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

Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"

Expand Messages
  • w_w_c_l
    ... If evolution is true, which it demonstrably is, then whether Hitler was influenced by it or not will not make it any less true. If evolution is true, no
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      >"Truth is indestructible"

      If evolution is true, which it demonstrably is, then
      whether Hitler was influenced by it or not will not
      make it any less true.

      If evolution is true, no amount of fear-laced propaganda
      will make it any less true.

      If evolution is true, no overwhelming majority of public
      opinion will make it any less true.

      If evolution is true, people who assert that it would
      mean God lied when he said all that He created was
      "Very good" are guilty of bearing false witness against
      the Creator.

      If evolution is true, that would mean that God's act
      of Creation is ongoing, as Jesus indicated when He
      said, "My Father worketh hitherto."

      If Creation is ongoing, and God created man on the
      Sixth Day, and it was already in "the cool of the
      evening" of that day when God walked in the Garden
      and confronted Adam with his disobedience, we are,
      as all the prophets and apostles warned, getting
      very close to the end of this world.

      Here is an excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas":

      *******************************************************

      Barnabas 15:4
      Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six
      days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the
      Lord shall bring all things to an end; for the day with
      Him signifyeth a thousand years; and this He himself
      beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord
      shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in
      six days, that is in six thousand years, everything
      shall come to an end.

      Barnabas 15:5
      And He rested on the seventh day. This He meaneth; when
      His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the
      Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and shall
      change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall
      he truly rest on the seventh day.

      Barnabas 15:6
      Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with
      pure hands and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is
      able now to hallow the day which God hallowed, though
      he be pure in heart, we have gone utterly astray.

      Barnabas 15:7
      But if after all then and not till then shall we truly
      rest and hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to
      do so after being justified and receiving the promise,
      when iniquity is no more and all things have been made
      new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it then,
      because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

      Barnabas 15:8
      Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your
      Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning;
      it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable
      [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the
      which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
      the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning
      of another world.

      Barnabas 15:9
      Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in
      the which also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been
      manifested ascended into the heavens.

      *******************************************************

      Ps 90:4
      For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
      when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

      [Note that this is still not intended to convey an
      equation (1 "day" = 1,000 years). It is also of
      interest to note that for the children of Israel a
      day was made up of *six watches*.]

      Mr 13:33
      Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the
      time is.

      Mr 13:37
      And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

      *******************************************************

      It is my fervent prayer that you can all come to a
      realization of your faith that will be strong enough
      to understand there is nothing science can discover
      that can undermine the Gospel of Christ; and that it
      has been your own blind dogmatism that has kept your
      faith from growing and that is increasingly weakening
      your ability to witness to a lost world.

      Rick Hartzog
      Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... Yep, it s a historical fact that Charles Darwin created anti-Semitism in 1859. And anyone who really believes that is crazier than I thought... Looks like
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In coCBanned, George Jackson posted the following:
        > From: Jedaiah Smith
        > Sent: August 26, 2006
        > Subject: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
        >
        > Jedaiah Smith has sent you the following web link:
        >
        > http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1737

        Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created anti-Semitism
        in 1859.

        And anyone who really believes that is crazier than I thought...

        Looks like the Christian Right loonies are at it again.

        Chuckling,
        Todd Greene, FCD

        Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
        http://creationism.outersystem.us/
      • Todd S. Greene
        From: Landover Baptist Church Creation Science section http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/creationscience.html ... Landover Baptist Church -
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          From:
          Landover Baptist Church Creation Science section
          http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/creationscience.html

          ----------------------------------------------------------------

          Landover Baptist Church - Creation Science Quiz
          http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html
          [go to link to take the quiz and check your answers]

          Objective: Using the Holy Bible as your guide, correctly answer each
          of the following scientific questions.

          1. Why are there clouds in the sky?
          A - Heat causes water on the Earth to condense and rise into the
          atmosphere where it forms clouds.
          B - Clouds are God's footprints in Heaven and are made up of the
          dust from his feet.


          2. Why are some people blind, deaf, dumb or handicapped in some other
          way?

          A - These deficiencies are deliberately inflicted on some people by
          God.
          B - Most of these problems are caused by defects in the genetic
          make-up of an individual which are random and presently inexplicable.


          3. What causes thunder and lightning?

          A - God's will. Thunder is the sound of his bellowing voice.
          Lightning is a deadly force He deliberately hurls at various places.
          B - They are the product of clouds colliding. Thunder is the sound
          the make and lightning is the electrical current produced.


          4. Why do we sometimes see rainbows?

          A - The colors are caused by the refraction of light which is
          inherent in the aftermath of a large downfall of rain.
          B - God has them occur periodically to remind Him that He has
          promised not to brutally kill all the men, women, children and unborn
          children of the Earth again.


          5. What causes tornadoes to form?

          A - High and low pressure weather fronts collide, causing a
          whilrwind to form in the upper atmosphere which sometimes extends to
          the ground.
          B - God uses tornadoes to kill sinners when He wants a quick
          result, as opposed to the somewhat slower means of plagues and
          pestilence.


          6. Why are some women unable to have children?

          A - It is their punishment for being adulterers (whether they admit
          the sin or not).
          B - It is the product of fallopian tubes that are not fully
          developed or complications with the uterus that are the result of
          various medical phenomena.


          7. What causes earthquakes?

          A - Intense heat in the Earth's core causes platelets to collide,
          thereby shaking and splitting the ground above.
          B - God inflicts earthquakes on sinners when he is really angry.


          8. Why do rivers and springs sometimes dry up?

          A - Quite simply, this is the product of the sin of those nearby.
          B - The condensation of moisture from the bodies of water into the
          atmosphere outstrips the amount of rain needed to replenish the
          bodies.


          9. Why do certain areas of the world experience drought?

          A - There is an imbalance between water evaporation and rainfall,
          often caused by a lack of proximity to substantial bodies of water.
          B - This is one of God's many punishments for sin.


          10. Why are some men afflicted with hemorrhoids?

          A - The affliction is yet another of God's countless methods of
          punishing sinners.
          B - Hemorrhoids occur when veins in the rectum enlarge from
          straining or pressure.
        • Nathan Greene
          Todd writes in part: Yep, it s a historical fact that Charles Darwin created anti-Semitism in 1859. Nathan here: Yep, Ideas have consequences , specially when
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd writes in part:
            Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created anti-Semitism
            in 1859.




            Nathan here:
            Yep, "Ideas have consequences", specially when they are believed and acted thereon.

            Nathan Greene

            "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn. 1:6a)

            Join:
            coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Todd S. Greene
            Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:59 PM
            To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Fw: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media

            --- In coCBanned, George Jackson posted the following:
            > From: Jedaiah Smith
            > Sent: August 26, 2006
            > Subject: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
            >
            > Jedaiah Smith has sent you the following web link:
            >
            > http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1737

            Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created anti-Semitism
            in 1859.

            And anyone who really believes that is crazier than I thought...

            Looks like the Christian Right loonies are at it again.

            Chuckling,
            Todd Greene, FCD

            Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
            http://creationism.outersystem.us/






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Todd S. Greene
            Nathan is right, the idea that anti-Semitism didn t exist before 1859 has the consequence of proving that those people who seriously believe that are oblivious
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Nathan is right, the idea that anti-Semitism didn't exist before 1859
              has the consequence of proving that those people who seriously
              believe that are oblivious to reality.

              - Todd Greene


              --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote:
              > Todd writes in part:
              >> Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created
              >> anti-Semitism in 1859.
              >
              >
              > Nathan here:
              > Yep, "Ideas have consequences", specially when they are believed
              > and acted thereon.
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Todd S. Greene
              > Subject: Re: Fw: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
              >
              > --- In coCBanned, George Jackson posted the following:
              >> From: Jedaiah Smith
              >> Sent: August 26, 2006
              >> Subject: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
              >>
              >> Jedaiah Smith has sent you the following web link:
              >>
              >> http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1737
              >
              > Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created
              > anti-Semitism in 1859.
              >
              > And anyone who really believes that is crazier than I thought...
              >
              > Looks like the Christian Right loonies are at it again.
            • Todd S. Greene
              ... Yes, ideas do have consequences. Obviously, the campaign of genocide carried out by the Israelites as described in the book of Joshua in the Old Testament
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #5970):
                > --- In coCBanned, George Jackson posted the following:
                >> From: Jedaiah Smith
                >> Sent: August 26, 2006
                >> Subject: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
                >>
                >> Jedaiah Smith has sent you the following web link:
                >>
                >> http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1737
                >
                > Yep, it's a historical fact that Charles Darwin created
                > anti-Semitism in 1859.

                Yes, ideas do have consequences. Obviously, the campaign of genocide
                carried out by the Israelites as described in the book of Joshua in
                the Old Testament was a consequence of the *Origin of Species* book
                by Darwin published in 1859. It also seems pretty obvious to me that
                the fact that the Bible always supports the institution of slavery
                and never criticizes it, is also a direct consequence of the evil
                theory of evolution proposed by Darwin.

                - Todd Greene, FCD

                Greene's Creationism Truth Filter
                http://creationism.outersystem.us/
              • James A. Wyly
                Any one who believes Darwin s Origin of the Species in 1859 caused or even contributed to anti-Semitism needs to do a little reading. Begin with
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Any one who believes Darwin's "Origin of the Species" in 1859
                  caused or even contributed to anti-Semitism needs to do a little
                  reading. Begin with Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" with its
                  Shylock as a central character (about 1596) and then progress to the
                  history of the Spanish Inquisition (1478 to 1834.)

                  This is nonsense.

                  Jim Wyly


                  --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "George Arthur Jackson"
                  <georges28018@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > George Arthur Jackson
                  >
                  > "I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out
                  wisdom, and the reason of things,..." (Eccl. 7:25)
                  >
                  >
                  > The Mind Of Christ
                  > http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?
                  ep=16&groupid=242497&ck=
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Jedaiah Smith
                  > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:58 AM
                  > To: georgearthurjackson@...
                  > Subject: Christian Public Relations | WDC Media
                  >
                  > Jedaiah Smith <jedaiahsmith@...> has sent you the following web
                  link:
                  >
                  > http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1737
                  >
                  > Jedaiah Smith.
                  >
                  > "Truth is indestructible"
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • w_w_c_l
                  ... I can remember a time -- and it really hasn t been all that many years ago -- when even the infidels had a little respect for the Church. The whole
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Landover Baptist Church - Creation Science Quiz
                    > http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html
                    > [go to link to take the quiz and check your answers]

                    I can remember a time -- and it really hasn't been all that
                    many years ago -- when even the infidels had a little respect
                    for the Church.

                    The whole Landover Baptist site is a spoof of fundamentalism,
                    which needs a good spoofing once in a while (e.g., the
                    Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism's defunct website), but
                    it crosses the line of what I consider acceptable, and is a
                    good example of what I've been saying about Christians
                    themselves needing to put a stop to the "young earth
                    creation-science" movement, rather than sitting back and
                    allowing all of Christianity to be ridiculed because of the
                    very vocal nonsense of a few marketing racketeers.

                    Truly, if we are going to have to deal with unbelievers,
                    we are fortunate to have someone like Todd pointing
                    these things out to us rather than some of the mindless
                    idiots on some of the other lists who don't have the
                    wherewithal to do anything but lump all Christians
                    together and sling offal at them.

                    If you click on the banner at the top of the page that has
                    the "creation-science quiz" it takes you to Dr. Dino's
                    dot com. DR. DINO IS COMING TO MISSISSIPPI!!! Oh, joy!!!
                    He needs $50,000 now and another $50,000 in 6 months to
                    get his "Creation Boot Camp" ready to open; plus he needs
                    you to send donations to his "legal defense fund" so he
                    can continue his fight against the Internal Revenue
                    Service. Talk about throwing good money after bad!

                    Ellisville, Mississippi isn't all that far away from me --
                    I wonder what property he bought. There used to be a
                    reform school for girls over there; I think "Camp Sister
                    Spirit", a lesbian retreat that briefly captured national
                    attention, was in that area as well. When I heard Dr. Dino
                    was looking for property in Mississippi I hoped he would
                    settle somewhere around Starkville where the Cretaceous
                    chalk is right at the surface and where the "evolutionist
                    geologists" teach at MSU that those fossils are 65 million
                    years old. He could certainly have had some fun with those
                    "scoffers"! As it is, he won't be very far from Meridian,
                    where sand dollars and shark teeth are continually washing
                    out from a layer of sand well below paleo archaeological
                    sites.

                    Rick Hartzog
                    Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
                  • Robert Baty
                    ... I wonder who is doing the accounting for Dr. Dino. Looks to me like, if he is giving up on his public defender, that he ll need the $50,000.00 right now
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 30, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Rick wrote, in part:

                      > DR. DINO IS COMING TO MISSISSIPPI!!!

                      > Oh, joy!!!

                      > He needs $50,000 now and another
                      > $50,000 in 6 months to get his
                      > "Creation Boot Camp" ready to
                      > open; plus he needs you to send
                      > donations to his "legal defense fund"
                      > so he can continue his fight against
                      > the Internal Revenue Service.

                      I wonder who is doing the accounting for Dr. Dino. Looks to me like, if he is giving up on his public defender, that he'll need the $50,000.00 right now to pay his legal fees for his October criminal trial. It may cost him that much as a retainer to get a recognized attorney to try and put on the show Dr. Dino wants put on in his defense.
                      After all, an attorney is going to be risking professional sanctions against himself if he tries to put on some of Dr. Dino's frivolous claims as a defense.

                      It should be a good case to watch, even if Dr. Dino represents himself. Hopefully, the trial now scheduled for October instead of next week will not be postponed again.

                      Rick, maybe you'll get to see Dr. Dino when he comes to Mississippi. If so, I'll be looking forward to your report.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Todd S. Greene
                      ... I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of course, I realize that
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In coCBanned, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #5969):
                        > If evolution is true, which it demonstrably is, then
                        > whether Hitler was influenced by it or not will not
                        > make it any less true.
                        >
                        > If evolution is true, no amount of fear-laced propaganda
                        > will make it any less true.
                        |[snip]

                        I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about it.
                        But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of course, I
                        realize that certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                        with even the simplest of logic.)

                        If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B - our
                        hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.

                        However, there are many related facts that show that the
                        argument "evolution implies racism" doesn't make much sense. First of
                        all, keep in mind that the argument (by Coral Ridge Ministries and
                        other self-proclaimed Christians) is that evolution teaches a master
                        Aryan race. This argument is in fact extremely stupid, on the face of
                        it. There is no "Aryan race." That's just biology. (Evolution is part
                        of biology. Hello!) Second, the Jews aren't a race, either. That's an
                        ethnicity. Anti-Semitism comes from certain RELIGIOUS beliefs.

                        Going back before WWII, there was the general idea of eugenics in the
                        early 1900s. We have to keep in mind that while the Nazis certainly
                        used ideas from eugenics (which actually comes from genetics in
                        particular, not evolution in general), the use was illegitimate.
                        There's was nothing more than pseudoscience (and we all know how
                        pseudoscience advocates love to preach about science even while (1)
                        in regard to the science they don't really know what they're talking
                        about, and (2) they're merely using the name of science for
                        propaganda purposes in the support of their agenda). And the Nazis
                        are certainly not the only ones to have misappropriated ideas from
                        eugenics.

                        If anyone is interested in the subject of eugenics, here's a decent
                        starting point:

                        Eugenics
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

                        On that page you'll see (at least, as I type this) the following:

                        | One website on logic has used the statement "Eugenics must be
                        | wrong because it was associated with the Nazis" as a typical
                        | example of the association fallacy.[35] The stigmatization of
                        | eugenics because of its association, on the other hand, has not
                        | at all slowed the application of medical technologies that
                        | decrease the incidence of birth defects, or to slow the search
                        | for their causes.

                        The [35] reference refers to this:

                        Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association
                        http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

                        This whole Evolution = Anti-Semitism, or Evolution = Naziism argument
                        happens to be factually false, but EVEN IF IT HAPPENED TO BE TRUE
                        this would not of itself invalidate evolution, and this is a matter
                        of strict logic. (I realize that some people are virtually incapable
                        of separating logic from their personal feelings, but the major point
                        of what I'm saying here is that in terms of the logic, personal
                        feelings are irrelevant to the facts and the truth.) Notice that
                        Christians who make this argument are also, in fact, ignoring the
                        history of anti-Semitism, which is associated with antagonisms
                        between Christian and Jewish communities, many, many centuries before
                        Darwin was ever even born and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
                        with the science of biological evolution.

                        - Todd Greene
                      • Nathan Greene
                        Todd writes in part: I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of course, I
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Todd writes in part:
                          I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about it.
                          But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of course, I
                          realize that certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                          with even the simplest of logic.)

                          If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B - our
                          hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.

                          Nathan here:
                          Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.

                          (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are speaking of).

                          Nathan Greene

                          "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn. 1:6a)

                          Join:
                          coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Todd S. Greene
                          Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2006 9:22 AM
                          To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"

                          --- In coCBanned, Rick Hartzog wrote (post #5969):
                          > If evolution is true, which it demonstrably is, then
                          > whether Hitler was influenced by it or not will not
                          > make it any less true.
                          >
                          > If evolution is true, no amount of fear-laced propaganda
                          > will make it any less true.
                          |[snip]

                          I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about it.
                          But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of course, I
                          realize that certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                          with even the simplest of logic.)

                          If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B - our
                          hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.

                          However, there are many related facts that show that the
                          argument "evolution implies racism" doesn't make much sense. First of
                          all, keep in mind that the argument (by Coral Ridge Ministries and
                          other self-proclaimed Christians) is that evolution teaches a master
                          Aryan race. This argument is in fact extremely stupid, on the face of
                          it. There is no "Aryan race." That's just biology. (Evolution is part
                          of biology. Hello!) Second, the Jews aren't a race, either. That's an
                          ethnicity. Anti-Semitism comes from certain RELIGIOUS beliefs.

                          Going back before WWII, there was the general idea of eugenics in the
                          early 1900s. We have to keep in mind that while the Nazis certainly
                          used ideas from eugenics (which actually comes from genetics in
                          particular, not evolution in general), the use was illegitimate.
                          There's was nothing more than pseudoscience (and we all know how
                          pseudoscience advocates love to preach about science even while (1)
                          in regard to the science they don't really know what they're talking
                          about, and (2) they're merely using the name of science for
                          propaganda purposes in the support of their agenda). And the Nazis
                          are certainly not the only ones to have misappropriated ideas from
                          eugenics.

                          If anyone is interested in the subject of eugenics, here's a decent
                          starting point:

                          Eugenics
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

                          On that page you'll see (at least, as I type this) the following:

                          | One website on logic has used the statement "Eugenics must be
                          | wrong because it was associated with the Nazis" as a typical
                          | example of the association fallacy.[35] The stigmatization of
                          | eugenics because of its association, on the other hand, has not
                          | at all slowed the application of medical technologies that
                          | decrease the incidence of birth defects, or to slow the search
                          | for their causes.

                          The [35] reference refers to this:

                          Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association
                          http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

                          This whole Evolution = Anti-Semitism, or Evolution = Naziism argument
                          happens to be factually false, but EVEN IF IT HAPPENED TO BE TRUE
                          this would not of itself invalidate evolution, and this is a matter
                          of strict logic. (I realize that some people are virtually incapable
                          of separating logic from their personal feelings, but the major point
                          of what I'm saying here is that in terms of the logic, personal
                          feelings are irrelevant to the facts and the truth.) Notice that
                          Christians who make this argument are also, in fact, ignoring the
                          history of anti-Semitism, which is associated with antagonisms
                          between Christian and Jewish communities, many, many centuries before
                          Darwin was ever even born and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
                          with the science of biological evolution.

                          - Todd Greene







                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          ... Hi Nathan, Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the nature of it arguing
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #5999):
                            > Todd writes in part:
                            >> I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about
                            >> it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                            >> course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated
                            >> great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                            >>
                            >> If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -
                            >> our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                            >
                            > Nathan here:
                            > Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple
                            > logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.
                            >
                            > (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are
                            > speaking of).

                            Hi Nathan,

                            Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent Coral
                            Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the nature of it
                            arguing *against* the above logic.

                            However, you should notice how I worded what I wrote: "...certain
                            people here have demonstrated great difficulties with even the
                            simplest of logic." Which is a *general* statement. In fact, when I
                            wrote that I actually did have a specific example in mind of a
                            previous discussion we had in this group several months ago. When I
                            get more time I will dig that one up and refresh all of our memories
                            about the details, but at this moment I'll mention that it had to do
                            with several members here being completely incapable of understanding
                            the logic of a question regarding the implications with respect to
                            the Bible of the idea that the world has been in existence
                            substantially longer than 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or 25,000
                            years.

                            - Todd Greene
                          • Todd S. Greene
                            ... Hi Nathan, As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this one that took
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #6001):
                              > --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #5999):
                              >> Todd writes in part:
                              >>> I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about
                              >>> it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                              >>> course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated
                              >>> great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                              >>>
                              >>> If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -
                              >>> our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                              >>
                              >> Nathan here:
                              >> Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple
                              >> logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.
                              >>
                              >> (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are
                              >> speaking of).
                              >
                              > Hi Nathan,
                              >
                              > Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent
                              > Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the
                              > nature of it arguing *against* the above logic.
                              >
                              > However, you should notice how I worded what I wrote:
                              > "...certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                              > with even the simplest of logic." Which is a *general*
                              > statement. In fact, when I wrote that I actually did have a
                              > specific example in mind of a previous discussion we had in
                              > this group several months ago. When I get more time I will dig
                              > that one up and refresh all of our memories about the details,
                              > but at this moment I'll mention that it had to do with several
                              > members here being completely incapable of understanding
                              > the logic of a question regarding the implications with respect
                              > to the Bible of the idea that the world has been in existence
                              > substantially longer than 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or
                              > 25,000 years.

                              Hi Nathan,

                              As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                              specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this one
                              that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                              question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed, were
                              one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                              simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).

                              - Todd Greene

                              ------------------------------------------------

                              Why does this question make YECs dance around so much?
                              (June 6, 2005, and following)
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1119

                              YECs dancing around this question
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1125
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1127
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1135
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1136
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1142
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1143
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1146
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1149
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1151
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1161
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1175
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1178
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1190
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1197
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1216
                            • Nathan Greene
                              Hi Todd, You wrote: As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this one that
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 7, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Todd,
                                You wrote:
                                As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this one
                                that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed, were
                                one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).

                                Nathan here:
                                My inquiry was concerning your statement: "But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)

                                If A is true, and A implies BE, but for some reason we hate B -our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.

                                I looked at the posts you gave and saw none that "demonstrated great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                Such as,
                                "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A."

                                The only one "here" that seems to have "demonstrated great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)"
                                Such as,
                                "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A." ... is you!

                                Of course truth is immutable ... and our feelings cannot change it. This is just common-sense. It is the fool that says in his heart there is no God, and denies all the evidence that there is a Creator.

                                Nathan Greene

                                "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn. 1:6a)

                                Join:
                                coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Todd S. Greene
                                Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 1:14 PM
                                To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"

                                --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #6001):
                                > --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #5999):
                                >> Todd writes in part:
                                >>> I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about
                                >>> it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                >>> course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated
                                >>> great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                >>>
                                >>> If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -
                                >>> our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                                >>
                                >> Nathan here:
                                >> Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple
                                >> logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.
                                >>
                                >> (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are
                                >> speaking of).
                                >
                                > Hi Nathan,
                                >
                                > Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent
                                > Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the
                                > nature of it arguing *against* the above logic.
                                >
                                > However, you should notice how I worded what I wrote:
                                > "...certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                                > with even the simplest of logic." Which is a *general*
                                > statement. In fact, when I wrote that I actually did have a
                                > specific example in mind of a previous discussion we had in
                                > this group several months ago. When I get more time I will dig
                                > that one up and refresh all of our memories about the details,
                                > but at this moment I'll mention that it had to do with several
                                > members here being completely incapable of understanding
                                > the logic of a question regarding the implications with respect
                                > to the Bible of the idea that the world has been in existence
                                > substantially longer than 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or
                                > 25,000 years.

                                Hi Nathan,

                                As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this one
                                that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed, were
                                one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).

                                - Todd Greene

                                ------------------------------------------------

                                Why does this question make YECs dance around so much?
                                (June 6, 2005, and following)
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1119

                                YECs dancing around this question
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1125
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1127
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1135
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1136
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1142
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1143
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1146
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1149
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1151
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1161
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1175
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1178
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1190
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1197
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1216






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Todd S. Greene
                                Nathan, here you truly are doing nothing more than demonstrating your head-in-the-sand syndrome again. In the discussion a little over a year you (and some
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 9, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Nathan, here you truly are doing nothing more than demonstrating your
                                  head-in-the-sand syndrome again. In the discussion a little over a
                                  year you (and some others) certainly did have some serious problems
                                  understand a simple piece of logic.

                                  And currently, in the case of "If A is true, and A implies B, but for
                                  some reason we hate B - our hatred of B does not in any way change
                                  the truth of A" you make the absurdly silly remark that I have
                                  problem with the logic of the statement - despite the fact that *I*
                                  am the one who made the statement and pointed out the logic in the
                                  first place.

                                  So yet again we see that we you create error, and are confronted with
                                  it, you do little more than make absurd remarks and ignore your
                                  errors.

                                  I have to say, I did expect a little better of you. You keep
                                  disappointing me.

                                  - Todd Greene




                                  --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Greene"
                                  <Elpizo_Hai_Hupakouo@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Todd,
                                  > You wrote:
                                  > As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                  > specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this
                                  one
                                  > that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                  > question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed,
                                  were
                                  > one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                  > simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).
                                  >
                                  > Nathan here:
                                  > My inquiry was concerning your statement: "But this is actually a
                                  straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                  > course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated great
                                  difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                  >
                                  > If A is true, and A implies BE, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                  hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                                  >
                                  > I looked at the posts you gave and saw none that "demonstrated
                                  great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                  > Such as,
                                  > "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                  hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A."
                                  >
                                  > The only one "here" that seems to have "demonstrated great
                                  difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)"
                                  > Such as,
                                  > "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                  hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A." ... is you!
                                  >
                                  > Of course truth is immutable ... and our feelings cannot change it.
                                  This is just common-sense. It is the fool that says in his heart
                                  there is no God, and denies all the evidence that there is a Creator.
                                  >
                                  > Nathan Greene
                                  >
                                  > "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn.
                                  1:6a)
                                  >
                                  > Join:
                                  > coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: Todd S. Greene
                                  > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 1:14 PM
                                  > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"
                                  >
                                  > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #6001):
                                  > > --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #5999):
                                  > >> Todd writes in part:
                                  > >>> I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about
                                  > >>> it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                  > >>> course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated
                                  > >>> great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                  > >>>
                                  > >>> If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -
                                  > >>> our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> Nathan here:
                                  > >> Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple
                                  > >> logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are
                                  > >> speaking of).
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi Nathan,
                                  > >
                                  > > Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent
                                  > > Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the
                                  > > nature of it arguing *against* the above logic.
                                  > >
                                  > > However, you should notice how I worded what I wrote:
                                  > > "...certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                                  > > with even the simplest of logic." Which is a *general*
                                  > > statement. In fact, when I wrote that I actually did have a
                                  > > specific example in mind of a previous discussion we had in
                                  > > this group several months ago. When I get more time I will dig
                                  > > that one up and refresh all of our memories about the details,
                                  > > but at this moment I'll mention that it had to do with several
                                  > > members here being completely incapable of understanding
                                  > > the logic of a question regarding the implications with respect
                                  > > to the Bible of the idea that the world has been in existence
                                  > > substantially longer than 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or
                                  > > 25,000 years.
                                  >
                                  > Hi Nathan,
                                  >
                                  > As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                  > specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this
                                  one
                                  > that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                  > question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed,
                                  were
                                  > one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                  > simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).
                                  >
                                  > - Todd Greene
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > Why does this question make YECs dance around so much?
                                  > (June 6, 2005, and following)
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1119
                                  >
                                  > YECs dancing around this question
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1125
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1127
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1135
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1136
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1142
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1143
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1146
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1149
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1151
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1161
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1175
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1178
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1190
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1197
                                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1216
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • Nathan Greene
                                  Todd, maybe I will not disappoint you if we replace the A and B with something more real: You wrote: If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 11, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Todd, maybe I will not disappoint you if we replace the A and B with something more real:

                                    You wrote:
                                    "If A is true, and A implies B, but for
                                    some reason we hate B - our hatred of B does not in any way change
                                    the truth of A"

                                    I write:
                                    If the Bible is true, and the Bible states there is a God and God has created all thing, but for some reason we hate God - our hatred of God does not in any way change the truth of the Bible.

                                    Nathan Greene

                                    "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn. 1:6a)

                                    Join:
                                    coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Todd S. Greene
                                    Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2006 3:02 AM
                                    To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"

                                    Nathan, here you truly are doing nothing more than demonstrating your
                                    head-in-the-sand syndrome again. In the discussion a little over a
                                    year you (and some others) certainly did have some serious problems
                                    understand a simple piece of logic.

                                    And currently, in the case of "If A is true, and A implies B, but for
                                    some reason we hate B - our hatred of B does not in any way change
                                    the truth of A" you make the absurdly silly remark that I have
                                    problem with the logic of the statement - despite the fact that *I*
                                    am the one who made the statement and pointed out the logic in the
                                    first place.

                                    So yet again we see that we you create error, and are confronted with
                                    it, you do little more than make absurd remarks and ignore your
                                    errors.

                                    I have to say, I did expect a little better of you. You keep
                                    disappointing me.

                                    - Todd Greene




                                    --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Greene"
                                    <Elpizo_Hai_Hupakouo@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Hi Todd,
                                    > You wrote:
                                    > As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                    > specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this
                                    one
                                    > that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                    > question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed,
                                    were
                                    > one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                    > simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).
                                    >
                                    > Nathan here:
                                    > My inquiry was concerning your statement: "But this is actually a
                                    straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                    > course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated great
                                    difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                    >
                                    > If A is true, and A implies BE, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                    hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                                    >
                                    > I looked at the posts you gave and saw none that "demonstrated
                                    great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                    > Such as,
                                    > "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                    hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A."
                                    >
                                    > The only one "here" that seems to have "demonstrated great
                                    difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)"
                                    > Such as,
                                    > "If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -our
                                    hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A." ... is you!
                                    >
                                    > Of course truth is immutable ... and our feelings cannot change it.
                                    This is just common-sense. It is the fool that says in his heart
                                    there is no God, and denies all the evidence that there is a Creator.
                                    >
                                    > Nathan Greene
                                    >
                                    > "And this is love, that we walk after His commandments." (2 Jn.
                                    1:6a)
                                    >
                                    > Join:
                                    > coCBanned-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: Todd S. Greene
                                    > Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 1:14 PM
                                    > To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Excerpt from the "Epistle of Barnabas"
                                    >
                                    > --- In coCBanned, Todd Greene wrote (post #6001):
                                    > > --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #5999):
                                    > >> Todd writes in part:
                                    > >>> I had intended to respond to this earlier, then I forgot about
                                    > >>> it. But this is actually a straightforward piece of logic. (Of
                                    > >>> course, I realize that certain people here have demonstrated
                                    > >>> great difficulties with even the simplest of logic.)
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>> If A is true, and A implies B, but for some reason we hate B -
                                    > >>> our hatred of B does not in any way change the truth of A.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Nathan here:
                                    > >> Would love to know just one "here" who would with the simple
                                    > >> logic of the above ... demonstrate great difficulties with it.
                                    > >>
                                    > >> (I know one but will only say if you tell us who you are
                                    > >> speaking of).
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi Nathan,
                                    > >
                                    > > Any person in this group who argued in support of the recent
                                    > > Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy) program was by the
                                    > > nature of it arguing *against* the above logic.
                                    > >
                                    > > However, you should notice how I worded what I wrote:
                                    > > "...certain people here have demonstrated great difficulties
                                    > > with even the simplest of logic." Which is a *general*
                                    > > statement. In fact, when I wrote that I actually did have a
                                    > > specific example in mind of a previous discussion we had in
                                    > > this group several months ago. When I get more time I will dig
                                    > > that one up and refresh all of our memories about the details,
                                    > > but at this moment I'll mention that it had to do with several
                                    > > members here being completely incapable of understanding
                                    > > the logic of a question regarding the implications with respect
                                    > > to the Bible of the idea that the world has been in existence
                                    > > substantially longer than 6,000, or 10,000, or 15,000, or
                                    > > 25,000 years.
                                    >
                                    > Hi Nathan,
                                    >
                                    > As promised, here are the references for you (see below). The
                                    > specific example that was sitting in the back of my mind was this
                                    one
                                    > that took place in June of last year, which I came to call the
                                    > question that YECs love to dance around. Note that you, indeed,
                                    were
                                    > one of the ones who had extreme difficulty with an example of very
                                    > simple logic (but certainly not the only one!).
                                    >
                                    > - Todd Greene
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Why does this question make YECs dance around so much?
                                    > (June 6, 2005, and following)
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1119
                                    >
                                    > YECs dancing around this question
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1125
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1127
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1135
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1136
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1142
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1143
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1146
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1149
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1151
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1161
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1175
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1178
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1190
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1197
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/1216
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >








                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Todd S. Greene
                                    ... Hi Nathan, You have expressed correct (i.e., valid) logic. Unfortunately, the argument is not sound. We know the Bible is not true, because the Bible
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 11, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #6021):
                                      > Todd, maybe I will not disappoint you if we replace the A and
                                      > B with something more real:
                                      >
                                      > You wrote:
                                      >> "If A is true, and A implies B, but for
                                      >> some reason we hate B - our hatred of B does not in any way
                                      >> change the truth of A"
                                      >
                                      > I write:
                                      > If the Bible is true, and the Bible states there is a God and
                                      > God has created all thing, but for some reason we hate God -
                                      > our hatred of God does not in any way change the truth of the
                                      > Bible.

                                      Hi Nathan,

                                      You have expressed correct (i.e., valid) logic.

                                      Unfortunately, the argument is not sound. We know the Bible is not
                                      true, because the Bible teaches that the Universe and the Earth did
                                      not exist more than several thousand years ago, yet we know by
                                      empirical examination of the Universe and the Earth that they have
                                      both been in existence for many millions of years (indeed, for
                                      billions of years).

                                      - Todd Greene

                                      P.S.: This is Goliath's (GRAS) cousin raising his "ugly" head!
                                    • Veto Roley
                                      Todd, Where does the Bible teach that the earth was created several thousand years ago? To many on the list, I apologize for disappearing -- some don t merit
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 11, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Todd,

                                        Where does the Bible teach that the earth was created several thousand years ago?

                                        To many on the list, I apologize for disappearing -- some don't merit an apology, but to those who merit an apology, my apologies. However, I had a few life-changing things to take care of -- primarily getting documents to my fiance for her K-1 visa interview and getting back into my old career.

                                        I believe what I said was that God has the power to create a universe in six nanoseconds that would take us billions of years to account for, and He has the patience to take six long periods, or ages, to create the world. And, for the record, Batty, I am neither YEC or OEC -- for the Bible truly backs either position. Perhaps, Batty, that is why I did not grasp your using the Goliath of Gras argument against my viewpoint -- it is completely and totally irrelevant to my viewpoint.

                                        Now, what the Bible states, Todd and Batty, is that God created the world in six "Yoms" and, one the seventh "Yom", He rested. Here is what the Bible does NOT say: that these seven "Yoms" comprise a complete 168-hour week. So while the seven "Yoms" may or may not comprise an entire week, they can also refer to six successive days that mark ages or six successive ages that last any where from a nanosecond or less to trillions upon trillions of years -- much less millions or billions of years. The problem with the Goliath of Gras argument, then, is that it tries to force the Bible to speak where it is silent. I don't, even though, at times, depending on which argument I have read about, YEC or OEC, I do have my leanings.

                                        Now, Batty, you should recognize this quote, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." So, if you wonder why I question the faith of someone who does not believe that God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), ask the Hebrew writer.

                                        Now, Todd, it goes back to what one's ultimate worldview is, and there are only three. The first is that God is eternal and He created matter. The second is matter is eternal and there is no Creator, no God. The third is that nothing, not even our existance, is truly real.

                                        Todd, from my discussions with you, you believe that matter is eternal, with your faith being man and man's ability to reason and think. Now, Todd, the thing I find really laughable about your belief system is not that you believe that matter is eternal. The thing I find really laughable is your belief in man and your optimism about his ability. When I was an evolutionist, and there was a slight period of time that I was, I at least understood the character and end of man and nature and was, therefore, a committed nilhilist. I still remain, to this day, a Christian nihilist. All value and hope I see in this world is solely due to God and, if there was no God, the only hope for the world is the extinction of about ten billion or so human beings. And, yes, I know how many people call earth their home...

                                        Now, if one's ultimate reality is God, as mine is, I know by faith that God created the heavens and earth and in six days, or "yoms", He created everything that we see. I may not have all the answers, and I may even question some myself. But, my faith assures me that Genesis 1 is Truth, and those ideas and theories that contradict Genesis 1 must be false.

                                        Further, and this is extremely important, my faith is not built on Genesis 1, but informs my belief about the validity of Genesis 1. My faith is built solidily on the historical reality of Jesus, His death, His burial and His resurrection.

                                        So, Todd, my faith tells me that you are wrong -- both about Genesis 1 and about the cross. Moreover, my faith tells me that your being incorrect has eternal consequences, and for that I am saddened.

                                        Now, Todd, according to your faith in mankind and matter, my worldview is wrong. However, my being wrong in this really does not matter if there is no God. My faith allows me to have hope in a world filled with the near total ignorance, incompetence, evil -- and even in a world without God, the record of mankind has been unrelenting evil -- and unfaithfulness of man.

                                        Veto



                                        "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
                                        --- In coCBanned, Nathan Greene wrote (post #6021):
                                        > Todd, maybe I will not disappoint you if we replace the A and
                                        > B with something more real:
                                        >
                                        > You wrote:
                                        >> "If A is true, and A implies B, but for
                                        >> some reason we hate B - our hatred of B does not in any way
                                        >> change the truth of A"
                                        >
                                        > I write:
                                        > If the Bible is true, and the Bible states there is a God and
                                        > God has created all thing, but for some reason we hate God -
                                        > our hatred of God does not in any way change the truth of the
                                        > Bible.

                                        Hi Nathan,

                                        You have expressed correct (i.e., valid) logic.

                                        Unfortunately, the argument is not sound. We know the Bible is not
                                        true, because the Bible teaches that the Universe and the Earth did
                                        not exist more than several thousand years ago, yet we know by
                                        empirical examination of the Universe and the Earth that they have
                                        both been in existence for many millions of years (indeed, for
                                        billions of years).

                                        - Todd Greene

                                        P.S.: This is Goliath's (GRAS) cousin raising his "ugly" head!






                                        "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." --Muhammad Ali

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Todd S. Greene
                                        ... [snip] Veto, are you Nathan? No, you are not. YOUR position is IRRELEVANT to my statement. My statement was made TO NATHAN in regard to HIS position.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Sep 12, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In coCBanned, Veto Roley wrote (post #6034):
                                          > Todd,
                                          >
                                          > Where does the Bible teach that the earth was created several
                                          > thousand years ago?
                                          [snip]

                                          Veto, are you Nathan? No, you are not. YOUR position is IRRELEVANT to
                                          my statement. My statement was made TO NATHAN in regard to HIS
                                          position. NATHAN argues that the Bible teaches that the Earth was
                                          created several thousand years ago. You cannot IGNORE Nathan's
                                          position, and thus IGNORE the context of my statement, and then
                                          pretend that your response is relevant to what I stated. That's
                                          called "taking things out of context."

                                          But do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying your discussion is
                                          irrelevant. I'm just saying it is out of context and thus irrelevant
                                          to THE POINT I WAS MAKING TO NATHAN.

                                          Now, if you want to follow up WITH NATHAN, who DOES advocate that the
                                          Bible teaches that the Earth was created several thousand years ago,
                                          then you should go right ahead and engage the discussion WITH HIM. HE
                                          is the young earth creationist, not me. (Surely you did not think
                                          otherwise?)

                                          To everyone else: Incidentally, based on Veto's response, do you
                                          realize what Veto's answer is to Goliath's "ugly cousin"? Here's that
                                          cousin again:

                                          (Please note that in my post to Robert Baty just previously, I
                                          misstated A and B. They are stated correctly here.)

                                          | If the world has been in existence for at least 100,000
                                          | (one hundred thousand) years, then would this mean that
                                          |
                                          | A. the Bible is wrong, or
                                          | B. the young earth creationist interpretation of the
                                          | Bible is wrong?

                                          Veto has chosen B.

                                          Incidentally, as far as I recall, Nathan has never provided a
                                          rational answer to this question. A little over a year ago, all
                                          Nathan could do is give self-contradictory - i.e., irrational -
                                          answers. A lot of young earth creationists are so mired in their
                                          religious dogma, that it has so seriously damaged their rational
                                          faculties on issues like this, that they cannot even bring themselves
                                          to rationally deal with simple questions such as this.

                                          - Todd Greene

                                          P.S.: Notice how the very thin-skinned Veto constantly casts personal
                                          insult toward Robert Baty. Veto is the same man who went through all
                                          kinds of deceitful gyrations to rake me over the coals based on his
                                          completely false accusation that I had personally insulted him with a
                                          racist insult (and all that was simply because he PURPOSELY REFUSED
                                          to admit he'd made a mistake about a Soprano's scene I referred to).
                                          What we're observing on this matter is blatant hypocrisy.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.