I’ll try to set something up.

Nathan

Anyway, if creationists would like to respond to my ideas and wish to ask further questions, I’m here, for now. I’ll tow the line with nice people like you, but when challenged by aggression, i tend to fall back on my lessor holy training.

I don’t know what you want, from that post, I’ll just let you guys lead. If you don’t address me specifically, adios amigo.

For the time being, let’s not argue on old posts. If you’re interested in putting your thoughts/theories out there for the public, then I am willing to allow a guest post here on the blog. That way you can have your entire say all at once, and those of us who wish to discuss it with you can join you in the comments.

If you’re interested, use the contact form and let me know.

For now, I think everything that needs to be said has been said. If it needs to go farther, then let me know.

Oh, and with the help of some Wild Turkey and demerol chasers, I’m good for a couple days. I’ll let you know when I’m gonna be out for the count.

Well, we would have to come up with some kind of answer, an interim answer let’s say, as to how we can intellectuly maintain a traditionalist view of the Bible’s testimony about creation.

But as an atheist, I am not interested in maintaining a traditionalist view of Genesis, intellectual or otherwise.

what about work? is work based on sin or not? Adam worked naming the animals (science) before he sinned.

What about sanctification? Is sanctification sin-based or not? When Christ was baptized by John, was it for sin or sanctification?

Ok, she’s really on me now

First of all, let’s give old George a taste of his own medicine for a moment, just for fun:

Though Bertrand Russell would later question God’s existence, he fully accepted the ontological argument during his undergraduate years:

“ For two or three years … I was a Hegelian. I remember the exact moment during my fourth year [in 1894] when I became one. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: “Great God in Boots! — the ontological argument is sound!”
Bertrand Russell

Now let’s move on.

Presuppositional creationism is a difficult concept to get your mind around, but i’d like to help while i’m gone to give you some things to think on your own.

It is so difficult to teach this idea, becaude in order for one to even consider its principles one must

1) be thinking at a high level of apologetics to begin with
2) be aware of the weaknesses of the current creationist theories and be beyond just attempting to defend them because you have nothing else
3) also be aware of the weaknesses in current christian doctrine and not be opposed to looking at alternatives to those doctrines using scripture and reason and eschewing tradition

One of the greatest problems we have as christians is that our leadership utilizes the same tactics of control as most other false systems in this world, they simply stomp out any critical thinking and make you adhere to a traditionalist set of creeds and doctrines. Throw them off. Your salvation is not going to be affected because you seek knowledge about God and his Word that the church hypocrites are not giving you. If you are a solid and educated christian, you’ll know what sounds acceptable and what doesn’t, after you have had time to digest it. You will not be sucked away into cultism, if you are that weak, christianity as it exists won’t help you much anyway, most of it teaches many false doctrines as it is.

Ok, so let’s start:

Let’s imagine for a moment that I’m correct and the other creationist evidentialist models really are bankrupt.

What then?

Well, we would have to come up with some kind of answer, an interim answer let’s say, as to how we can intellectuly maintain a traditionalist view of the Bible’s testimony about creation.

1) what type of apologetic model would you choose, if an evidentialist one were not viable?

To aid you, please read the article on apologetics at wikipedia here is the address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

2) Incarnational theology asks this question: “if adam had obeyed God and not sinned, would the Incarnation still have happened?”

why is this question necessary to start thinking about? Because in order to solve the problem of theodicy that is inherent in the argument of creationism, that is, why we have difficulty proving God’s existence, we must first understand something new about theodicy that christian theology is missing. It did not develop and so we have to think it out ourselves. Part of this involves the some theodicy concerning humanity and free will, angels and free will, the creation and it’s “groaning and travailing” waiting for redemption (Rom. 8). Part of this theodicy involves escahtological issues, which again harkens to the whole idea of if their was no sin, would christ still have Incarnated, and if so, how does that kind of eschtology work itself out? By thinking through from Adam to Eschaton (Parousia), ask yourself the foloowing questions:

1) go through the major events of the Bible and try to imagine what would stay, and what would go, if there was no such thing as SIN.

Look, I’m out of time, believe me this exercize solves problems and my wife is screaming at me to get off and she’s taking me to the hospital now, later guys.

This type of apologetics is very cappably handled by any first year theology stsudent, so I feel reasonably certain the fellas here at Nathan Rice can handle you without my help.

Ah, projection… how disappointing. You’ve committed fallacies that anyone with even a passing knowledge of formal logic could spot, and I’m the one who could be handled by a first-year theology student. As they will tell you if you ask, Ben and Nathan are in fact unable to answer a great deal of my theological questions. Matthew and I have quite long and interesting debates, but those are over matters of science rather than theology, which I assume you would not care to engage in as you are so vehemently opposed to Christians engaging scientists on the latter’s intellectual turf. If my ‘apologetics’ are so easy to handle them, why not bend down to my level for a minute and give it a spin?

I will instead prefer to answer intelligent questions that these guys might have for me, on issues that I can provide a new angle on. While I don’t claim my theory is correct, I do know that it is interesting, and can help people think through issues they have never considered before. I know that because others have told me so, some very smart people I might add.

I’m going to be out of it for awhile later in the day, perhaps for a few days, and unless I can get free wi-fi in the hospital, I may not respond after 4 pm MST. (Arizona time)