🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:53:46 -0700, ben_dolan_III@reet.com (Ben Dolan)
wrote:

>Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:14:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
>> wrote:
>> 
(snip)
>> The Word of God is NOT in disagreement with any reliable scientific
>> knowledge. The confusion on this is caused by the way The Word of God
>> was given to humans. 
>> 
>> The Word of God had to be given to us such that those primitive people
>> could grasp the basic meaning, and also pass the information along
>> from generation to generation among illiterate people, with little
>> drift. 
>
>Then you would think that God would wait until man HAD advanced so that
>they could grasp the basic meaning. It seems like the big fella would be
>smart enough to figure that out, wouldn't you? I mean, you claim YOU
>have figured it out, with your elaborate gobbledygook about multiverses
>and quantum particles. Why not wait and communicate it directly to you?
>
Those who volitionally choose to understand God have always been able
to grasp the basic meaning and those who volitionally choose to reject
God have also been able to generate this mind-set. No one from any age
or culture has ever had an advantage over anyone from another
age/culture.   Gordon
>
>> Allegories, parables, similes, etc., are the way this was achieved.
>
>Don't you think it possible that those allegories and parables came
>about the way they all did, as plain old inventions of the human
>imagination? After all, these same stories (virgin conceptions, for
>example) were around well before Christ.
>
The parables, allegories, etc., were selected by God as he passed His
information along to those prophets. True, they often used existing
legends, etc., but the message from God was fitted into these stories,
thus making it easy for the people to remember them.   Gordon
>
>> Also, The Word of God had to be given to those early humans such that
>> they would have the same advantages that we have, today. That is, no
>> favoritism was shown by presenting the information in a form that only
>> a modern scientifically educated person could understand.  
>
>Your claim of God as the omniscient science teacher remains
>unconvincing, and is hardly original. I have no idea how you arrived at
>this point of view, but it is on the whole rather ridiculous.
>
God IS the source of all our science. God IS the creator of all this.
God used the same science we are beginning to understand, to carry out
His creation program.   Gordon