Support NeoGAF

PogiJones · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
I'm just wondering how evolution is compatible with the things Game Analyst is positing (that humans once had perfect bodies, etc...). Though I'm guessing he's fringe?

I'm Christian and believe in evolution. Without getting too deep into it (algebra before calculus sort of thing), I think the reason most Christians are averse to evolution is because they believe evolving from "monkeys" is dirty or unworthy of God's children. However, for me, the Bible says God "formed" man from the dust. What is dirtier or more unworthy, literal dust, or the amazing specimens that appeared over the past billion years? The slow crafting of man over billions of years shows more love and care than a snap of the fingers. I've always believed that God works almost entirely through natural means, and evolution was his carefully-crafted tool to form his very special children.

EDIT: To clarify, we WERE formed from the dust, just as it says. It just took a billion years to do so. "Formed" involves a process, to me.

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
Your theory of covenance collapses here

Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

Do you see also the difference that Abraham was called "a stranger" in Canaan but not in the land between the Nile and the Euphrates? As a Chaldean, he was more Arab than Jew.

That covenant was made with Abraham and Ishmael:

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

The river of Egypt unto the great river isn't shocking that it would be included, not to mention that for Jews it's looking forward to the time in which Israel would be enslaved in Egypt. Also looks forward to Joseph the great grandson of Abram.

Just because Ishmael was circumcised doesn't mean that the covenant would go through him. Notice how God says that his covenant would be WITH Isaac. It is never mentioned that the covenant would be with Ishmael. Ishmael is given his blessings but the covenant is never listed as being one.

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant with God, it isn't the covenant itself. Just because Esau was circumcised doesn't mean the covenant and promise was with him, it was with Jacob. Isaac gave the birthright to Jacob.

You're not seeing that the covenant is the big issue here which was never mentioned as being made with Ishmael.

Orayn · Mar 27, 2013

Asimov said:
In my humble opinion.. I believe in God, of course.

But I do not see a problem/conflict between believing in God and science. I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

God made the Universe with rules. He created every element and physical forces. Everything happened by Him. So, the Big Bang, the creation of planets, stars... God did it with rules.

But the only thing I do not believe is evolution. I just can't. Humans are special to God and He created us like we are now.

I don't understand your reasoning. Even if God made us special, why did he have to create from nothing? If he used natural processes to make our universe, planet, ecosystem, and all the other lifeforms we share it with, why would be make an exception for us? If you say it's the soul, you're mixing science with metaphysics, which I would advise against if we want to keep this discussion on a level where we could actually agree on some things.

Chaplain · Mar 27, 2013

Orayn said:
If you say it's the soul, you're mixing science with metaphysics, which I would advise against if we want to keep this discussion on a level where we could actually agree on some things.

I think you have a misunderstanding on what the Bible's definition of the soul is. Here is a Biblical chart explaining what it is:

image

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror:

See Exodus 6:3,8 when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush:

2 God spoke to Moses and said to him, g“I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as hGod Almighty,1 but by my name the iLORD I did not make myself known to them.

8 I will bring you into rthe land that I sswore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. mI am the LORD.’ ”

Notice how Ishmael isn't included in that? Jacob wasn't the first born but he was the one with the birthright. Isaac wasn't the firstborn but he was the one with the covenant.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
The river of Egypt unto the great river isn't shocking that it would be included, not to mention that for Jews it's looking forward to the time in which Israel would be enslaved in Egypt. Also looks forward to Joseph the great grandson of Abram.

Just because Ishmael was circumcised doesn't mean that the covenant would go through him. Notice how God says that his covenant would be WITH Isaac. It is never mentioned that the covenant would be with Ishmael. Ishmael is given his blessings but the covenant is never listed as being one.

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant with God, it isn't the covenant itself. Just because Esau was circumcised doesn't mean the covenant and promise was with him, it was with Jacob.

You're not seeing that the covenant is the big issue here which was never mentioned as being made with Ishmael.

God says a covenant would be with Isaac. Do you deny God also says that Ishmael's lineage would fulfill a promise of having a great nation?

Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').

The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadith literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:

Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael (P)] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham (P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
Maninthemirror:

See Exodus 6:3,8 when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush:

Notice how Ishmael isn't included in that? Jacob wasn't the first born but he was the one with the birthright. Isaac wasn't the firstborn but he was the one with the covenant.

Moses and Mary are descendants of Isaac. They carry the covenant of the Torah and the Bible. Abu Mutalib is the descendant of Ishmael, the father of Muhammad. 2 different lines of Abraham's covenant. All part of the 'Great Nations' promised to Abraham.

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
God says a covenant would be with Isaac. Do you deny God also says that Ishmael's lineage would fulfill a promise of having a great nation?

Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').

The testimony of the former Jew as mentioned hadith literature as quoted in the Encyclopaedia Judaica reads:

Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael (P)] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham (P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'

Is the word covenant used for Ishmael? If not then no, the eternal covenant God makes with Isaac wasn't shared with Ishmael. A blessing isn't the same as an eternal covenant. And no offense but I am not going to take the Hadith which was written more than a thousand years at least after Genesis as evidence that Ishmael shared in the covenant. It's the equivalent of me using the gospel of Matthew to prove to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Doesn't work that way.

Maninthemirror said:
Moses and Mary are descendants of Isaac. They carry the covenant of the Torah and the Bible. Abu Mutalib is the descendant of Ishmael, the father of Muhammad. 2 different lines of Abraham's covenant. All part of the 'Great Nations' promised to Abraham.

A promise is different than a covenant. God promised Abram that he would be the father of many nations and that promise is partially fulfilled in Ishmael but the covenant is quite different and that according to Genesis went through Isaac alone.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
Is the word covenant used for Ishmael? If not then no, the eternal covenant God makes with Isaac wasn't shared with Ishmael. A blessing isn't the same as an eternal covenant. And no offense but I am not going to take the Hadith which was written more than a thousand years at least after Genesis as evidence that Ishmael shared in the covenant. It's the equivalent of me using the gospel of Matthew to prove to Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Doesn't work that way.

A promise is different than a covenant. God promised Abram that he would be the father of many nations and that promise is partially fulfilled in Ishmael but the covenant is quite different and that according to Genesis went through Isaac alone.

"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 17:20)"

"What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 4:7-8)"

There is your proof that promising great nations according to God is assigning great nations of 'God' thus continuing Abraham's covenant beyond Isaacs covenant which Ended with Christianity.

PogiJones · Mar 27, 2013

I'm just gonna interject really quick, and say that "Bible-bashing," as we used to call it on my proselytizing mission, never goes anywhere. The Bible is full of seeming inconsistencies and vague statements, and both sides will pull out scripture after scripture to back up their point of view. Contention is where Satan resides. Take Jesus, for example. When he was confronted by the Pharisees, he would usually just answer their question and go on his way. If people wanted to fight instead of learn, he left them be. When someone really wanted to hear his words, that's when he'd truly teach them.

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
"And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 17:20)"

"What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 4:7-8)"

There is your proof that promising great nations according to God is assigning great nations of 'God' thus continuing Abraham's covenant beyond Isaacs covenant which Ended with Christianity.

Actually it doesn't prove what you claim it does.

Covenant =

—agreement, covenant.
A. between persons —1. בְּ׳ → כָּרַת come to an agreement (cf. Akk. berītu with nakāsu to cut, BASOR 121:21f; cutting of sacrificial animals, δ̔́ρκια τέμνειν, גזר עדיא, Sef. 1 A 7, Geseneius and most others :: Pedersen Eid 46f), Gn 2127.32 3144 1S 2318 (לִפְנֵי י&#1523 1K 526; כָּרַת בְּ׳ אֶת־ he concludes an agreement with 2S 313.21 Jr 348; = כָּרַת בְּ׳ עִם Gn 2628 Hos 122 Jb 4028 2C 233; = כָּרַת בְּרִיתוֹ אֶת 2S 312; abs. כָּרַת בְּ׳ to conclude an agreement Hos 104 Ps 836 (עַל against) with לִפְנֵי י׳ Jr 3415.18 2C 3431, לֵאלֹהֵינוּ in the presence of our God Ezr 103; —2. כָּרַת בְּ׳ לְ to grant an agreement to someone Ex 2332 3412.15 Dt 72 Jos 96f.11.15f Ju 22 1S 111 1K 2034 2K 114 1C 113, with לִפְנֵי י׳ 2S 53; —3. בּוֹא בַבְּ׳ to enter into an agreement (1QS ii:10 and oft.) Jr 3410; עָבַר בְּ׳ to enter into the covenant Dt 2911 (1QS i:16 and oft., → III 4); —4. עִמּוֹ בַבְּ׳ … לָקַח אֶת־ to accept someone into a formal arrangement 2C 231, cj. with הֶעֱמִיד to enforce an agreement 2C 3432 (rd. בַּבְּ׳ for וּבִנְיָמִין —5. וּבֵין … בְּרִית בֵּין arrangement between one and another 1K 1519 2C 163; —6. בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית Gn 1413 and אַנְשֵׁי בְ׳ Ob 7 partners to an agreement, confederates; —7. בְּרִית אַחִים brotherly obligation Am 19; —8. → C a 1-5; בְּ׳ with שָׁמַר to keep Ezk 1714; with זָכַר to keep in mind Am 19; with הֵפֵר to break 1K 1519 Ezk 1715f.18f; —9. bond of matrimony Mal 214 (אֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶֽך&#1464 Ezk 168 (Dam. xvi:12) cf. Pr 217.
B. contract, covenant with: —1. בְּ׳ God with animals Hos 220 (עִ&#1501, Ezk 3425 (ל&#1456, Gressmann Eschatologie 194, 201; Wolff VT 6:317ff; —2. with the stones of the fields Jb 523 (→ אֶבֶן 5); with death (|| שְׁאוֹל, → מָוֶת, through a sacrifice to a god of death, Duhm, or simply metaph. from diplomatic contracts ?) Is 2815.18.
C. a covenant between God and mankind (cf. material from Mari; Noth, Ges. St. 142ff.

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1999). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (157–158). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.

promise-

I דבר: to buzz ? → דְּבוֹרָה, d/z onomatopoeic, Gesenius-B.; Ružička 112; to speak MHb., Lach 2:6; GnAp. 6:2; Ph. DISO 55, Lidzbarski Eph. 3, 120:7.
qal: (40 ×), Sam.M88 debber etc. (pi.!, → BenH. Trad. Sam. 114): inf. דָּבְרֶֽךָ Ps 516 † (cj. דְּבָרֶֽךָ Pesh.); otherwise pt. דֹּבֵר (cj. 1S 1419 עֹד דֹּבֵ&#1512, > דֹּבְרִימ/רֵי (dobrim Poenulus 935) and דֹּ(ו&#1465בְרֹ(ו&#1465ת, < דָּבֻר Pr 2511 †: to speak, → pi.: —1. abs., with אֶל, to Gn 1613, with בְּ, with, to הַמַּלְאָךְ הַדֹּבֵר בִּי Zech 19 (+ 10 ×, → בְּ 15f) בְּאָזְנֵי before Dt 51; —2. to speak, with obj. as acc.: אֱמֶת Ps 152, טוֹבָה Jr 3242, יְשָׁרִים Pr 1613, (I) כֵּן Nu 277, מֵישָׁרִים Is 3315, צֶדֶק 4519, שָׁלוֹם Ps 283, כָּזָב Ps 57, נְבָלָה Is 916, שֶׁקֶר Jr 4016; to decide Mi 73; —Ps 584 rd. דִּבְּרוּ.
nif: pf. נִדְבְּרוּ/בָּֽרוּ; נִדְבַּרְנוּ, pt. נִדְבָּרִים: to speak with one another (איש אל רעהו Dam xx:17f) Mal 316, עַל about 313, בְּ Ezk 3330 Ps 11923. †
pi (1100 ×): pf. דִּבֶּר (BL 329h), דִּבֵּֽר, דִּבַּרְתִּי (K 2nd. fem. Jr 35); דִּבְּרוּ/בֵּֽרוּ, דִּבַּרְנוּ, דִּבְּרוֹ (sffx.. “it” impf. יְדַבֵּר (Sec. ιδαββερ and ουιεδαββερ, Epiphanius *ουιδαβερ, Jepsen ZAW 71:117; Beer-M. §22:4b; → §70:1g), אֲ/תְּדַבֶּר־, אֲדַבְּרָה/בֵּֽרָה, יְדַבְּרוּ/בֵֽרוּ, תְּדַבֵּרְנָה, תְּדַבְּרוּנ/בֵּֽרוּן, וַיְדַבְּרֵם; impv. דַּבֵּר, דַּבְּרִי/בֵּֽרִי, inf. cs. abs. דַּבֵּר/בֶּר־, דַּבְּרוֹ, דַּבֶּרְךָ, pt. מְדַּבֵּר, מְדַבֶּ֫רֶת, מְדַבְּרוֹת: to speak :: אמר to say Gn 211 2K 1828 Jb 116; the words said are frequently introduced by לֵאמֹר (→ אמר qal 2). —1. abs. to speak Ex 414 Is 12 Am 38 Ps 501.7 11610 : Dahood CBQ 17:23f: rd. אֲדֻבֵּר even if I were pursued, I דב&#1512, Jb 115; —2. to speak to, with a person

Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1999). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (210–211). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.

Those are the words used for covenant and promise in the verses we have discussed. The two do not signify the same thing at all. One is an agreement, a partnership, a contract while the other is simply a statement, a promise.

Also, the verse from Deut is specifically built around the Covenant at Sinai in which God provided Moses the tablets and the Mosaic Law. This law was specific to the Hebrews (the descendants of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph).

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
Actually it doesn't prove what you claim it does.

Covenant =

promise-

Those are the words used for covenant and promise in the verses we have discussed. The two do not signify the same thing at all. One is an agreement, a partnership, a contract while the other is simply a statement, a promise.

Now look up the meaning of "Make him a great nation"

Then read Deuteronomy 4:7-8 which is a DEFINITION of what 'great nation' means.

This verse proves God's covenant is with the seeds of Abraham

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

As we have proven that Ishmael was a SEED of Abraham

Thorndyke · Mar 27, 2013

Game Analyst said:
So, at those moments, you die to your feelings/desires/wants, and let Jesus live through you. This is how we have victory over our human desires that are sinful.

What does this even mean? In a practical sense. I am homosexual, never made a choice to be so, currently celibate, Christian and not seeking same sex romantic relationships. (or any romantic relationships for that matter). I feel I have been actively "seeking" God earnestly for a while but still cannot "die to your feelings" through Jesus. I feel more and more disillusioned with a lack of connection to God that I find myself feeling hopeless in the matter (as opposed to the idea that Jesus is all about providing hope).

Its hard to articulate how I feel. But overall, I feel a deep sense of dread thinking about a life not being able to experience romantic love (as I feel I will never be attracted to a woman) and while you can surround yourself with all the friends you want, even really good ones, they will not be able to replace the need for mutual romantic love, and even sexual desires. The argument Christians might make is that Jesus can fill this gap, but since I feel no connection to Him, at the moment I can't even hope in this. I am told by some that what you need to do is this situation "deny yourself for Jesus/ Take up your cross" but, as asked above, what does this even mean?

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
Now look up the meaning of "Make him a great nation"

Then read Deuteronomy 4:7-8 which is a DEFINITION of what 'great nation' means.

A covenant is an ongoing partnership, contract, agreement between two parties. Such an agreement didn't come about through Ishmael, according to Genesis and the rest of the Bible. If you are going to try and use the Qu'ran and Islam as evidence that the great nation like that of Israel with its own legal system, etc., also took place through Ishmael well, that is your right but you're then trying to interject something into the Bible that didn't exist when these books were written.

It's why I asked if you were Muslim earlier because you are coming into this with a different perspective. A perspective that seeks to prove your faith, seeks to support your belief.
There is nothing particular wrong with that but it makes it quite impossible for us to go forward.

Thorndyke said:
What does this even mean? In a practical sense. I am homosexual, never made a choice to be so, currently celibate, Christian and not seeking same sex romantic relationships. (or any romantic relationships for that matter). I feel I have been actively "seeking" God earnestly for a while but still cannot "die to your feelings" through Jesus. I feel more and more disillusioned with a lack of connection to God that I find myself feeling hopeless in the matter (as opposed to the idea that Jesus is all about providing hope).

Its hard to articulate how I feel. But overall, I feel a deep sense of dread thinking about a life not being able to experience romantic love (as I feel I will never be attracted to a woman) and while you can surround yourself with all the friends you want, even really good ones, they will not be able to replace the need for mutual romantic love, and even sexual desires. The argument Christians might make is that Jesus can fill this gap, but since I feel no connection to Him, at the moment I can't even hope in this. I am told by some that what you need to do is this situation "deny yourself for Jesus/ Take up your cross" but, as asked above, what does this even mean?

One thing Christians are terrible at is using non Christian language to explain what they experience, feel, believe to a non Christian. The concepts of 'Jesus living through us', or 'victory over sin', or 'justification through faith' are simply extremely difficult for non Christians to understand. Shoot, it's tough for many Christians to fully grasp (if you ask a few what they mean, they will have a very difficult time explaining without church terms).

I actually am supportive of gay rights, gay marriage, and fully accept the notion that God accepts gays just as he does heterosexuals who are in a monogamous married relationship. Most people can't go through life without experiencing love from another. We are social creatures, we need companionship. Being told that you are not allowed to find someone to love, to share your life with, to share a family with simply because you were born with an attraction of the same sex isn't something that I accept or believe in. It's one of the reasons I haven't really taken part in a church in quite some time. It's very important issue for me even though I am straight and married.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
A covenant is an ongoing partnership, contract, agreement between two parties. Such an agreement didn't come about through Ishmael, according to Genesis and the rest of the Bible. If you are going to try and use the Qu'ran and Islam as evidence that the great nation like that of Israel with its own legal system, etc., also took place through Ishmael well, that is your right but you're then trying to interject something into the Bible that didn't exist when these books were written.

This verse proves God's covenant is with the seeds of Abraham which was BEFORE Ishmael was born

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

As we have proven that Ishmael was a SEED of Abraham just like Isaac and a legitimate Son of Ishmael after Marrying Hagar.

and here is the proof that the Convenant of Abraham was also given to Ishmael

Genesis 21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

Covenant was also given through circumcision as proved here:

Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. "

You need to realize that Abraham was told his seed will carry the covenant, when he prayed for his seed, his wife said she could not bear a child and told him to marry Hagar and they had a son upon which God said he listened to Abraham and this is your prayers answered. He told Abraham about his covenant before Ishmael and then told Abraham about his covenant after Ishmael which concentrated on Isaac.

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
This verse proves God's covenant is with the seeds of Abraham

Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. (8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

As we have proven that Ishmael was a SEED of Abraham just like Isaac and a legitimate Son of Ishmael after Marrying Hagar.

and here is the proof that the Convenant of Abraham was also given to Ishmael

Genesis 21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. "

Covenant was also given through circumcision as proved here:

Genesis 17:10 "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. "

Ishmael was a son of Abram, yes, but once again, there is a specific covenant that came about only through Isaac, according to the Bible. You can disagree with it but it's there. It's there in Genesis. It's there in Exodus. It's there everytime the phrase of 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' is used.

Just because Esau was circumcised doesn't mean that the birthright and promise, that the covenant went through him as it did through Jacob. The Qu'ran argues that Ishmael was the one who received the covenant and that is fine but this isn't a thread on Islam or the Qu'ran, it's one on Christianity and the Bible. Therefore, what the Qu'ran claims isn't relevant.

Again, you obviously are free to believe what you want and at the end of the day you may even be correct as Islam's claims may be; however, in the context of the Bible, Isaac was given a covenant with God that Ishmael didn't receive.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
Ishmael was a son of Abram, yes, but once again, there is a specific covenant that came about only through Isaac, according to the Bible. You can disagree with it but it's there. It's there in Genesis. It's there in Exodus. It's there everytime the phrase of 'God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' is used.

Just because Esau was circumcised doesn't mean that the birthright and promise, that the covenant went through him as it did through Jacob. The Qu'ran argues that Ishmael was the one who received the covenant and that is fine but this isn't a thread on Islam or the Qu'ran, it's one on Christianity and the Bible. Therefore, what the Qu'ran claims isn't relevant.

Again, you obviously are free to believe what you want and at the end of the day you may even be correct as Islam's claims may be; however, in the context of the Bible, Isaac was given a covenant with God that Ishmael didn't receive.

The specific covenant you speak of is there with Isaac but Abrahams own covenant was also shared with Ishmael as proven above and by you itself. If God had mentioned Ishmael's covenant the fulfillment of the promise was not to come for years then people would have skipped God for centuries. There was a covenant which went from Abraham to Isaac to Moses to Jesus. There is also a covenant which went from Abraham to Ishmael but was not fulfilled centuries later. The end argument is both are true seeds of Abraham and both had their own destinity through their lineage. Torah and Bible were the book of Moses and Christianity respectively, Ishmael's lineage book had yet to come to forthe but Predicted and promised for the future. The end argument is that you cannot call Ishmael as illegitimate and as both Sons were true seeds of Abraham, this obviously goes to prove that there might be a flaw in the translation where the 'only son' is Ishmael and not Isaac

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
The specific covenant you speak of is there with Isaac but Abrahams own covenant was also shared with Ishmael as proven above and by you itself. If God had mentioned Ishmael's covenant the fulfillment of the promise was not to come for years then people would have skipped God for centuries. There was a covenant which went from Abraham to Isaac to Moses to Jesus. There is also a covenant which went from Abraham to Ishmael but was not fulfilled centuries later. The end argument is both are true seeds of Abraham and both had their own destinity through their lineage. Torah and Bible were the book of Moses and Christianity respectively, Ishmael's lineage book had yet to come to forthe but Predicted and promised for the future.

I onviously disagree. I am harping on the use of the word covenant with Isaac and not Ishmael for a reason. If the author of Genesis intended to comvey that God made a covenant with Ishmael through Abram the word would have been used as it was with Isaac. It wasn't. The two sons received different blessings just as Esau and Jacob did after them.

And no flaw in the translation just you disagreeing with the word used.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
I onviously disagree. I am harping on the use of the word covenant with Isaac and not Ishmael for a reason. If the author of Genesis intended to comvey that God made a covenant with Ishmael through Abram the word would have been used as it was with Isaac. It wasn't. The two sons received different blessings just as Esau and Jacob did after them.

which is precisely the point, if both were blessed. if both received their own form of covenants, one for Moses and Jesus and one for Muhammad, then this proves Both were true close and dear sons of Abraham which also proves that when it says 'Take your one and only son' it mentions the time before Isaac was even born and thus it is Ishmael

PogiJones · Mar 27, 2013

Thorndyke said:
What does this even mean? In a practical sense. I am homosexual, never made a choice to be so, currently celibate, Christian and not seeking same sex romantic relationships. (or any romantic relationships for that matter). I feel I have been actively "seeking" God earnestly for a while but still cannot "die to your feelings" through Jesus. I feel more and more disillusioned with a lack of connection to God that I find myself feeling hopeless in the matter (as opposed to the idea that Jesus is all about providing hope).

Its hard to articulate how I feel. But overall, I feel a deep sense of dread thinking about a life not being able to experience romantic love (as I feel I will never be attracted to a woman) and while you can surround yourself with all the friends you want, even really good ones, they will not be able to replace the need for mutual romantic love, and even sexual desires. The argument Christians might make is that Jesus can fill this gap, but since I feel no connection to Him, at the moment I can't even hope in this. I am told by some that what you need to do is this situation "deny yourself for Jesus/ Take up your cross" but, as asked above, what does this even mean?

I have a brother who has a severe case of Asperger's Syndrome. His chances of getting married are next to zero. The only sexual or "romantic" relationship that could be available to him would be to get a hooker, which he won't (and shouldn't) do, as it breaks God's chastity requirements. It's very hard for him.

I admire your desire to stay true and celibate. I have some gay friends who have succeeded in doing so, so far.

I guess my point is, in America we love to talk about how all men are born equal. I believe that's very true when it comes to each man's value, but not when it comes to the ease of life for that person. God commands celibacy from my brother, which He does not command of me, simply because I was not born without the ability to find a wife. It's not fair. And I truly wish I could take some of that burden from him. The most I can do is be the best, most loving brother I'm able. If you are committed to your religion, I commend you for your devotion, and encourage you to stay strong. You will feel alone. There will always be something missing. But as long as you can find fulfillment elsewhere, you will never feel empty. My suggestion is service. I served for 2 years with no dating whatsoever, no movies, no games, no music, etc., and it was one of the most fulfilling times of my life, simply because I was serving people every day.

Good luck. I admire your courage.

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
which is precisely the point, if both were blessed. if both received their own form of covenants, one for Moses and Jesus and one for Muhammad, then this proves Both were true close and dear sons of Abraham which also proves that when it says 'Take your one and only son' it mentions the time before Isaac was even born and thus it is Ishmael

Except thats not what it says. One received a blessing (ishmael) and the other a covenant (isaac). A blessing /= a covenant.

Maninthemirror · Mar 27, 2013

ClovingWestbrook said:
Except thats not what it says. One received a blessing (ishmael) and the other a covenant (isaac). A blessing /= a covenant.

Except thats what it does say

ClovingWestbrook · Mar 27, 2013

Maninthemirror said:
Except thats what it does say

And this is where we agree to disagree.

bonesmccoy · Mar 27, 2013

Thorndyke said:
Its hard to articulate how I feel. But overall, I feel a deep sense of dread thinking about a life not being able to experience romantic love (as I feel I will never be attracted to a woman) and while you can surround yourself with all the friends you want, even really good ones, they will not be able to replace the need for mutual romantic love, and even sexual desires. The argument Christians might make is that Jesus can fill this gap, but since I feel no connection to Him, at the moment I can't even hope in this. I am told by some that what you need to do is this situation "deny yourself for Jesus/ Take up your cross" but, as asked above, what does this even mean?

You might find Eve Tushnet's stuff worth reading.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/evetushnet/

Onikaan · Mar 27, 2013

PogiJones said:
I'm Christian and believe in evolution. Without getting too deep into it (algebra before calculus sort of thing), I think the reason most Christians are averse to evolution is because they believe evolving from "monkeys" is dirty or unworthy of God's children. However, for me, the Bible says God "formed" man from the dust. What is dirtier or more unworthy, literal dust, or the amazing specimens that appeared over the past billion years? The slow crafting of man over billions of years shows more love and care than a snap of the fingers. I've always believed that God works almost entirely through natural means, and evolution was his carefully-crafted tool to form his very special children.

EDIT: To clarify, we WERE formed from the dust, just as it says. It just took a billion years to do so. "Formed" involves a process, to me.

But if you believe that Genesis is the account of creation then you cannot also say man was formed through the process of billions of years.

Also, formation at the level of a being that can create what he did with mere utterance, could take microseconds for all we know. Why does it have to be a long drawn out process? Are we trying to squeeze world views together here?

CornBurrito · Mar 27, 2013

Onikaan said:
But if you believe that Genesis is the account of creation then you cannot also say man was formed through the process of billions of years.

Also, formation at the level of a being that can create what he did with mere utterance, could take microseconds for all you know. Why does it have to be a long drawn out process? Are we trying to squeeze world views together here?

Probably because current scientific evidence suggests that is the case?

Again my question was do you think it is possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. If you don't that is fine. If you think you must have a literal interpretation of Genesis to be a true Christian then you are entitled to that opinion. The purpose of my question was to try and get an understanding of the multiple viewpoints in this thread.

Thorndyke said:
What does this even mean? In a practical sense. I am homosexual, never made a choice to be so, currently celibate, Christian and not seeking same sex romantic relationships. (or any romantic relationships for that matter). I feel I have been actively "seeking" God earnestly for a while but still cannot "die to your feelings" through Jesus. I feel more and more disillusioned with a lack of connection to God that I find myself feeling hopeless in the matter (as opposed to the idea that Jesus is all about providing hope).

Its hard to articulate how I feel. But overall, I feel a deep sense of dread thinking about a life not being able to experience romantic love (as I feel I will never be attracted to a woman) and while you can surround yourself with all the friends you want, even really good ones, they will not be able to replace the need for mutual romantic love, and even sexual desires. The argument Christians might make is that Jesus can fill this gap, but since I feel no connection to Him, at the moment I can't even hope in this. I am told by some that what you need to do is this situation "deny yourself for Jesus/ Take up your cross" but, as asked above, what does this even mean?

That's really depressing. I hope there's an afterlife because it would be such a shame for you to waste your material life with no pay off at the end of it all.

Onikaan · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
Probably because current scientific evidence suggests that is the case?

Again my question was do you think it is possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. If you don't that is fine. If you think you must have a literal interpretation of Genesis to be a true Christian then you are entitled to that opinion. The purpose of my question was to try and get an understanding of the multiple viewpoints in this thread.

No, I do not believe that the evolution philosophy taught today is compatible with creation.

Can I ask you a question? (I don't want to assume your world view, but it would be interesting to know what it is).

Do you think that evolution is a tool used to explain away God? and that God has been removed from the picture all-together?

CornBurrito · Mar 27, 2013

Onikaan said:
No, I do not believe that the evolution philosophy taught today is compatible with creation.

Can I ask you a question? (I don't want to assume your world view, but it would be interesting to know what it is).

Do you think that evolution is a tool used to explain away God? and that God has been removed from the picture all-together?

Evolution philosophy? Evolutionary theory is a biological explanation for the diversification of life. It isn't a philosophy.

I don't think evolution and god are incompatible. I personally do not believe in a god, but there's no reason why someone couldn't believe that evolutionary processes were put at work by a god. Many of my theistic friends hold such a position. Science (for them) is simply a way to figure out how a god set up the rule system of this universe. While such beliefs may be at odd with literal interpretations of the Bible found in certain sects of Christianity, it is not incompatible with others (ie. The Catholic Church, though you may not consider them Christian).

Asimov · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
Evolution philosophy? Evolutionary theory is a biological explanation for the diversification of life. It isn't a philosophy.

I don't think evolution and god are incompatible. I personally do not believe in a god, but there's no reason why someone couldn't believe that evolutionary processes were put at work by a god.

I do believe in evolution of species... yes.

But not of human beings.

CornBurrito · Mar 27, 2013

Asimov said:
I do believe in evolution of species... yes.

But not of human beings.

This position is entirely inconsistent with both the Biblical text and modern scientific evidence. It fits neither perfectly and quite frankly seems like an unholy abomination born from cognitive dissonance. Honestly I feel you should either choose to believe in evolution (whether theistic or atheistic), or creation theory. Believing that humans are exempt ignores all the evidence that lends credence to the basic theory. You'd have no reason to believe that other animals evolved.

t-ramp · Mar 27, 2013

PogiJones said:
I'm Christian and believe in evolution. Without getting too deep into it (algebra before calculus sort of thing), I think the reason most Christians are averse to evolution is because they believe evolving from "monkeys" is dirty or unworthy of God's children. However, for me, the Bible says God "formed" man from the dust. What is dirtier or more unworthy, literal dust, or the amazing specimens that appeared over the past billion years? The slow crafting of man over billions of years shows more love and care than a snap of the fingers. I've always believed that God works almost entirely through natural means, and evolution was his carefully-crafted tool to form his very special children.

EDIT: To clarify, we WERE formed from the dust, just as it says. It just took a billion years to do so. "Formed" involves a process, to me.

PogiJones said:
I have a brother who has a severe case of Asperger's Syndrome. His chances of getting married are next to zero. The only sexual or "romantic" relationship that could be available to him would be to get a hooker, which he won't (and shouldn't) do, as it breaks God's chastity requirements. It's very hard for him.

I admire your desire to stay true and celibate. I have some gay friends who have succeeded in doing so, so far.

I guess my point is, in America we love to talk about how all men are born equal. I believe that's very true when it comes to each man's value, but not when it comes to the ease of life for that person. God commands celibacy from my brother, which He does not command of me, simply because I was not born without the ability to find a wife. It's not fair. And I truly wish I could take some of that burden from him. The most I can do is be the best, most loving brother I'm able. If you are committed to your religion, I commend you for your devotion, and encourage you to stay strong. You will feel alone. There will always be something missing. But as long as you can find fulfillment elsewhere, you will never feel empty. My suggestion is service. I served for 2 years with no dating whatsoever, no movies, no games, no music, etc., and it was one of the most fulfilling times of my life, simply because I was serving people every day.

Good luck. I admire your courage.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to be so liberal with interpreting creation and so strict in interpreting a handful of moral statements.

phisheep · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
Again my question was do you think it is possible to be Christian and believe in evolution.

Onikaan said:
No, I do not believe that the evolution philosophy taught today is compatible with creation.

I don't think that quite answered the question.

Yes, it's possible to be Christian and believe in evolution - millions of Christians do. Of course, it's not possible to be a young-earth creationist and believe in evolution, but that isn't the same thing at all.

CornBurrito · Mar 27, 2013

phisheep said:
I don't think that quite answered the question.

Yes, it's possible to be Christian and believe in evolution - millions of Christians do. Of course, it's not possible to be a young-earth creationist and believe in evolution, but that isn't the same thing at all.

Oh I understand that many hold the opinion that it is possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. I am on of those people. I was trying to gauge the general opinion help by the posters in this thread though.

Asimov, as inconsistent as his position is, makes me think. For the Christians that do believe in evolution when do they think humanity received their soul? Or do most Christians that "believe in evolution" similarly think that all species evolved except for homo sapiens? And if so, what do those people make of homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo neanderthalis? Fossils falsified by scientists or the devil?

bonesmccoy · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
For the Christians that do believe in evolution when do they think humanity received their soul?

Who knows. For me it's not really a question that I've ever tried to answer or wondered about.

CornBurrito said:
Or do most Christians that "believe in evolution" similarly think that all species evolved except for homo sapiens?

I can't say I've ever encountered that theory in my personal life. If I did, I'd ask those same questions!

phisheep · Mar 27, 2013

CornBurrito said:
For the Christians that do believe in evolution when do they think humanity received their soul?

I'm by no means convinced that the soul is a separate thing from a living body. There seems precious little biblical evidence for it. If so, then the business of "receiving" a soul doesn't really come into it.

CornBurrito · Mar 28, 2013

phisheep said:
I'm by no means convinced that the soul is a separate thing from a living body. There seems precious little biblical evidence for it. If so, then the business of "receiving" a soul doesn't really come into it.

Interesting. Though I thought the Bible stated the soul was eternal, which a living body is not. I assumed people used that for the argument that the two were separate.

t-ramp · Mar 28, 2013

phisheep said:
I'm by no means convinced that the soul is a separate thing from a living body. There seems precious little biblical evidence for it. If so, then the business of "receiving" a soul doesn't really come into it.

CornBurrito said:
Interesting. Though I thought the Bible stated the soul was eternal, which a living body is not. I assumed people used that for the argument that the two were separate.

Wouldn't you need something separate from the body to have an afterlife? It actually seems to be fairly crucial for Christianity to make any sense.

EddieGordoAF · Mar 28, 2013

I didn't know you were Christian CornBurrito. That's cool.
Anyway I wanted to add this. I'm not here to argue just wanted to add a scripture from the New Testament. Also "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is mentioned quite frequently in the Old Testament. And if you look up the meaning of Ishmael in Hebrew it means "God will hear". I have Muslim friends. I try to treat everyone with love even if we don't believe in the same thing.... Just stating what I know. I am Christian btw.

Galatians 4
Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

t-ramp · Mar 28, 2013

EddieGordoAF said:
I didn't know you were Christian CornBurrito. That's cool.

Uh, I'm fairly certain he's not. Atheists can have views on Christian theology too. It's interesting to think about even if you don't believe it.

EddieGordoAF · Mar 28, 2013

t-ramp said:
Uh, I'm fairly certain he's not. Atheists can have views on Christian theology too. It's interesting to think about even if you don't believe it.

Oh ok.

CornBurrito · Mar 28, 2013

EddieGordoAF said:
I didn't know you were Christian CornBurrito. That's cool.

I'm afraid I'm not.

I just wanted to get an idea of the diverse viewpoints in this thread.

Asimov · Mar 28, 2013

CornBurrito said:
I'm afraid I'm not.

I just wanted to get an idea of the diverse viewpoints in this thread.

I have a question for you.

Why do most atheist people (here on GAF, on my Facebook, etc.) are always mentioning science as it is something exclusive to you?

I have atheist friends that think science is exclusive to them, but like I have said before, I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

It's kinda hard to explain how I feel, but I will try to make a more elaborated post later today (I'm at work).

CornBurrito · Mar 28, 2013

Asimov said:
I have a question for you.

Why do most atheist people (here on GAF, on my Facebook, etc.) are always mentioning science as it is something exclusive to you?

I have atheist friends that think science is exclusive to them, but like I have said before, I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

It's kinda hard to explain how I feel, but I will try to make a more elaborated post later today (I'm at work).

No idea. I don't see the two as having to be incompatible with one another. However, organized religion is often fixed in its ways which makes accepting new scientific evidence and theories extremely difficult for some. Most of the opposition of modern biological science is from certain religious groups, and that may have led to the "us vs them" mentality you frequently see.

Also when you get a chance could you answer this?

What do you make of homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo neanderthalis? Fossils falsified by scientists or the devil? How do you reconcile he existence of these early humans (based on carbon dating and genetic evidence) while simultaneously believing that homo sapiens (us) were created in our initial state as is?

Asimov · Mar 28, 2013

CornBurrito said:
No idea. I don't see the two as having to be incompatible with one another. However, organized religion is often fixed in its ways which makes accepting new scientific evidence and theories extremely difficult for some. Most of the opposition of modern biological science is from certain religious groups, and that may have led to the "us vs them" mentality you frequently see.

Also when you get a chance could you answer this?

What do you make of homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo neanderthalis? Fossils falsified by scientists or the devil? How do you reconcile he existence of these early humans (based on carbon dating and genetic evidence) while simultaneously believing that homo sapiens (us) were created in our initial state as is?

I do believe that we humans were created in this form, as Homo Sapiens.

Maybe the fossils of those early humans were just other species... an extinct species of primates, but not humans.

t-ramp · Mar 28, 2013

Asimov said:
I have a question for you.

Why do most atheist people (here on GAF, on my Facebook, etc.) are always mentioning science as it is something exclusive to you?

I have atheist friends that think science is exclusive to them, but like I have said before, I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

It's kinda hard to explain how I feel, but I will try to make a more elaborated post later today (I'm at work).

Many Christians hold beliefs that are clearly contradictory to established scientific facts and theories. Even those that claim to accept science usually hold beliefs that fly in the face of scientific reason.

Asimov · Mar 28, 2013

t-ramp said:
Many Christians hold beliefs that are clearly contradictory to established scientific facts and theories. Even those that claim to accept science usually hold beliefs that fly in the face of scientific reason.

Like what?

Evolution and how the Universe was created?

t-ramp · Mar 28, 2013

Asimov said:
Like what?

Evolution and how the Universe was created?

Sure, and stuff like the soul.

Asimov · Mar 28, 2013

I just don't see how mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, medicine, etc. are related to believing/not believing in God.

Jokergrin · Mar 28, 2013

Asimov said:
II don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

do your religious beliefs make any literal truth claims upon the nature of reality?

Asimov · Mar 28, 2013

There is a quote by Neil deGrasse:

"No life anywhere but earth? That's like taking filling a cup with ocean water and saying there aren't any whales in the ocean."

I can use the same quote when asking you about God.

Support NeoGAF

Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Neo Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister

Member

Banned

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Similar threads