Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... I ll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science. ... I do! Sincerely, Robert Baty
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
      Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote to Pi, in part:

      > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
      >
      > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
      > take what I can get. I added some comments
      > below and answered your questions about star
      > light.
      >  
      > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
      > this is a discussion 'group'.
      >
      > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
      > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
      > idea either. 
      >
      > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
      > see that I have always said the universe is very
      > old (and is the position of my church).

      I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.

      Ray then concluded with:

      > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
      > Just one more which I have asked but no one
      > answers.
      >
      > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
      > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
      > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?

      I do!

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • Ray Ausban
      Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks   Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
         
        Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
         
        In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
         
        There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
         
        Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
         
         
         
        From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
        To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
        Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
         


        --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
        Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:

        > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
        >
        > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
        > take what I can get. I added some comments
        > below and answered your questions about star
        > light.
        >  
        > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
        > this is a discussion 'group'.
        >
        > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
        > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
        > idea either. 
        >
        > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
        > see that I have always said the universe is very
        > old (and is the position of my church).

        I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.

        Ray then concluded with:

        > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
        > Just one more which I have asked but no one
        > answers.
        >
        > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
        > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
        > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?

        I do!

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty

      • rlbaty50
        ... Maybe some of the others (i.e., Daniel, Pi) missed it. ... I think I have an open mind! I can respect those who claim to interpret the scriptures to mean
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote, in part:

          > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only
          > one here to admit it!
          >
          > Thanks

          Maybe some of the others (i.e., Daniel, Pi) missed it.

          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote, in part:

          > I can respect them (young-earth creation science
          > promoters) for believing the Book to be a witness
          > of God, because I think it is.
          >
          > I ask the group here to keep an open mind.

          I think I have an open mind!

          I can respect those who claim to interpret the scriptures to mean that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old".

          It's what some of them do beyond that that causes them to lose respect.

          I figure they probably feel the same way about me!

          However, in my opinion there's a difference and the difference is in the details.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Todd Greene
          Or Jesus could have healed the blind man just like Benny Hinn heals blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.

            On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.

            Just saying.

            - Todd Greene

            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
            >
            > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
            >  
            > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
            >  
            > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
            >  
            > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
            >  
            > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
            >  
            >   
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
            > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
            > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
            > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
            >
            > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
            > >
            > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
            > > take what I can get. I added some comments
            > > below and answered your questions about star
            > > light.
            > >  
            > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
            > > this is a discussion 'group'.
            > >
            > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
            > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
            > > idea either. 
            > >
            > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
            > > see that I have always said the universe is very
            > > old (and is the position of my church).
            >
            > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
            >
            > Ray then concluded with:
            >
            > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
            > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
            > > answers.
            > >
            > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
            > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
            > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
            >
            > I do!
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Robert Baty
            >
          • Ray Ausban
            Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 26, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.
               
              Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.

              From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
              Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
               
              Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.

              On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.

              Just saying.

              - Todd Greene

              --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
              >
              > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
              >  
              > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
              >  
              > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
              >  
              > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
              >  
              > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
              >  
              >   
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: rlbaty50
              > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
              > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
              > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
              >
              > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
              > >
              > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
              > > take what I can get. I added some comments
              > > below and answered your questions about star
              > > light.
              > >  
              > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
              > > this is a discussion 'group'.
              > >
              > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
              > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
              > > idea either. 
              > >
              > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
              > > see that I have always said the universe is very
              > > old (and is the position of my church).
              >
              > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
              >
              > Ray then concluded with:
              >
              > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
              > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
              > > answers.
              > >
              > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
              > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
              > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
              >
              > I do!
              >
              > Sincerely,
              > Robert Baty
              >

            • Todd Greene
              I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it s a far more likely
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 27, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one).

                The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.)

                Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement.

                - Todd Greene


                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote:
                >
                > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.

                > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
                > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                >
                > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.
                >
                > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.
                >
                > Just saying.
                >
                > - Todd Greene
                >
                > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                > >
                > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                > >  
                > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                > >  
                > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                > >  
                > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                > >  
                > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                > >  
                > >   
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: rlbaty50
                > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                > >
                > >  
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                > >
                > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                > > >
                > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                > > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                > > > below and answered your questions about star
                > > > light.
                > > >  
                > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                > > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                > > >
                > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                > > > idea either. 
                > > >
                > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                > > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                > > > old (and is the position of my church).
                > >
                > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                > >
                > > Ray then concluded with:
                > >
                > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                > > > answers.
                > > >
                > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                > >
                > > I do!
                > >
                > > Sincerely,
                > > Robert Baty
                > >
                >
              • Ray Ausban
                Yes, us to an amoeba is a good comparison to the intellect of the kind of God it would require to be in charge of and control the universe. And I agree that
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 27, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, us to an amoeba is a good comparison to the intellect of the kind of God it would require to be in charge of and control the universe. And I agree that religion in general is full of difficulties for many good reasons. This does not mean that the belief in the existence of God is a falsehood. People seem to be hard wired to believe in some sort of God: I've seen plenty of science shows which indicate this. And practically all ancient cultures and peoples believed in a God whether the cultures were connected to each other in some way or not. (The same with creation and flood stories). This is hard evidence that indicates something about this is worth investigating and shouldn't merely be dismissed because of lack of faith.
                   
                  According to the scriptures, at this time, faith is required to have a "witness from the Spirit". You can dismiss it all you like but millions have had the experience. What you are saying is akin to getting my hand smashed with a hammer. I tell you it hurts and you tell me it doesn't because you might happen to be one of those people who can't fell physical pain. 
                  But the promise is, all will change at the return of Christ.  The scriptures are pretty dismal about events leading up to that return, and many of those prophecies are unfolding. The 'signs' and fulfillment of prophecy is evidence. It probably isn't the kind of evidence that you want, but it is recorded that is what we will get. It is a take it or leave situation. And most people will leave it.
                   
                  Because people do not have faith today, even among most of the religious. Joseph Smith said that when the great sign of Christ's return will appear in heaven (in space), he said, "what will the world say? It is a comet or planet..." In other words, right up until the end, the doubters will reign supreme.
                   
                   

                  From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                  To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:03 PM
                  Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                   
                  I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one).

                  The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.)

                  Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement.

                  - Todd Greene

                  --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                  >
                  > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind.

                  > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes.
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Todd Greene
                  > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM
                  > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                  >
                  > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people.
                  >
                  > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher.
                  >
                  > Just saying.
                  >
                  > - Todd Greene
                  >
                  > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks
                  > >  
                  > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel).
                  > >  
                  > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives.
                  > >  
                  > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. ‚ presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking.
                  > >  
                  > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind.
                  > >  
                  > >   
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: rlbaty50
                  > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM
                  > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com,
                  > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part:
                  > >
                  > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions.
                  > > >
                  > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll
                  > > > take what I can get. I added some comments
                  > > > below and answered your questions about star
                  > > > light.
                  > > >  
                  > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions,
                  > > > this is a discussion 'group'.
                  > > >
                  > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position.
                  > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe
                  > > > idea either. 
                  > > >
                  > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will
                  > > > see that I have always said the universe is very
                  > > > old (and is the position of my church).
                  > >
                  > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science.
                  > >
                  > > Ray then concluded with:
                  > >
                  > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions.
                  > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one
                  > > > answers.
                  > > >
                  > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in
                  > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as
                  > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed?
                  > >
                  > > I do!
                  > >
                  > > Sincerely,
                  > > Robert Baty
                  > >
                  >

                   
                • Ray Ausban
                  Additionally, are you looking for anything to see if the scriptures have support?   For instance, one of the amazing things in the O.T. is the life span of
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 28, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Additionally, are you looking for anything to see if the scriptures have support?
                     
                    For instance, one of the amazing things in the O.T. is the life span of people. Hundreds of years in length. Now, according to the pedigree, those life spans fell off after the 'flood' and by the time of Moses, it reached where we are today (about 120 years at the out side).
                     
                    We still do not know what really causes aging, but we do know some interesting things. First, cancer cells do not age. They keep on living. Second, I just read a report about brain cells being able to last a long time, way beyond the typical life span (in this case the test subject was a mouse). The article suggested that brain cells could last indefinitely.
                     
                    This article doesn't suggest "indefinitely", but the first one I read did:
                     
                     
                    Why?
                    Why would evolution have some special thing about brain cells being able to out live the body many times over, unless the body at one time might have lived much longer than today?
                     
                    These things are clues of the truth locked in the scripture. The more one looks, the more you will see it. The more one turns a blind eye, the more fairy tale like the Biblical words seem.

                    From: Todd Greene <greeneto@...>
                    To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:03 PM
                    Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM!
                     
                    I keep an open mind to good evidence - and not to anything else. What I said is indeed true about human behavior, which is why it's a far more likely explanation, since it's actually the case in the real world that humans make up all sorts of sensational stories based on superstition in order to try to back up various religious beliefs (and I'm referring to all sorts of religions throughout history, not just Christianity). A story about Moses or Jesus, "assuming there is a god", is no more plausible than a story about Lord Krishna, assuming there are gods. We can *assume* anything we want to assume just by making it up. That is precisely the problem. That's why using a standard of good real world evidence provides an effective constraint, not only against irrationality, but also even against rational ideas that happen to be incorrect (such as, for example, when a murder detective tests out details of various hypotheses in a case in trying to determine and nail down the killer - all hypotheses should be realistically plausible, but only one can be the actually correct one). The "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a vacuous rhetoric people use to try to usurp divine imprimatur for their own fallible human thoughts, feelings, and desires. The "witness of the Spirit" is the exact same thing as the alleged "divine inspiration of scripture", and the claim has the exact same problem. If it was correct, there would be good real world evidence to back it up. There isn't, so there's no good reason to accept it. And the fact that "there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes" - which is quite true - is merely a red herring a lot of people use to try to justify gullibility (i.e., the acceptance of ideas that are not backed up by good evidence). (Also, do bear in mind that the resurrection stories - where the story of Thomas comes from - are rife with contradictions.) Don't get me wrong - if there really was a god talking with humans and telling them things, then it would be abundantly obvious precisely because it would be a genuine god we're dealing with. Religious believers usually demonstrate a definite poverty of imagination in regard to god talking with people. Of course, that's because they're overwhelmed with sycophancy for their own particular human-fabricated religious traditions, and so simply fail to even think about what it would really be like talking with a being of a vastly superior intelligence and knowledge - so much so that even using the analogy of being vastly superior to the human mind like the human mind is above the mind of an amoeba is a huge understatement. - Todd Greene
                    --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote: > > Of course, what you say is true about human behavior but assuming there is a God, then it is highly plausible, he is likely to send messengers from time to time to guide humanity. Moses, Jesus and others are examples of this. But unlike Benny Hinn and and other preacher types, God has left us a better way of knowing who is from him. It is called the witness of the Spirit. We have talked of this before so we don't need to rehash. I have only asked that you keep an open mind. >  > Just remember Thomas. He learned there is plenty that we don't understand, even if we see it with our own eyes. > > > ________________________________ > From: Todd Greene > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:40 PM > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM! > > Or Jesus could have "healed" the blind man just like Benny Hinn "heals" blind men, and the story grew into a legend just like the stories of Benny Hinn "healing" people. > > On the scale of plausiblity, knowing what we know about human behavior and religious beliefs and gullibility (especially in the ancient world) and the propagation of oral traditions (i.e., "fish stories"), my explanation ranks almost infinitely higher. > > Just saying. > > - Todd Greene > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban wrote: > > > > Okay Robert, you seem to be the only one here to admit it! Thanks > >   > > Let us take one Biblical miracle. For instance, when Jesus healed a blind man. He put mud over his eyes, and the man was healed. Outwardly, that is all we know happened, but obviously, something much more was happening such as extremely rapid tissue regeneration. Today, if a blind man has a certain surgery or treatment he may be able to see again. The healing process is much slower but still works (in some cases). We do not accept our ability to heal a blind man a divine miracle, because we understand the process. Because we understand it, we consider it science. However, the process itself and the explosion of knowledge the last two hundred years leading up to modern 'miracles' of science may also be a gift from God to mankind (prophesied by Daniel). > >   > > In our understanding of God, every miracle we credit him with operated on a science that we may or may not understand today. If we don't understand it: it is a miracle, if we do understand it, it is science. The parting of the Red Sea, the raising of the dead or fulfillment of prophecy, all such miracles are a science that we, mankind, do not understand. Shortly after these events occurred, they were recorded as a testimony of a God for mankind to have and consider how to conduct our lives. > >   > > There are many at this group here who do not believe in the past miracles because they don't understand how it could have been. They seem to struggle over this idea of the earth being 'old' or 'young' and have taken solid positions on it one way or the other. I believe there is a God, so eventually we will all know how everything came to be. I presented a scenario of how the earth can be 'created' before the stars by simply understanding the frame of reference of the text and what the Hebrew word for 'create' really means. The Bible is not false because not every single item about creation wasn't explained to our liking. > >   > > Surely, the YEC promoters have their difficulties trying to maintain a position that can't be real based on their short sighted understanding of the scripture. However, I can respect them for believing the Book to be a witness of God, because I think it is. I ask the group here to keep an open mind. > >   > >    > > > > ________________________________ > > From: rlbaty50 > > To: mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 PM > > Subject: [M & B] Re: June 26, 66,036,257 B.C., 9:30 AM! > > > >   > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:Maury_and_Baty%40yahoogroups.com, > > Ray Ausban wrote to Pi, in part: > > > > > First Pi, thanks for answering my questions. > > > > > > I was hoping some others would too, but I'll > > > take what I can get. I added some comments > > > below and answered your questions about star > > > light. > > >   > > > Others are welcome to answer my questions, > > > this is a discussion 'group'. > > > > > > I never took the 6,000 year old universe position. > > > I don't take the crazy YEC 'time dilation' universe > > > idea either.  > > > > > > If you go back and read some of my views, you will > > > see that I have always said the universe is very > > > old (and is the position of my church). > > > > I'll take that as close enough to describe as an agreement as to the merits of young-earth creation-science. > > > > Ray then concluded with: > > > > > Pi, thanks again for answering my questions. > > > Just one more which I have asked but no one > > > answers. > > > > > > Does anyone here at Robert's site believe in > > > any Bible miracles for what they are such as > > > Jesus coming back to life after being killed? > > > > I do! > > > > Sincerely, > > Robert Baty > > >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.