Shanktified!

This is post is part of a series of replies. If you landed here first, please see the intro post here.

The God character hardened Pharoah’s heart and did all these wonders through Moses, when he could have simply softened Pharoah’s heart so he would let them go. Or, being omnipotent, he could have simply zapped all the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of milk and honey to begin with. Why did he choose to harden Pharoah’s heart and do things the hard way? Well, the Bible clearly says that it was to display of all his awesome power and glory, so everyone will know that He is the Lord. So why, then, would this God not want people to know the vastness of our amazing universe? As much as this character liked to take credit for things, it seems out of character for Him to describe our planet and universe which He supposedly created in such a two-dimensional way. Again, why a circle (which is flat) and not a ball?

Again, I don’t know why He choose to reveal what He did, as He did. It’s not for me to argue. (Not that I think He is disturbed by our asking questions (at least not when the intent is to seek the truth). And you do bring up a great point; “The Heavens do declare the Glory of God” (see Psalm 19:1) and it’s impossible for me to study the heavens and not be amazed at it’s incredible design and not believe there is a designer. St. Paul put it this way:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21)

This is post is part of a series of replies. If you landed here first, please see the intro post here.

Ron wrote: I know of no scientific law the refutes the Bible.

The whole idea of scientific “law” is a fallacy. For instance, the “law” of gravity is merely a very well-founded theory which has not been disproven.

By referring to gravitational theory as “law,” one is thereby placing our current understanding of the mechanisms behind that which we refer to as gravity into the realm of absolutes. By calling it “law,” we are saying that X absolutely causes Y, which could actually be incorrect. What we do know is that Y occurs, and X seems to affect it. However, it’s possible that someday we will discover that Z really affects it, and that both X and Y are merely affected by the cause of Z.

That said, there is much evidence to suggest that many stories which are told in the Bible either didn’t happen, or didn’t happen when/how the stories say they did. Contrary to what some creationists with important-sounding titles may claim, there was no global flood, no one inhabited Jericho at the time when Joshua is said to have conquered it, and dinosaurs did pre-date humans by millions of years. Further, the few sentences which Christian apologists use as “proof” that Jesus even existed were refuted as forgeries hundreds of years ago.

Are you doubting Jesus existed? If so, that puts you way outside the realm of even most athiests. Sure they disagree that He was God, but no one credible seriously doubts His exsistance.

You missed my question/statement. I know of no scientific law (as is currently understood) that contradicts the Bible.

As an aside, I’d love to see this evidence of your posts. That could be a huge aside. Do you have a blog of your own? If so, I’d be happy to link to it.

And speaking of gravity and evolution (or in this case the big bang). Where did gravity come from? (No need to chase that rabbit if you don’t want to.)

Ron wrote: Elsa, many did believe it was just a circle. It’s even possible Isaiah may have thought so (although there’s no evidence to support that). That’s not my point. My point was that it turns out scripture was right.

How so? By basically calling the world a disc?

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said, scripture is still not wrong.

Ron wrote: I should note here that Isaiah was inspired by the Holy Spirit when those words were written. Therefore, I see no problem with Isaiah not fully comprehending the science behind what he wrote.

So why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire Isaiah to write, It is he that sitteth upon the ball of the earth? Surely people had worked with “balls” of clay back then before they shaped it into pottery.

* I’ll ask him Seriously, I do not know.

Ron wrote: Incidentally the “flat earth” people are nuts.

This we can agree on, lol. But why would “God” allow his creation to be described as an immovable disc or flat square that rests on pillars, with a dome-shaped firmament separating the earth from the heavens, when the real nature of our universe is so much more awe-inspiring?

I don’t know anyone who hears the phrase “the four corners of the earth” and therefore concludes the earth is a flat square. But this is getting a little foolish. Particularity, when you are so opposed to even the concept of God that you type “God” in quotes or refer to Him as “The God character” (see next post). It’s offensive. I’m sure your point here is not to offend, so I’ll continue. But really - I think we are chasing rabbits.

This is post is part of a series of replies. If you landed here first, please see the intro post here.

Ron wrote: Matthew 24 doesn’t reference a dual night/day setting. That’s why i didn’t use it.

Of course you didn’t use it. Matthew 24 basically infers that judgment will come to Israel and nowhere else. How else would one escape it by fleeing to the mountains?

It’s generally agreed that those verses in Matt 24 are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd coming. And BTW those that fled to the mountains when Rome leveled Jerusalem were spared.

Note to Elsa: Before you begin reading my reply. It might help you to understand better where I am coming from. You can do that best by listening to this teaching/sermon called Hell’s Best Kept Secret. It’s meant to teach Christians how to share their faith, but if you will take the time to listen it will give me a point of reference and keep me from a lot more typing. And while you might not agree, you’ll at least understand my game plan.

To Elsa and the rest of the Internet: Because of the huge amount of material in Elsa’s comment (here) and because it takes us so off course from the original theme of my post about Ron Paul, I have started a series of posts to handle each point. Some will not go much further, but I would imagine some will take on a whole new life of their own as well.

1. Matthew 24
2. Does Science Disprove the Bible?
3. Is God’s Plan Better?
4. Why Ron (that’s me) Believes the Bible
5. Personal Experience = Truth?
6. Loving God and Hell Reconciled
7. Could She Be Wrong?

Turns out you do need your appendix after all.

Hat tip: Scott Ott.

My Ron Paul on Evolution post continues to get a lot of comments. Gary’s latest comment brought up an excellent point I had not thought of before.

…Also, the Theory of Evolution does not accept a perfect original creation. It has death and destruction at the beginning. Scripture teaches that the original creation was perfect, then marred by sin, then death was placed upon it by God as a curse. Death before sin contradicts Scripture. If death was rampant for millions of years before Adam sinned, which would be the case according to the Theory of Evolution, then how could it be a curse placed upon creation by God? If that is the case, then death is normal, not abnormal. It undermines the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ to redeem people from the curse of sin and death….

Be sure and check out the entire post. It really has some great thoughts.

I’m getting ready for a mission trip to Honduras next Jan. If you want to come with me or help, please read the letter I sent to a few friends. Oh and here are some pictures from this years trip.

Continue reading »

If you are not checking for comments often on my blog, here are a couple good ones of late:

Psychologist, Dr. X, chimes in on “Why Evolution Matters”

and Pumkinhead brings up an excellent point on Ron Paul and whether his views of evolution matter as president.

• UPDATE 3a: Edited clip here:
  
  
  This clip was changed to a slightly longer version to make sure RP’s full answer was given.
• UPDATE 2: Ron Paul says “It’s a Theory … I don’t accept it.”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q (question starts at 2:40) Hat-tip: Ray (from comment 40 below).
• Update 1 (written when I still understood Paul to believe in Evolution): Much to my surprise this post remains one of the most active on my site. So, I think it is necessary to clarify that Ron Paul’s views on evolution alone do not disqualify him from receiving my vote. I like many of Ron Paul’s comments concerning the Constitutionality of various things. It’s where Rep Paul and I have strong common ground. But this is a campaign and don’t let debate sound-bites override the facts. Investigate. Start with their voting records. Now, on to my original post:

As I investigate whom I will vote for, I found the list got a lot shorter after the first debate.

After seeing the clip after asking “who does not believe in evolution.” I shot off this email to the Ron Paul campaign:

On 5/4/07, Ron Shank wrote:

Dear Ron Paul team:

Does Ron Paul believe in evolution? I didn’t see his hand raised in the debate when asked “who does not believe in evolution.”

Thanks for your quick reply.

Thank you,

Ron Shank

They quickly replied.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

For me, this narrows it down to these three to further investigate.

Your thoughts?