Spider and Wouldee, have pointed out that other the Bible references other cultures. True enough, but here is the rub.

The God of the Bible seems to abandoned all humans save for those in the middle east - from whence all Christianity and those assimilated to it through Jewish heritage. Those who read the Bible seem to get this one sided, single focused idea that the world was limited to only those cultures mentioned in the Bible. Therefore, most of Biblical history and study pertains ONLY to a few cultures and locations.

This limits ones ability to see the rich and vast cultures that existed elsewhere. By limiting that view, there is no concept that life on this planet pre-dates the Hebrew history.

This limitation, this lack of knowledge, supports the view that the earth can not possibly be older than the Hebrews that as direct denscendants of the first creation.

How can only one line or two or twelve lines of heritage be blessed by God, when ALL lines MUST eminate with an original creation. And why would all those lines who are blessed, be only Hebrew. What about the asian cultures, the nordic cultures, the aborriginals of Africa, the Indians of the Americas and Canada and Spain and Mexico.

Why would a God limit its presence and its word to so few and why "those" few?

Farel says, the answers to ALL man's questions can be found in the Bible. Where are the answers to why God focused on the people and area it did? Why did God ignore the rest of the world? And where was God between the time that Adam and Eve began to populate the world and the time God chose to present itself with a list of desired actions. Why were only a few people told to act in this accord, while the rest of the world was left to create their own gods and godesses and mythologies?

Eljay,

I trust you have no concerns left about 'fundamentalism-bible inerrancy-imposed apologetics';
... vastly different from your own personnal approach,
... is the core and heart of this thread?!?!?

Also Eljay, it was my understanding that we had settled wht I referred to when I spoke of a 'fundie', or 'militant fundemantalist'.

For your own benefit, let me reiterate that your answer to me was that you were 'evangelical' and not 'fundie'.

I don't understand your confusion!!!

While 'evangelicals' share the founding doctrines of 'Conservative Protestantism' (sounds redundant but it is not), EVANGELICALS PROPOSE, while 'FUNDIES' IMPOSE!!!

That's why a dialogue is possible with you and wouldee, and impossible with 'feral' and 'spider'. Although I must admit, since his deactivate/reactivate event, 'spider' has been quite impeccable!!!


PROPOSE !!! Allows for dialogue in full respect (agreement or not) of others.

IMOPOSE !!! Is a one-way-street, obviously always in the same direction, and thus allow for nothing other than confrontation in the event of inevitable disagreeement.

Does that help clarify it for you eljay?


Finally, and not to pick on anything, but you mentionned that you stood corrected when I corrected you calling me an Atheist quite wrongly.
A post or so later, arond the 'label' discussion, you suggested you didn't have a label for me, although you put me in the 'box' of 'non-christian'. That 'box' you refer to is a different word for 'label', as in categorize people. We all do it.

And while you can 'box' or 'label' me in your own opinion, in any way you wish, I must repeat to you that I am Christian, and what I am is not dependent upon yours, or anyone else's personnal 'box' or 'labelled' opinion.

You told me you are an 'evangelical' Christian, I have no reason to double 'box' you as anything else.

That makes life simple, I interract with you as an Evangelical Christian.

And so much so that if you were, unconsciously to slip into the foreign role of 'fundie', 'god' forbid, you could count on me to remind you that you are not a 'fundie', but an 'evangelical' Christian, and I could trust that you would manage the rest. That is called committed friendship, regardless of beliefs.

Double 'boxing' or double 'labeling' just kills the possibiluty of mutual trust and true friendship. Besides, it makes life awfully complicated!!!

:)

Redy,

the few as you depict them are significant in the one singular reason and purpose of the Bible's compilation at all.

Namely, the historical references of ancient knowledge that forsaw and depict the person of Jesus of Nazareth as being the single focal point of what is called CANON.

In addition, the string of influence finds its peculiarity in the depiction of Abraham's purported conversation with God and the subsequent friendship that led to promises from God to Abraham being fulfilled in the presence and historically affirmed life and times and teachings and testimonies thoroughly saturating the person of Jesus of Nazareth.


That, in and of itself, is sufficient and equally laborious as a condition, upon which depicting any regional context for the necessary relevance of man and God being an intimacy, is not to be overlooked in future generations.


Why I must point this out is ludicrous.

But it does so find me engaged.

Forgive my impertinence.

Wouldee, I understand. From your viewpoint, that was the middle of the world. In a time and place where, you confirm, that the most communication would likely stem.

But what were numbers of populations of other countries, cultures at that time? There were more advanced cultures, and they were cultures, BEFORE the Biblical record that proclaims the age of man.

At any rate, it matters not, because every culture has been subject to their own choices of religions and belief systems. The ones in the middle east at ANY time period, are no different. Many of the values from each belief system are seen to be handed from one system to another, the Jewish faith, the Christian faith are no different.

All this proves one thing, a belief does not 'logically' need to be proven. It is a 'personal' belief. If we respect all persons as individuals, there is no contradiction between beliefs. It's only when we assume that all individuals must accept and conform to the dogma associated with a belief system, that conflict arises.

Thats good ones redy:

1. Because those people were direct were the direct decedents of God through Adam, and then Abraham, Isaac Jacob, etc. All in Genesis. And remember that the rest of the world was worshiping false idols, other gods a big no no to God. So in a sense they were ignoring God not God ignoring them. The Adamic Covenant is a good place to start a read...you can probably google it. God was always there and he kept giving the people chance after chance to listen...but they chose not to....So God was with the righteous, those following his laws. Then here comes Noah a very Godly man......a man that listen to God...God said build the ark and fill it...you know the rest...which Noah did.....God destroyed the world with the flood and only the 8 survivors of the Ark....then they started life againe.

Then again sin sin sin and then the line of Abraham all the way to Moses then on to Joseph and then of course Jesus. Who then went on to preach the word of God to people all around, and then sent his disciples to preach around the world, which is still going on today......and Jesus will not come back until allthe nations of all the world have heard his Father's word.

I would point to the adventures of Cortez in the western hemisphere which did allow him the secret advantage of plundering a perplexed society that had been waiting for the appearance of a redeemer that would lighten their future.

There are others, but this one will be easily recognized by all as an example of world wide anticipation of better days ahead for mankind.

Not to mention, the disappearance of certain brutal and bllodthirsy cultures [ that mockingly embraced a form of human sacrifice that often included the letting of leadership's blood as well as a conditional requirement for God's favor towards a people]from the stage of man that can reference their decline from the period following the appearance of jesus of Nazareth on the stage of humanity.
( finding themselves entrenched on South America)

wouldee,

You are a friend, and don't go doubting that.

And as friends, I owe you to be frank and straight, instead of walking away shaking my head.

'redy' raised an interesting point, which in a nutshell, pointed to the lack of mention of 'other' cultures, geographies, and populations in the bible.

The fun part about 'redy''s question, is that she obviously gave it the necessary attention and thought, such that it came out in very clear form. I read through it once, and got the gist loud and clear.

Now, just as interesting, you addressed 'redy's question with what first sounded to me like an answer t her question.

Well wouldee, I'm still waiting for the answer, and that is not what I wish to point out to you.

The point is, I read your reply 5 or 6 times, I used my 'mandarin' dictionary, I so thought it must have been 'chinese', and only then, I figured, ... my god, he's just baffling!!!

I don't mean to dig wouldee, but if it is not clear to you, throwing words at it won't make it any clearer to us.

To prove to you that I have done my part, here is the understanding I got out your post:

'... 'apparently', Abraham would have had a talk with God. After a beer or two, they became 'buddies', and god promised Abraham he would address his question: '...are you sure there is just US on this earth???...'. He assured him right there and then, that he would check into it, and if there were other populations or whatever, he would insert a special microchip in Jesus' brain, a major version update type of chip, that would cover God's behind on the overlooked population details of the bible...' Sort of like 'reversed engineering, with updates built-in'.

If that is not it, just trust that I've done my best.

But I am warning you gently and amicably, next time you write in 'baffling' style such as this, I'll just ask you to re-write it, while making sure I say please first.

:)

Farel, I do appreciate your attempts, but this is not applicable to my questions.

You state that not all humans are direct descendents of Adam and Eve. However, it is the direct descendent line that is of and belongs to God. Therefore the conclusion is that all those "other" humans are neither descendants of Adam and therefor not of God, which can only mean that they are not redeemable.

I can theorize from your statements that perhaps only a portion of humanity are 'created'. If that's the case, then perhaps humans have evolved, did exist prior to the Godly creation of the two.

Also, if that's the case, I would think the Mormons have a very good case for their intense study of geneology. What good is the belief if one can not assess their ability to a rightful claim to a lineage that is of God?

Where are the answers to why God focused on the people and area it did?

That was your first question redy....which I replied to....And everyone because of Jesus has the right to heaven.....even the Gentiles which I and you would be considered. And yes all of the human race is redeemable....but only if you repent and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to be your personal savior....And yes you can poo poo that and say what kind of God would do that....We considering that God himself sacrificed his only begotten son for our sins, I would say that He is a loving God.

Now also if you would of been paying attention all the nations even in that time, were told of God...and chose to not listen much of what has happen throughout the generations of time...ll their choice....and the consequences will also be theirs.

Hmmm... we seem to be off track. My suggestion was to devote an entire thread to what you had posted (which looked to begin as a series) because I think that it is actually a larger issue than most of the subjective observations about Evolution and Creation as an origin of the species. I had no intention of suggesting that you were off thread - but rather that what you had to say deserved to be on page one of a thread as opposed to somewhere around page 13 or 14. I'm sorry you had to go through your explination - it wasn't necessary.

WOW!!!

'Redy', does that mean what I think this means?!?!?

Tell me it ain't so !!!

I mean, we've got to put a stop to the evangelical work around the world!

Hell, with the rate of world immigration, we got to put a halt to all evangelical missions at home, and do a retrograde of the conversions we have issued to immigrants whom don't show up in the bible.

Most worrisome of all, this means that you and I 'redy', are 'god made biblical times creatures', and Asians and other non-biblical nations, are evolved human beings. No wonder there taking over the world.

And to top it all off, we've been sending them to heaven!!!

Imagine that, evolved human beings in heaven!!! Hell, we really have fudged it all up!!!

Thanks Ejay,

I'll think about a sepearate thread.

Voile;

You're confusing the timeline of threads. I posted the "stand corrected" post long after I did the "box" post. Each post was in a different thread. I know - it's getting confusing.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES and oh yea just in case you missed it YES

Eljay wrote:





My apologies, forgive my oversight.

Could you confirm whether or not the 'Fundie' vs Evangelical clarification, clarified???

Voila,

The distinction of my remarks to Redy's question , that was self- answered by her , possessed an assumptive condition that all religions in the region were adequately similar .

On the contrary, they differ in completion as comparable disciplines in that Judaism is not the complete discipline and therefore divergent in its uniqueness.

Your 'having a beer with' analogy is close but not the same as 'sitting ai the table as one of the guys' is.

Jesus is that target of passionate love or arrogant self-righteousness as far relevancy is concerned.

What is ludicrous to me and thereby my impertinence is that the Bible becomes the God ,to judge all gods by ,in the minds of believers and unbelievers alike all too often ; obscuring the Bible itself.

Please let this rest here.

yWell then stop switching teams!!! It's really not OK!!!

You can't be 'bible inerrancy-preseuppositionalist', and claim to be open minded to positins from others, or worse yet, open to any form of FACT they might offer in good faith, should they contradict your 'presuppositions'.

Your mind is as made up as can be, on a single, cast in concrete doctrine and dogma. That's fine. It's your privilege. The profound inconsistency is, Feral, you can't be 100% dogmatic, and 'open minded, really'!!!

You have the right to be as dogmatic as you wish Feral, but you can't go around saying with honesty that you are open-minded, impartial, unbiased, objective!!!

Being dogmatic, is precisely being biased towards the dogma, parial for the dogma, subjective around the dogma, and 'closed' to anything which contradicts the dogma.

I don't suggest you should change, but you got to stop claiming you are 'open', when the 'store is closed': you ain't buying anything!!! You've claimed over and over again you got it all in your dogma!!!

Consistency matters Feral. Without it, anybody could say anything, nothing would mean anything and no one would be accountable.

The number of YES's you've got up there as answer to 'bible inerrancy' cinfirm what we all suspect of you:

Unconditionnally, not a hint of a doubt or a question, 100% certified dogmatic.

That's clear!!!

Now just abstain from switching 'jersey's'.

You've got your 'jersey' tatooed deep in your skin!!! You're kind of compromised!!!

Quit the pretense, and just assume your choices.

I do have a general comment or two for all that might help with the continuity of this debate.

One being that there are other threads in this forum that have information suitable for inclusion in this debate without regenerating creative queries that require duplicitous answers in this one. Perhaps acknowledgement of them and reference to them would be an expedient course of action to embrace with their respective regard.

Another would be that we assume some personal responsibility for making ourselves aware of those threads and the information contained therein as incumbent upon the participants in this thread to self-apprise and deepen the quality of this one with thoughtful prerequisite.

Just a thought that I have and one I hope won't require explanation or acknowledgement or approval or acceptance or....

Feral u still havent answered me as to where fossils come from
EITHER they evolved as the rational world believes
OR the devil made them to decieve us which is a ludicrous and moronic proposal that some religious people believe
BUT u admitted that the the devil didnt make them
SO if not evolution, which u seem to fervently oppose
THEN What r fossils acording 2 u?

(i told u im not gonna let this go, its a crack in the armor of your denial/faith and perfect for me to exploit)

And remember
KING KONG DIED FOR YOUR SINS!
SO DID CAPTAIN AMERICA!