwilling to trust Christ's interpretation of Genesis. I supose it could be so, but I admit that I do not understand that logic. So, no I cannot state dogmatically that a person must believe in 6-day creation to be a Christian.
I am as narrow as Scripture in my interpretation of "Christian." If you disaprove of my use of Christian, I respectfully ask that you demonstrate from the Bible how it is in error. I will always change my opinion if I err from Scripture. It is my goal to always have my thinking conformed to the teachings of my Savior.
Tis true. Many Christians deny the literal interpretation of Genesis. Please understand that I do not hate Catholics - most of my relatives are active and practicing Catholic and I love them despite my disagreement with their beliefs. If I speak against Catholicism, I am against the teachings not the people.
But, I ask you to consider two things. First, the great number of scientists who have begun rejecting traditional evolution for Inteligent Design. Many of these refuse to acknowledge the Bible as absolute truth, but they admit that the Earth had to be created. Consider Philip Johnson, who is a lawyer and who rejects a literal 6 day creation. He has several books including Darwin on Trial that disect evolutionary theory. Or consider Behe's Darwin's Black Box . Behe is a Catholic scientist who argues persuasively against evolution without arguing for a specific 6 day creation. Evolution is dying despite what textbooks and the media attempt say. Whether or not one believes in a literal 6 days, it is becoming harder to defend evolution.
Secondly, when someone rejects the literal nature of Genesis, they reject the foundation of all Scripture. The rest of Scripture bases itself upon the accuracy of Genesis. Even Christ Himself treated the creation account as accurate. To deny Genesis would make Christ less then the omniscient God that He was before, during and after the incarnation. The Apostle Paul argued from the accuracy of Genesis when he wrote about the place of women and men in marriage. Peter referenced the Flood of Noah.
If you reject Genesis, then you reject the inspiration of all Scripture. Not many Catholics are willing to say that Christ was in error, or that the Apostles who founded the church were mistaken. Some may reject Genesis and hold to the inerrancy of the teachings of Christ. I can debate them, but I will not critcize their point of view. They are people and as such are allowed their own interpretation regardless of what I believe.
Have a great day.
Nice reply. :-)
Thank you for not responding in a derrogatory manner as so many do. What specific roots are you addressing? The only one that I am particularly familiar with is the worship of a "Queen of Heaven" who gave birth to a son. This son then marries the mother. (This is actually tracable back to the tower of Bable with Nimrod who actually married his mother the queen. Nimrod and his mother founded the confessional among other things.
Christianity states that God created the earth in six literal days and that the Son of God was incarnated into human flesh. Man sinned and from that point forward, man needed a redeemer to pay for those sins. Jesus Christ's life began prior to birth, which is why John the Baptist (being six months older) claimed that the "one who came after me is before me" and that he (John) was "unworthy to loose His (Christ) sandle." Christ is God who became a man to redeem men from their sins. After His death, He arose through His own power where He now dwells in Heaven.
Furthermore, I would argue that since all men were created by God and descended through Noah, then it would make sense for similarities to exist between ancient religions. Each of those religions had the same tradition and teaching. If the cult of Osiris twisted that teaching of truth, it would make sense that thr truth could be seen in their actions.
Before you argue that all Christianity is from the cult of Osiris, please check your facts. You will find that much Catholic doctrine has been drawn from the cults of the world, but that does not mean that all Christians agree or hold that doctrine. I have studied religious history. I have a MA in Bible Interpretation and have studied Hebrew and Greek as well as read many Church Fathers.
I for one do not agree with the vast majority of Catholic teaching and yes I am a Christian. I am even a Fundamentalist (which is one who holds certain doctrines as foundational or fundamental to faith). That said, I am not a bigot or unwilling to talk reasonably. I only ask that you not equate Catholic teachings with all Christians.
How about classic children's literature? Tom Swift was great as were many of the boys fiction from the 40's and 50's (e.g. Dave Dawson). Give a gift that will last.
It seems that most people posting are approaching from the IT or the User side. But there needs to be a balance. I agree that employees should not be able to install programs. I have seen a situation where a user installed a personal program worth hundreds of dollars. When asked why, he said that his personal computer was unable to handle the software and he needed it for his side business. :-) I have also seen, the users install lots of "free" screen savers.
IT has been known to heavily lock down systems, and I have helped to do just that. But, I think that this should be the last resort. TO much limitation prevents users from accomplishing their work effectively.
A company should lock down the system to the minimum amount necessary to protect the user and network. For different companies and different departments, that means different things. There is no simple solution. Both sides have legitimate greivances and reasons for their requests. (I stand in a unique position as not being IT, but being almost IT.)
All that said, SpywareBlaster does not remove spyware but does block it from being downloaded.
Enjoy.
Live by lawsuits; die by lawsuits.
Or was that a sword?
Truth is always objective. History occured and it occured in a certain way. The facts of that history are objective truth. If we spin the facts based upon our bias, we distort those facts away from the objective truth that they represented. The facts may be correct, but the truth that they represent no longer exists properly.
So yes, we understand that every person has a bias through which they filter the facts that they see, but we should strive to filter out our bias. We whould seek the objective truth represented by the facts.
When a IBM ThinkPad is under warranty, they replace the inverter card. I work on a campus that promotes IBM ThinkPads and we are the first line of tech support. The only issue we have had is resolving a warranty dispute. Beyond that, they have the nicest laptops and service of any that we have dealt with.