I will find the article I read about how the Hubble telescope found that certain parts of the universe are actually contracting while others are expanding. This disproves the Big Bang theory. I will post it when I find it. The way it was contracting goes completely against the Big bang theory, which is a THEORY, just as evolution is a THEORY. Neither have been completely proven to be fact but are taught that way because many people do not want to acknowledge God.
Also, if the moon was as old as they say it is, during the Apollo program they feared the Lunar module would sink in about 6' of dust. The dust wasn't there. Millions of years of bombarding the moon with meteorites would have created the dust. It didn't happen. Seems as if the moon is younger than they say.
People also forget the thousands of animals fossilized like they drowned, which they did during the flood of Noah's day.
When Mt. St. Hellens erupted, Spirit lake was filled with trees that were pushed into the lake. Within a few months the trees were turning into coal. Much faster than scientists figured.
I have lots of examples that disprove evolution, or other things that are taught as fact. Noone wants to listen to any opposing view. Just like the covid shots.
If the younger dryas event happened about 12k years ago it rightly explains the massive rapid erosion seen in the American west. The evidence destroys the accepted paradigm of present evolutionary hypothesis and the events noted in the OT fit nicely within the narrative.
The interesting thing is that non Christian secularists are the people questioning atheist secularists and are using a word such as antediluvian. They, rather than Christian scientists, are pushing this narrative. It isn’t an issue of their being pro Christian but these guys are actually practicing science and continue to question it all.
Some on here appreciate Ken Hamm. As a Christian I personally think that he represents a mentality that has damaged the message of the Gospel and Christian faith. His Christian message is not the Gospel of Christ. Rather, he had adopted an approach to faith that attacks secular science and builds an argument for Christianity based in the creation story.
The problem with such an approach that Christ is only a central figure in creation while creation and the creation becomes the focus of his message. In Corinthians Paul goes into depth teaching us that if Christ isn’t raised from the dead all that we do pertaining to our faith is useless and in vain.
He reminded those believers that he had made it his purpose to know/teach nothing other than Christ and Christ crucified when he spent time with them. Unfortunately, that message isn’t taught in modern Christian churches. In my mind this is another if not the primary issue which would lead to correcting all of the other problems in the church were it preached.
In Corinthians Paul goes into depth teaching us that if Christ isn’t raised from the dead all that we do pertaining to our faith is useless and in vain.
yep
Originally Posted by IZH27
He reminded those believers that he had made it his purpose to know/teach nothing other than Christ and Christ crucified when he spent time with them. Unfortunately, that message isn’t taught in modern Christian churches. In my mind this is another if not the primary issue which would lead to correcting all of the other problems in the church were it preached.
yep
To me, the approach should be that the faith is tethered to the event…like it was for the earliest Christians…that launched the movement (Jesus’ ekklesia) that brought us the Bible. To me, an approach that argues from and anchors to the event of the resurrection rather than to the authority of the Bible makes much more sense, and is much more effective; it’s what the earliest Christians did.
I think driving that fact home is important to not only reaching the next generation of Jesus’ followers, but re-reaching the current generation of Jesus’ followers as well.
Christianity is already the minority religion in the US in the world. 99.9% of what gets passed off as "Christian" ain't.
I haven't read but a few posts on this thread but I scrolled all the way down to basically say what you just said. And what you said has been true for close to 2 thousand years.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Tough to figure out why people find organized religion hypocritical...
Why wouldn't they want to join? Real mystery.
I find green cults, disguised as hunting organizations, like BHA, but all of their leaders want to ban traditional forms of hunting and trapping and ban guns like Buzz hettick , Ryan Busse, land Tawney and rip off off their members no different than scum like jimmy Swagert or Tammy Faye Baker
Big bang is BS. What went bang? Where did the matter come from to begin with? Atheists have faith that there is no God. I have faith there is a God. If they are right, I guess I missed out on some things. If I’m right, they spend eternity in hell. How much of a gambler are you?
Evidence and not making assumptions is the key. There is evidence of an expanding universe. If we don't know something, why assume God did it?
I will find the article I read about how the Hubble telescope found that certain parts of the universe are actually contracting while others are expanding. This disproves the Big Bang theory. I will post it when I find it. The way it was contracting goes completely against the Big bang theory, which is a THEORY, just as evolution is a THEORY. Neither have been completely proven to be fact but are taught that way because many people do not want to acknowledge God.
Also, if the moon was as old as they say it is, during the Apollo program they feared the Lunar module would sink in about 6' of dust. The dust wasn't there. Millions of years of bombarding the moon with meteorites would have created the dust. It didn't happen. Seems as if the moon is younger than they say.
People also forget the thousands of animals fossilized like they drowned, which they did during the flood of Noah's day.
When Mt. St. Hellens erupted, Spirit lake was filled with trees that were pushed into the lake. Within a few months the trees were turning into coal. Much faster than scientists figured.
I have lots of examples that disprove evolution, or other things that are taught as fact. Noone wants to listen to any opposing view. Just like the covid shots.
You flat earthers are a hoot!
Dismissing scientific theories (look up the actual meaning in this context) always comes at the cost of credability. Your time would be better served trying to prove your god. Looks like you can't do this either.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Big bang is BS. What went bang? Where did the matter come from to begin with? Atheists have faith that there is no God. I have faith there is a God. If they are right, I guess I missed out on some things. If I’m right, they spend eternity in hell. How much of a gambler are you?
Evidence and not making assumptions is the key. There is evidence of an expanding universe. If we don't know something, why assume God did it?
What would you call the Uncaused Cause?
Has someone besides theists made a claim for uncaused cause?
Theists assume God - whatever that is supposed to be - to be the uncaused cause.
Mine either. My pastors have all been working class financially and mostly in lifestyle. Working long hours doing church maintenance themselves, visiting sick church members, weddings, funerals, overseeing bills, volunteer staffing ect, along with counseling couples with relationship troubles, emotional problems, financial troubles and other issues that I wouldn’t have the patience to deal with. About half of them did those things while also working a regular job on the side to keep things afloat.
Small town and country churches with small congregations and very conservative and outspoken in their beliefs.
If Christianity were the problem society should be getting better but instead we see the opposite. As Christianity goes our cultures have been in decline.
In Corinthians Paul goes into depth teaching us that if Christ isn’t raised from the dead all that we do pertaining to our faith is useless and in vain.
yep
Originally Posted by IZH27
He reminded those believers that he had made it his purpose to know/teach nothing other than Christ and Christ crucified when he spent time with them. Unfortunately, that message isn’t taught in modern Christian churches. In my mind this is another if not the primary issue which would lead to correcting all of the other problems in the church were it preached.
yep
To me, the approach should be that the faith is tethered to the event…like it was for the earliest Christians…that launched the movement (Jesus’ ekklesia) that brought us the Bible. To me, an approach that argues from and anchors to the event of the resurrection rather than to the authority of the Bible makes much more sense, and is much more effective; it’s what the earliest Christians did.
I think driving that fact home is important to not only reaching the next generation of Jesus’ followers, but re-reaching the current generation of Jesus’ followers as well.
In general I agree with the sentiment of your stance. I think that we vary on the importance and place of scripture a bit and the church but definitely find unity at the centrality of the resurrection.
I was listening to a couple “Lutrans” discussing the ideas of transcendence and condescendence . I’ve heard this subject covered in sermons before, but always in the context of God’s transcendence and condescendence.
There’s really only two religions in the world, Christianity and religions of works or law. Works or law based religions are transcendent perverting that concept as man try to rise up to God through something that he does. Perversions are seen in Christianity where ascendancy of the spirit is emphasized. Pietism and Gnosticism come to mind.
From beginning to end, scripture gives countless examples of God coming to man and doing for man what is needed without the help of man. God does this though presence and means in the person of Christ.
A real God-man on a specific day on a particular hill shed particular Jewish blood for specific sin and was buried in a particular tomb and rose with witnesses.
Christ and Christ crucified is what Paul told the Corinthians had been his purpose when he was with them. He taught a specific truth without which everything that they did in faith was useless.
Today people “witness about or “share” the Gospel” by telling people anecdotal stories about what’s happened in their life to make it better. That claim of a subjective experience of personal transcendence is never seen. These claims that are made are not seen in evidence and make no difference in what is see in the life of the person claiming change when compared to a good moral person who makes no such transcendent claim.
That perverted view is contrasted to condescendence where Christ comes to man in presence and means as a historical figure that did specific things for a specific purpose to achieve a specific outcome.
I don’t mean to sound preachy or teachy. Im just trying to capture the general idea that I’m getting from the conversation I referenced. I’d never applied those concepts to man but it just makes sense when I look around. I guess that I said all of that to set up the comment that getting back to Christ Crucified and away from all of the spiritualism and mysticism and self awareness would probably go a long way in making the Christian religion meaningful and important to our young people.
Big bang is BS. What went bang? Where did the matter come from to begin with? Atheists have faith that there is no God. I have faith there is a God. If they are right, I guess I missed out on some things. If I’m right, they spend eternity in hell. How much of a gambler are you?
Evidence and not making assumptions is the key. There is evidence of an expanding universe. If we don't know something, why assume God did it?
What would you call the Uncaused Cause?
Has someone besides theists made a claim for uncaused cause?
Theists assume God - whatever that is supposed to be - to be the uncaused cause.
When God is shown to be the ultimate explanation of the universe and a person asks, “What caused God?”, that is on par with showing that a locomotive is the explanation for the motion of boxcars and someone asking, “Yes, but what’s pulling the locomotive?”
Just as a boxcar’s motion can be explained only by something that is not itself a boxcar, the universe’s existence (including its beginning and motion within it) can be explained only by something that it not itself the universe. If an atheist sees that infinite regression is a bad explanation, then he needs a final cause to make the causal chain finite in length, a cause that by its very nature makes no sense to ask what caused it.
The question now isn’t, “What caused God?” but “What is this cause?” and “Is it God?”
In general I agree with the sentiment of your stance. I think that we vary on the importance and place of scripture a bit and the church but definitely find unity at the centrality of the resurrection.
Our differences of opinion are OK. And I appreciated your last post.
Most people who walked away from Christianity did so for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. They walked away from a version of Christianity that could be compared to a house of cards…if someone convinced them (for example) that if the earth wasn’t really created in 6 literal days, then why should they believe anything else in the Bible…that if any part of any of the 66 books of the Bible is proven to be untrue, then the Bible isn’t true, and if the Bible isn’t true, then their version of Christianity comes crashin’ down (like a house of cards).
Who taught them that believing non-essential things, like the literal 6 day creation account in Genesis (for example) was essential to following Jesus…? A person can certainly follow Jesus without believing whatever it is that they’ve decided they no longer believe (non-essential beliefs). And what these folks disbelieve usually intersects with something in the Old Testament.
These people need to know that Christianity can stand on its own two New Covenant, nail-scarred, resurrection, first-century feet. Christianity does not need to be propped up by the Hebrew Scriptures.
When Peter saw Jesus crucified, and he knew He died, and he knew where He was entombed…and then a few days later he shared a meal with Jesus on the beach…Peter’s faith didn’t need any ancient props. Current events sufficed.
Most non-Christians and post-Christians nowadays have a favorable view of Jesus, and while many may not see Him as divine, they still see Him as someone whose life is worth striving to imitate. The point is ~ people don’t leave the church or the faith because of Jesus. He’s not the stumbling block.
Other things have been put in their way, things that have made the church and the faith unnecessarily unattractive and resistible to people who left because of it.
Jesus’ Apostle’s appropriately leveraged the Old Testament to make their case to their fellow Jews in the first-century. But when preaching to Gentiles, even in the first-century, they leveraged a more recent development ~ the resurrection.
Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Jesus’ other earliest followers didn’t choose to follow Him because of something they read; they chose to follow Him because of something they saw
The Bible, especially the New Testament, plays an important role in helping us understand what it means to follow Jesus, but it is not ‘the’ reason I follow Him. I don’t believe because of a book, I believe because of an event that inspired the book. The Bible didn’t create Christianity; Christianity created the Bible.
Christianity existed for well over 200 years before there ever was ‘the Bible’. But Christianity did not exist before there was the resurrection.
Again, I think these truths are important in reaching the next generation, and in re-reaching the current generation as well.
Big bang is BS. What went bang? Where did the matter come from to begin with? Atheists have faith that there is no God. I have faith there is a God. If they are right, I guess I missed out on some things. If I’m right, they spend eternity in hell. How much of a gambler are you?
Evidence and not making assumptions is the key. There is evidence of an expanding universe. If we don't know something, why assume God did it?
What would you call the Uncaused Cause?
Has someone besides theists made a claim for uncaused cause?
Theists assume God - whatever that is supposed to be - to be the uncaused cause.
When God is shown to be the ultimate explanation of the universe and a person asks, “What caused God?”, that is on par with showing that a locomotive is the explanation for the motion of boxcars and someone asking, “Yes, but what’s pulling the locomotive?”
Just as a boxcar’s motion can be explained only by something that is not itself a boxcar, the universe’s existence (including its beginning and motion within it) can be explained only by something that it not itself the universe. If an atheist sees that infinite regression is a bad explanation, then he needs a final cause to make the causal chain finite in length, a cause that by its very nature makes no sense to ask what caused it.
The question now isn’t, “What caused God?” but “What is this cause?” and “Is it God?”
A god being the cause is an unsubstantiated assertion. You kinda wasted your time on your explanation.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Big bang is BS. What went bang? Where did the matter come from to begin with? Atheists have faith that there is no God. I have faith there is a God. If they are right, I guess I missed out on some things. If I’m right, they spend eternity in hell. How much of a gambler are you?
Evidence and not making assumptions is the key. There is evidence of an expanding universe. If we don't know something, why assume God did it?
What would you call the Uncaused Cause?
Has someone besides theists made a claim for uncaused cause?
Theists assume God - whatever that is supposed to be - to be the uncaused cause.
When God is shown to be the ultimate explanation of the universe and a person asks, “What caused God?”, that is on par with showing that a locomotive is the explanation for the motion of boxcars and someone asking, “Yes, but what’s pulling the locomotive?”
Just as a boxcar’s motion can be explained only by something that is not itself a boxcar, the universe’s existence (including its beginning and motion within it) can be explained only by something that it not itself the universe. If an atheist sees that infinite regression is a bad explanation, then he needs a final cause to make the causal chain finite in length, a cause that by its very nature makes no sense to ask what caused it.
The question now isn’t, “What caused God?” but “What is this cause?” and “Is it God?”
A god being the cause is an unsubstantiated assertion. You kinda wasted your time on your explanation.
You don’t believe in God. How’s that working out for your country?
Do you have a Constitutionally enshrined God given right to guns, freedom of speech or liberty without a mask? Unfortunately the US is probably eventually headed down the same road but our faith in God and freedoms are still several decades ahead of yours. IMO.
Without God might is right and nobody has a birthright to freedom of speech or weapons. Look no further than Australia. Which is exactly the reason every communist country throughout history has looked to push atheism and ban Christianity.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/kl0ojCj.jpg)
