Fencing on the Sabbath

[epeemike81]

I won't pretend to be a greek scholar. But I've heard the arguments about the Hebrew day. How does one get past the fact that the translation says "And the evening and the morning were the X day" To me, to go any deeper into this issue is using man's reason over faith in the scripture.

Give me a much disputed passage and we'll see what I can come up with

I'd say the contention taht the world was created in six days DEFINITELY qualifies as a "much disputed passage."

[epeemike81]

On creationsim vs. evolution. Both sides have logical arguments. I've been taught evolution all my life and have read books on creationsim. Both sides have evidence to back each other up. The difference is in what your world-view is.

really? I assume by evidence you DON'T mean just scripture? Please post any scientific evidence of creationism, that I might debunk it for you.

-m

[epeemike81]

Which is why I tend to get frustrated here - it's much tougher to argue without being able to use the basis of my beliefs, as material for the argument.

true, but much more meaningful, and much more likely to actually be able to convince somebody.

-m

[epeemike81]

How could I not believe in a God that has given me the stregnth to overcome my sinful desires? Who has given me a new heart to think differently that I once did. My life is not one of the model Christian if you will. I've got my deep dark side, and God alone delivered me of it.

none the less, your argument is an interesting one; one I have not often been asked. I have yet to develope a good apologetic against it, if one even exists. I see that will be something I'll be working on.

"My religion is correct because it has given me X, Y, Z. I know that my religion is responsible for giving me X, Y, Z because my religion is correct."

Ain't circular logic grand? Neevel's point is that YOUR faith in your religion is not objective proof that it is correct by any stretch of the imagination. hence, maintain your faith and allow others to do the same unmolested.

Here's a scene from The West Wing which I think illustrates how people of faith SHOULD act toward those who don't necessarily agree with them:
President Bartlett: Why haven't you told me til now?
Toby: I was intimidated by your Catholicism.
President Bartlett: Really? It's MY Catholicism, Toby. It works for ME. ... Did you break any laws?
Toby: No, sir.
President Bartlett: Then a blessing on your house, young man. Mazel Tov.

-m

[Soldier]

true, but much more meaningful, and much more likely to actually be able to convince somebody.

-m

When debating with secular people, yes.

However, if I am addressing a topic (especially if some kind of morality is concerned) with another Christian, it's much more meaningful to be able to back oneself up with verse.

[Maeve_Mari]

It's only interpretation to say that a "day" is 24 hours (especially before the separation of the light and the dark!) anyway. Metaphor, not literal.

It's also wrong to say that "man through his own reason... interpeted science to claim evolution". Science is man's (and woman's!) use of reason and data to explain the world. Evolution is consistent with reality, creationism isn't.

A day IS only metaphorically 24 hours. Until light and dark were created God's "days" could have been hundreds and thousands of centuries long. Creation descibribed in the bible is the summary version of God's long evolutionary plan for man.

[D'Artag-NOT]

I myself suspect that the choices ultimately rested on which texts would best promote the power and influence of the burgeoning Church of the time, but that's just me.

Yes, that is just you. There were a number of criteria by which texts were selected for inclusion in the canon--apostolic origin and widespread acceptance by the Church as a whole over the whole course of its history being two of them. A number of very controversial texts, such as Revelation, barely made it in.

. . . so too it must be admitted that much of what we believe of Christianity is not explicit in the Bible but the result of its interpretation by the "holy men" of our own tradition and history...

Yes, to a great extent this is true. Not that interpretation of Scripture by holy men, and holy women, is a bad thing. Each of us ultimately must make our own moral decisions, so striving to be holy as one goes about it is probably a plus. If you read the Church fathers and the great saints, you'll find that none of them thought themselves to be particularly holy--rather, the opposite. (One of John Bunyan's books is entitled "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners", and St. Augustine of Hippo is very hard on himself in his Confessions.)

[vegan]

Cyranox,
Hm m m; yeah thats possibly the case, but no money in fencing?? come on man, its among the most expensive sports around, right up there with golf, cycling, and competitive chess!!!
Cheers,
B.

[Purple Fencer]

A day IS only metaphorically 24 hours. Until light and dark were created God's "days" could have been hundreds and thousands of centuries long. Creation descibribed in the bible is the summary version of God's long evolutionary plan for man.

George Burns (as God) to John Denver in "Oh, God!"
"When I got up this morning, Sigmund Freud was still in medical school..."

[Cyranox11]

Cyranox,
Hm m m; yeah thats possibly the case, but no money in fencing?? come on man, its among the most expensive sports around, right up there with golf, cycling, and competitive chess!!!
Cheers,
B.

OK let me rephrase no money for ME in fencing!!!
I seem to have a negative cash flow iro fencing.

[acfencing]

Well tournaments are on weekends. if you are not going to events I don't guess it is an issue.