25 minutes of Mr. Glib was all I could take. He ignores nuclear decay and universal gravitational constant so far as well as reducing cosmic events to human time scale (If you haven't seen any kind of evolution within the human experience it must not happen). And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
25 minutes of Mr. Glib was all I could take. He ignores nuclear decay and universal gravitational constant so far as well as reducing cosmic events to human time scale (If you haven't seen any kind of evolution within the human experience it must not happen). And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
You lasted 25 minutes longer than I did. But Kent's such a notorious liar I didn't bother to click on the video.
Did Jesus really perform a miracle and wither the fig tree, or is it merely fable?
Which of his miracles are true and which only fable?
This particular story, especially when taken in context of surrounding events, has all the "Marks" of a fable designed to make a point about the events between when Jesus cursed the fig tree, and revisited it a day later. Here's the best explanation I've seen of the allegory surrounding the story:
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith. Doing it time and time again after it's explained numerous times.....
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
Speaking of orbital mechanics, that theory failed to match observation and we had to invent dark matter to hold galaxies together. The facts of the matter are still a tossup as per definition nobody can directly observe dark matter.
?? "Theory" is an explanation of what is observed as in Science. "Fact" is an ontological truth as in Philosophy. Very different things, don't try to mix 'n match.
I don't know enough about any to say I believe in them, and am not interested enough to do the research to find out. I find I don't really care that much how it happened
Does faith determine whether all the miracles of Jesus were fables vs actual performed miracles?
Huh? Whether they happened or not doesn't matter. Faith and reason lead to an understanding of the moral truth which is being revealed. And that's what matters.
Thats your view as a catholic, many other Christians (including many catholics) take it that Jesus performed actual physical miracles... and to them such matters a whole lot.
Many christians pray for miracles based on their belief that they actually happened as recorded in Bible.
I don't know enough about any to say I believe in them, and am not interested enough to do the research to find out. I find I don't really care that much how it happened
And that's the point of that silly Buckaroo Banzai clip I posted: However we came to this state of affairs we have to deal with it as we find it.
Thats your view as a catholic, many other Christians (including many catholics) take it that Jesus performed actualphysical miracles... and to them such matters a whole lot.
You already said that. But why should it matter? Without having performed miracles is God any the lesser?
BTW Catholics believe in miracles both by Jesus and by others in His name. Like saints. Many miracles have been recognized by the Church.
BTW Catholics believe in miracles both by Jesus and by others in His name. Like saints. Many miracles have been recognized by the Church.
Those recognized by the church, we're they Actual real miracles, or does the church take Your view, that it doesn't matter if they were actual miracles or not?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
But why should it matter? Without having performed miracles is God any the lesser? ,
Why does the church bother to recognize alleged miracles if they don't really matter?
Why would a mighty God bother to Perform trivial inconsequential miracles for the church to give value to?
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Several stories or if you wish parables were allegories to illustrate a point. The good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus the Beggar, come to mind. I believe the bible while realizing you must sift out the additions and knowing a bunch was left out. The siege of Jericho story was pretty short, for that matter the 40 years wandering account is too brief. Jesus lived over 30 years and taught for over 3 years and a lot is missing and then he was misrepresented by Paul. I also believe in evolution. I've witnessed quite an evolution in our local wild hog population over the last 30 years. They are decidedly bigger, smarter, longer haired, and are shaped different. I wonder about people who are so certain of their knowledge or beliefs that they cannot entertain the idea they may be wrong.
Just watched a show about Jericho tonight on TV. According to the show, archeologists have determined that Jericho had been reduced to rubble and ashes by nearby rival tribes several hundred years before the Israelites were in the area. According to that show, the Israelites must have stolen local legends from earlier in time about Jericho, and rewrote themselves into the tale as the victors. Pretty interesting stuff.
Just watched a show about Jericho tonight on TV. According to the show, archeologists have determined that Jericho had been reduced to rubble and ashes by nearby rival tribes several hundred years before the Israelites were in the area. According to that show, the Israelites must have stolen local legends from earlier in time about Jericho, and rewrote themselves into the tale as the victors. Pretty interesting stuff.
Yeah, like Piglosi and Schiefty and Schumer and such.
Those recognized by the church, we're they Actual real miracles, or does the church take Your view, that it doesn't matter if they were actual miracles or not?
Real miracles after much investigation. But they are not a basis of the faith. None of the faithful I've known has ever seen one.
Quote
Why does the church bother to recognize alleged miracles if they don't really matter?
Didn't say the didn't matter. Said they are not necessary to the faith. And the moral point being made is more important than the act.
Quote
Why would a mighty God bother to Perform trivial inconsequential miracles for the church to give value to?
Trivial and inconsequential? your surmise. God does that for his own purposes. He doesn't tell me everything. Miracles are demonstrations of His love and mercy which many find comforting. They are also demonstrations of the value of faith. Are they necessary? No. But some people find them helpful in understanding.
Real miracles after much investigation. But they are not a basis of the faith. None of the faithful I've known has ever seen one.
So what the RC church deems as miracles are the real deal, but the word of God miracles in Bible could all be just fables?
Which miracles in the Bible actually happened?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
. Miracles are demonstrations of His love and mercy which many find comforting.
God told you the miracles are real?.... or RC church told you they are real? , or you just convinced yourself because its comforting and convenient to believe it?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
BTW Catholics believe in miracles both by Jesus and by others in His name.
which Miracles do catholics believe as real in Bible? And who investigated them to prove they are not myth?
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Are they necessary? No.
Why perform miracles if they are deemed not necessary?
Why would a God do something that is not required?
Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon series, says that the most trouble he has had in his entire life is from saying evolution would be proven wrong in his lifetime.
All the science geniuses I know now believe that evolution theory has been replaced with the simulation.... which you can say was created by God.
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith.
Seems a pretty weak faith if one feels the need to intentionally misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
So what the RC church deems as miracles are the real deal, but the word of God miracles in Bible could all be just fables?
I have seen a miracle. I have a daughter who for her first three months was ill, listless, obviously couldn't see, would only barely take milk, seemed profoundly retarded. I told the Lord I didn't understand why this was but I would take care of her as best I could. She developed a bad urinary tract infection and was hospitalized not really expected to live. She threw off the infection and immediately became way more responsive,started eating gained weight, and started smiling. Fast forward, she was valedictorian, now is an ICU RN with a beautiful 4 year old highly intelligent little girl.She is now 28. Beginning about age 4 she started insisting on going everywhere with me. She is a crack shot with her .243W. She is quite social and has lots of friends and is a far cry from what her future looked like in 1992. My wife is a pediatric NP and we are friends with the pediatricians that treated her from birth. There is no explanation they can give for the turnaround. I give God the glory and thanks.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
Only an idiot accepts the biblical explanations over science. It’s true that the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God and provide the best explanations they had to explain the world. However, they lacked science and the scientific method to determine the truth. A ration explanation is that God used evolution as a tool to create and change life.
Evolution is a fact that explains how life changed and adapted to a changing environment. The sooner that accept this truth the sooner you will understand the world.
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith.
Seems a pretty weak faith if one feels the need to intentionally misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Nope, not so at all. Your comment is clearly referring to Faith as applied in Christianity. Yet you avoid the biblical definition of faith and discount then source of that faith.. all because you have not experienced it.
Hebrews 11:1..... “.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
This biblical definition is clearly different from what you wrote.
Starman, Your questions are deceptive in that they are intended to act as rhetorical devices and not to elicit a meaningful response. Much like the Sophists back in the day.
Your questions are deceptive in that they are intended to act as rhetorical devices and not to elicit a meaningful response. Much like the Sophists back in the day.
You lost and your dumbass pride can't concede that you screwed up.. TFF.
trying to talk all mr. sophisticated like won't help... You layed the minefield with your waffle And now you dont like walking it.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Maybe to some. Absolutely not to all.
Why not? How can evidence that clearly supports natural evolution not be a threat to faith/special creation? Unless that evidence is dismissed or ignored. That is one way to maintain faith.
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith.
Seems a pretty weak faith if one feels the need to intentionally misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Nope, not so at all. Your comment is clearly referring to Faith as applied in Christianity. Yet you avoid the biblical definition of faith and discount then source of that faith.. all because you have not experienced it.
Hebrews 11:1..... “.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
This biblical definition is clearly different from what you wrote.
Thankfully the end of the world preaching is out of favour, and believers go quiet when it gets real - busy praying I suppose. In days gone they used to rage that the world was ending whenever some disaster or calamity struck, only to look like complete tossers afterwards. This has happened for thousands of years and they were never right - faith, whata ya gone a do about it?
Now that things are somewhat more settled, the believers start popping out of the woodwork and can continue with their moderate levels of fear of death. Seems anger is a good substitute for hopelessness - gives drive and purpose. Hey, lets start slinging crap at the infidels again and continue with our feel good fairy tales.
I see the beauty of the Creator and creation every single day. The beauty of evolution , not so much. I also believe discussing it can be a huge waste of time , but it can get kind of entertaining at happy hour!
Noah and the ark. so this guy gathers up a pair of all the animals on earth and loads them on a giant ship(do you really know how big that ship had to be?) it would have taken years to build it,years to figure out how to get all the animals there, so maybe he waited til the water started to rise and floated the world and all the animals were so scared they just jumped on the ship. yeah right.
to me its like a cartoon and half the world believes it.
Your questions are deceptive in that they are intended to act as rhetorical devices and not to elicit a meaningful response. Much like the Sophists back in the day.
You lost and your dumbass pride can't concede that you screwed up.. TFF.
trying to talk all mr. sophisticated like won't help... You layed the minefield with your waffle And now you dont like walking it.
See, there's your problem. Your posts are not a search for truth. Merely some kind of weird game intended to stroke your ego. Believe what you want, I couldn't care less,
You can test the most devout christians faith by asking them if they reach for Glock or begin by praying to a God if they have a home invasion.
or give them choice of foxhole or concrete bunker when it's raining proximity fuse artillery.
Heart attack - medical science paramedics..or just call for much needed prayers from your church friends cause it will fix everything...
Lots of dead church people, but how many actually faithfully living through Christ. Talk and just keeping empty appearances is cheap.
People telling themselves they know they have made the cut into a heaven.... hilarious.
I know there are lawyers who have never tried a case in a court of law in their entire. They make a living "Mitigating". If a lawyer does have to try a case in a court of law and question witnesses, does the witness still have to swear to "I swear by Almighty God [to tell] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, how does a person questioning and a person answering in such a procedure place any credibility in the process if they hold nothing but contempt for the very oath that must be sworn in order to give or receive testimony in court. Have you ever objected to the Judge that you have no believe or hold no faith at all to the oath that must be sworn to testify, or are you yourself a hypocrite and just "play along"? I admit I have never been sworn to testify and do not personally know how everything is done in every court of law, just asking your great intellectual input into such matters.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Originally Posted by antlers
Maybe to some. Absolutely not to all.
Originally Posted by DBT
Why not?
Originally Posted by antlers
Some might require the reinforcement you mention. Absolutely ‘all’ don’t. Some might be threatened by questions. Absolutely ‘all’ are not.
Originally Posted by DBT
How can evidence that clearly supports natural evolution not be a threat to faith/special creation?
Originally Posted by antlers
Some Jesus followers believe in Creation through evolution. To some, it doesn’t matter how things came about.
Originally Posted by DBT
Unless that evidence is dismissed or ignored. That is one way to maintain faith.
Noah and the ark. so this guy gathers up a pair of all the animals on earth and loads them on a giant ship(do you really know how big that ship had to be?) it would have taken years to build it,years to figure out how to get all the animals there, so maybe he waited til the water started to rise and floated the world and all the animals were so scared they just jumped on the ship. yeah right.
to me its like a cartoon and half the world believes it.
biggest scam in the history of the world
I dunno, i saw a documentary on that a few years ago, it seemed very believable. Its called Evan Almighty... it took place real close to us too in NOVA.
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith.
Seems a pretty weak faith if one feels the need to intentionally misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Nope, not so at all. Your comment is clearly referring to Faith as applied in Christianity. Yet you avoid the biblical definition of faith and discount then source of that faith.. all because you have not experienced it.
Hebrews 11:1..... “.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
This biblical definition is clearly different from what you wrote.
And, no, you are not a threat to my faith.
Hebrew 11:1 supports what I said.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by TF49
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by nighthawk
And of course falsely uses "theory" as a synonym for "fact," a common ploy.
Like the ‘theory of gravity’ or the ‘theory of orbital mechanics’ or the ‘theory of nuclear fission’.
I suspect that some folks like to misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their own faith.
Seems a pretty weak faith if one feels the need to intentionally misrepresent the nature of theory in science in order to support their faith.
As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.
Nope, not so at all. Your comment is clearly referring to Faith as applied in Christianity. Yet you avoid the biblical definition of faith and discount then source of that faith.. all because you have not experienced it.
Hebrews 11:1..... “.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
This biblical definition is clearly different from what you wrote.
And, no, you are not a threat to my faith.
Hebrew 11:1 supports what I said.
Clearly not. Perhaps you cannot or choose not to see the difference.
I will be along again after a bit and show it again.
I believe that the rejection of basic Christian principles by more and more people is the root of a lot of our problems. 48% of millenials, in a recent poll, answered "none" when asked what their religion was. And Protestant denominations are losing members like crazy. Without a grounding in religion, any morals are simply relative--whatever feels good.
That said, taking the Bible absolutely literally is a mistake, IMHO. The four gospels were not even written down for decades after Jesus. And they were picked from among many other Gospels, with different narratives in part, by a group of ignorant (by our standards) priests selected by a booodthirsty emperor (Constantine) 300 years later.
I do not believe in talking snakes, breeding striped goats by making them watch striped sticks while copulating, and lots of other things. I suspect that some of Jesus's doings were inserted or exaggerated in the hundreds of years after his death.
But...arguing faith vs. science is a waste of time. "Never the twain shall meet." Each seeks truth in a different way.
Only an idiot accepts the biblical explanations over science. It’s true that the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God and provide the best explanations they had to explain the world. However, they lacked science and the scientific method to determine the truth. A ration explanation is that God used evolution as a tool to create and change life.
Evolution is a fact that explains how life changed and adapted to a changing environment. The sooner that accept this truth the sooner you will understand the world.
It's in the Bible: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth (which includes you and me), which the waters brought forth abundantly ..."
The Bible, in other words, equates 1) the waters (in response to God's command) bringing forth every living creature (Watch the first several installments of the series I provided installment number one for, above), and 2) God having created said creatures.
It wasn't direct creation. God assigned the task entirely to nature, which he commanded to accomplish, and it did so. All life originated in the waters, and evolved into all the flora and fauna the earth has ever known. There was no intelligent design (God didn't engineer each creature, nor any of them), which is quite obvious to anyone who studies biology, zoology, genetics, etc.. Nor does the Bible say that he did.
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
Noah and the ark. so this guy gathers up a pair of all the animals on earth and loads them on a giant ship(do you really know how big that ship had to be?) it would have taken years to build it,years to figure out how to get all the animals there, so maybe he waited til the water started to rise and floated the world and all the animals were so scared they just jumped on the ship. yeah right.
to me its like a cartoon and half the world believes it.
biggest scam in the history of the world
Love the ark story...! Grins, biggest miracle is the fact the critters didn't eat each other, divine intervention I reckon... but really ....! The mosquito's.....! Did Noah have to bring the damn bugs.....! And why the fug didn't the bird's eat em when they had the chance?
Noah and the ark. so this guy gathers up a pair of all the animals on earth and loads them on a giant ship(do you really know how big that ship had to be?) it would have taken years to build it,years to figure out how to get all the animals there, so maybe he waited til the water started to rise and floated the world and all the animals were so scared they just jumped on the ship. yeah right.
to me its like a cartoon and half the world believes it.
biggest scam in the history of the world
I dunno, i saw a documentary on that a few years ago, it seemed very believable. Its called Evan Almighty... it took place real close to us too in NOVA.
This...... Evan Almighty Evan Almighty is a 2007 American fantasy disaster comedy film, and a stand-alone sequel and spin-off of Bruce Almighty. Proof eh, you betcha
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
You can test the most devout christians faith by asking them if they reach for Glock or begin by praying to a God if they have a home invasion.
or give them choice of foxhole or concrete bunker when it's raining proximity fuse artillery.
Heart attack - medical science paramedics..or just call for much needed prayers from your church friends cause it will fix everything...
Lots of dead church people, but how many actually faithfully living through Christ. Talk and just keeping empty appearances is cheap.
People telling themselves they know they have made the cut into a heaven.... hilarious.
I know there are lawyers who have never tried a case in a court of law in their entire. They make a living "Mitigating". If a lawyer does have to try a case in a court of law and question witnesses, does the witness still have to swear to "I swear by Almighty God [to tell] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, how does a person questioning and a person answering in such a procedure place any credibility in the process if they hold nothing but contempt for the very oath that must be sworn in order to give or receive testimony in court. Have you ever objected to the Judge that you have no believe or hold no faith at all to the oath that must be sworn to testify, or are you yourself a hypocrite and just "play along"? I admit I have never been sworn to testify and do not personally know how everything is done in every court of law, just asking your great intellectual input into such matters.
How old and out of touch are you?
No! You do not have to swear to any divine power when sworn in in an American Court.
Nice try AS (fool, swine), but you know that's not the context of the word "fool" which refers to those who say there is no God. The Hebrew word is nabal, which often refers to an impious person who has no perception of ethical or religious truth. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God.” In other words, it is a wicked thing to deny God,
They'll be plenty of smart folks in hell. Do I need to explain "swine" to you again as well?
Denied being a U.S. Citizen to evade taxes. Kids, don't try this at home.
Yea, that's Doc's hero.
I love the double wide trailer "University":
On July 11, 2006, Hovind was indicted on 58 counts in the District Court in Northern Florida in Pensacola. The first 12 counts were charges for willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes in connection with the CSE operation, totaling $473,818 for the 12 fiscal quarters of 2001–2003. The next 45 counts were charges for knowingly structuring transactions by making multiple cash withdrawals totaling $430,500 in amounts just under the $10,000 which requires reporting (a technique known as "Structuring"), for which his wife was also charged. The last count was a charge of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws by falsely listing the IRS as his only creditor when filing for bankruptcy, filing a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass, making threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who might consider cooperating with the investigation, filing a false complaint against IRS agents investigating him, filing a false criminal complaint against IRS special agents (criminal investigators), and destroying records.[135][136][137]
...At arraignment, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges, telling the court: "I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me."[136] The presiding magistrate judge asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded, "To some degree."
...the jury deliberated three hours before finding the Hovinds guilty on all counts, 58 for Hovind and 45 for his wife
On January 19, 2007, Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison with three years probation and ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000. During the sentencing phase, a tearful Hovind, hoping to avoid prison, told the court, "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach."[147] However, Hovind's court room behavior was in stark contrast to phone calls he made while in jail and played by the prosecution.[148] The tapes, posted online by the Pensacola News Journal, included one conversation with Hovind and Eric Hovind, who were planning to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.[149] At sentencing, he denied being a "tax protester",[148] but the prosecution,[116] an IRS spokesman,[148] and the Pensacola News Journal[140][150] used the term to describe him.
On June 29, 2007, Jo Hovind was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, three years of supervision upon release and fined $8,000.[144] In court, Jo Hovind offered explanations for the 45 checks just under $10,000 and for checks cashed before and after the reporting deadline, telling the judge "I really did not have a leadership role in CSE" and finished "I would never knowingly do anything illegal." The judge said that while Hovind was the principal authority at CSE, Jo managed the payroll; she had cashed roughly 200 checks totaling $1.5 million over a four-year period, relying on cash to avoid IRS scrutiny.[150] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied both appeals on December 30, 2008,[146] and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on November 2, 2009.[151]
Thankfully the end of the world preaching is out of favour, and believers go quiet when it gets real - busy praying I suppose. In days gone they used to rage that the world was ending whenever some disaster or calamity struck, only to look like complete tossers afterwards. This has happened for thousands of years and they were never right - faith, whata ya gone a do about it?
Now that things are somewhat more settled, the believers start popping out of the woodwork and can continue with their moderate levels of fear of death. Seems anger is a good substitute for hopelessness - gives drive and purpose. Hey, lets start slinging crap at the infidels again and continue with our feel good fairy tales.
Keep focusing on what they said, rather than what HE said if it makes you feel better.
Denied being a U.S. Citizen to evade taxes. Kids, don't try this at home.
Yea, that's Doc's hero.
I love the double wide trailer "University":
On July 11, 2006, Hovind was indicted on 58 counts in the District Court in Northern Florida in Pensacola. The first 12 counts were charges for willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes in connection with the CSE operation, totaling $473,818 for the 12 fiscal quarters of 2001–2003. The next 45 counts were charges for knowingly structuring transactions by making multiple cash withdrawals totaling $430,500 in amounts just under the $10,000 which requires reporting (a technique known as "Structuring"), for which his wife was also charged. The last count was a charge of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws by falsely listing the IRS as his only creditor when filing for bankruptcy, filing a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass, making threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who might consider cooperating with the investigation, filing a false complaint against IRS agents investigating him, filing a false criminal complaint against IRS special agents (criminal investigators), and destroying records.[135][136][137]
...At arraignment, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges, telling the court: "I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me."[136] The presiding magistrate judge asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded, "To some degree."
...the jury deliberated three hours before finding the Hovinds guilty on all counts, 58 for Hovind and 45 for his wife
On January 19, 2007, Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison with three years probation and ordered to pay the federal government restitution of over $600,000. During the sentencing phase, a tearful Hovind, hoping to avoid prison, told the court, "If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach."[147] However, Hovind's court room behavior was in stark contrast to phone calls he made while in jail and played by the prosecution.[148] The tapes, posted online by the Pensacola News Journal, included one conversation with Hovind and Eric Hovind, who were planning to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.[149] At sentencing, he denied being a "tax protester",[148] but the prosecution,[116] an IRS spokesman,[148] and the Pensacola News Journal[140][150] used the term to describe him.
On June 29, 2007, Jo Hovind was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, three years of supervision upon release and fined $8,000.[144] In court, Jo Hovind offered explanations for the 45 checks just under $10,000 and for checks cashed before and after the reporting deadline, telling the judge "I really did not have a leadership role in CSE" and finished "I would never knowingly do anything illegal." The judge said that while Hovind was the principal authority at CSE, Jo managed the payroll; she had cashed roughly 200 checks totaling $1.5 million over a four-year period, relying on cash to avoid IRS scrutiny.[150] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied both appeals on December 30, 2008,[146] and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on November 2, 2009.[151]
Wow! Jaguartx follows this guy? He's even more of a doofus than I thought. There are plenty of decent and honest preachers to follow.
Who immediatly resorts to quoting the whack jobs of the Discovery Institute.
Say whatever you like, but evolution is just metaphysical theory. Unproven and undemonstrated..... and as we have discussed before, poorly supported .... if supported at all....by fossil evidence.
Also, appealing to a majority who all believe the same thing seems empty. If someone in Germany, in 1938, denounced Hitler and said he would lead the nation into war, death and destruction, he would have soundly denounced by the “majority.”
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
"Yet, that does not mean that the atheists are right to crow, and that Einstein only ever spoke of God idiomatically, meaning nothing more by his frequent references to the divine. Our star witness here is Einstein himself. A global celebrity and known for his willingness to talk God as much as physics, he was frequently asked, in private and public, to pronounce on his beliefs. In as far as these can be summed up, they appear to be deistic. “I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” All the finer speculations in the realm of science “spring from a deep religious feeling,” he remarked in 1930. In the order, beauty and intelligibility of creation, he found signs of the ‘God’ he also heard throughout his life in music.
This was not the personal God of the Abrahamic faiths, but nor was it the idiomatic “God” of atheism. Indeed, Einstein could be equally withering on this point. When asked whether there was an inherent antagonism between science and religion, or whether science would ever supercede religion, he was emphatic in his denial. Nor had he any time for deriving morality from science. “Every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail,” he once remarked. There are still people, he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, who say there is no God. “But what really make me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” “There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940."
Einstein, then, offers scant consolation to either party in this debate. His cosmic religion and distant deistic God of cosmic order and elegance fits neither the agenda of religious believers or that of tribal atheists. As so often during his life, he refused and disturbed the accepted categories.
Einstein once famously remarked that to punish him for his contempt for authority, Fate made him an authority himself. As with physics so with religion. We do the great physicist a disservice when we go to him to legitimise our belief in God, or in his absence.
Personally anyone that adheres to some sort of a belief based on blind faith and some promise of a after life future is selfish and self serving, Live and treat people today for how you wish to be treated, not for some grand plan that you will prosper in heaven, or miss out on hell, or sit on some star with 17 virgins... fables... geezzz
IOW, no proof of evolution, which disingenuous AS already knows.
We have teeny brains compared only to HIM.
We have immensely greater brain power than any other living beings HE made.
You don't even have good evidence for the claimed existence of your god.
Even if evolution was NOT true, it still would not prove your god. The only reason you try so hard to disprove evolution is because its in conflict with your version of Christianity.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Who ever said that?? The Big Bang Theory falls within the scientific field of astrophysics, not evolutionary biology. The Big Bang Theory is not a theory of the origin of species.
PS The Big Bang Theory is perfectly in accord with Genesis, which is why (when it was proposed), it was strongly opposed by atheists, who preferred the steady state theory (The dominant model prior to the Big Bang Theory) of the universe because it was inconsistent with the Genesis account of the universe's origin.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Several stories or if you wish parables were allegories to illustrate a point. The good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus the Beggar, come to mind. I believe the bible while realizing you must sift out the additions and knowing a bunch was left out. The siege of Jericho story was pretty short, for that matter the 40 years wandering account is too brief. Jesus lived over 30 years and taught for over 3 years and a lot is missing and then he was misrepresented by Paul. I also believe in evolution. I've witnessed quite an evolution in our local wild hog population over the last 30 years. They are decidedly bigger, smarter, longer haired, and are shaped different. I wonder about people who are so certain of their knowledge or beliefs that they cannot entertain the idea they may be wrong.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Who ever said that?? The Big Bang Theory falls within the scientific field of astrophysics, not evolutionary biology. The Big Bang Theory is not a theory of the origin of species.
PS The Big Bang Theory is perfectly in accord with Genesis, which is why (when it was proposed), it was strongly opposed by atheists, who preferred the steady state theory (The dominant model prior to the Big Bang Theory) of the universe because it was inconsistent with the Genesis account of the universe's origin.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Not an unbeliever. Just dont wanna listen to people tell me how to beleive. Especially since it involves supporting their sorry azz,s with my money.
Since the dawn of time....... And someone figured out how they could exploit it for an easy street living and not have to fight off saber tooth tigers like the rest had too.
Far as evolution and what the bible says ( which version is the true word anyways?) Beleive what ya want. Someone or something made us. Might be shocking to either side of the fence if ever found out one way or the other. With concrete undisputed evidence....
Live my life my way and not based on some turd telling me how too according to what his version of the bible says....
Done more good than bad in my life. If a person dont know that about their ownself, then their moral compass is fugged.....
Dont need another person telling me my soul is hollow according to their convictions and I need to be saved according to their own beliefs on what they read or hear.
Said Roman Catholic on my dog tags. I would have rather been a non compliant jewish person than locked into this absoulote Catholic stuff. Heck When I die if my body aint disposed in a approved catholic way, or place. I'm gonna burn. If I go free agent and change teams to another branch of christianity. Im gonna burn... Who made this schitt up ??? Man or god??? Man for money is the answer.....
Noah and the ark. so this guy gathers up a pair of all the animals on earth and loads them on a giant ship(do you really know how big that ship had to be?) it would have taken years to build it,years to figure out how to get all the animals there, so maybe he waited til the water started to rise and floated the world and all the animals were so scared they just jumped on the ship. yeah right.
to me its like a cartoon and half the world believes it.
biggest scam in the history of the world
You should probably read the story you can comment intelligently. God brought the animals. God gave them 120 years to prepare for the Flood. The ship was between 450 and 550 feet long consisting of three levels.
Talk about a cartoon.... Come up with a way to explain abiogenesis and you will be a very rich person.
Not an unbeliever. Just dont wanna listen to people tell me how to beleive. Especially since it involves supporting their sorry azz,s with my money.
Since the dawn of time....... And someone figured out how they could exploit it for an easy street living and not have to fight off saber tooth tigers like the rest had too.
Far as evolution and what the bible says ( which version is the true word anyways?) Beleive what ya want. Someone or something made us. Might be shocking to either side of the fence if ever found out one way or the other. With concrete undisputed evidence....
Live my life my way and not based on some turd telling me how too according to what his version of the bible says....
Done more good than bad in my life. If a person dont know that about their ownself, then their moral compass is fugged.....
Dont need another person telling me my soul is hollow according to their convictions and I need to be saved according to their own beliefs on what they read or hear.
Said Roman Catholic on my dog tags. I would have rather been a non compliant jewish person than locked into this absoulote Catholic stuff. Heck When I die if my body aint disposed in a approved catholic way, or place. I'm gonna burn. If I go free agent and change teams to another branch of christianity. Im gonna burn... Who made this schitt up ??? Man or god??? Man for money is the answer.....
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldnt make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Evolution is proven, faith is in your heart, not a bad thing to have... The big Gnarly Dude sure as hell didnt make it simple or easy to follow.. in fact we were given license to do as we please... pay later... what a concept.
Only an idiot accepts the biblical explanations over science. It’s true that the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by God and provide the best explanations they had to explain the world. However, they lacked science and the scientific method to determine the truth. A ration explanation is that God used evolution as a tool to create and change life.
Evolution is a fact that explains how life changed and adapted to a changing environment. The sooner that accept this truth the sooner you will understand the world.
It's in the Bible: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth (which includes you and me), which the waters brought forth abundantly ..."
The Bible, in other words, equates 1) the waters (in response to God's command) bringing forth every living creature (Watch the first several installments of the series I provided installment number one for, above), and 2) God having created said creatures.
It wasn't direct creation. God assigned the task entirely to nature, which he commanded to accomplish, and it did so. All life originated in the waters, and evolved into all the flora and fauna the earth has ever known. There was no intelligent design (God didn't engineer each creature, nor any of them), which is quite obvious to anyone who studies biology, zoology, genetics, etc.. Nor does the Bible say that he did.
So maybe you could tell us why every year there are more and more Ph.D. scientists becoming creationists biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc., etc. Are they not as educated as you?
You can test the most devout christians faith by asking them if they reach for Glock or begin by praying to a God if they have a home invasion.
or give them choice of foxhole or concrete bunker when it's raining proximity fuse artillery.
Heart attack - medical science paramedics..or just call for much needed prayers from your church friends cause it will fix everything...
Lots of dead church people, but how many actually faithfully living through Christ. Talk and just keeping empty appearances is cheap.
People telling themselves they know they have made the cut into a heaven.... hilarious.
I know there are lawyers who have never tried a case in a court of law in their entire. They make a living "Mitigating". If a lawyer does have to try a case in a court of law and question witnesses, does the witness still have to swear to "I swear by Almighty God [to tell] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, how does a person questioning and a person answering in such a procedure place any credibility in the process if they hold nothing but contempt for the very oath that must be sworn in order to give or receive testimony in court. Have you ever objected to the Judge that you have no believe or hold no faith at all to the oath that must be sworn to testify, or are you yourself a hypocrite and just "play along"? I admit I have never been sworn to testify and do not personally know how everything is done in every court of law, just asking your great intellectual input into such matters.
How old and out of touch are you?
No! You do not have to swear to any divine power when sworn in in an American Court.
I'm old enough to at least Google it before I posted it. This is what I found when I searched the web in numerous sites . By the way, how old are you? You seem to think a lot of your own opinion in most matters. I'm just asking questions.
"United States Oath:
Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)? "Swear" may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[14] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[15] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[16]
Oath (California):
You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book.
If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true?
No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I don't understand why the heated arguments?
Wabigoon, I hope that helps answer your question. Once you start admitting parts of the Bible are just allegory, the question then become, "How much is just allegory?" If the Creation, Adam and Eve, Flood and Exodus are all just Allegory, why not Jesus?
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book. If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true? No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus
You can test the most devout christians faith by asking them if they reach for Glock or begin by praying to a God if they have a home invasion.
or give them choice of foxhole or concrete bunker when it's raining proximity fuse artillery.
Heart attack - medical science paramedics..or just call for much needed prayers from your church friends cause it will fix everything...
Lots of dead church people, but how many actually faithfully living through Christ. Talk and just keeping empty appearances is cheap.
People telling themselves they know they have made the cut into a heaven.... hilarious.
I know there are lawyers who have never tried a case in a court of law in their entire. They make a living "Mitigating". If a lawyer does have to try a case in a court of law and question witnesses, does the witness still have to swear to "I swear by Almighty God [to tell] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, how does a person questioning and a person answering in such a procedure place any credibility in the process if they hold nothing but contempt for the very oath that must be sworn in order to give or receive testimony in court. Have you ever objected to the Judge that you have no believe or hold no faith at all to the oath that must be sworn to testify, or are you yourself a hypocrite and just "play along"? I admit I have never been sworn to testify and do not personally know how everything is done in every court of law, just asking your great intellectual input into such matters.
How old and out of touch are you?
No! You do not have to swear to any divine power when sworn in in an American Court.
I'm old enough to at least Google it before I posted it. This is what I found when I searched the web in numerous sites . By the way, how old are you?
"United States Oath:
Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)? "Swear" may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[14] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[15] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[16]
Oath (California):
You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
Might want to read that little document called The Constitution and the surrounding case law:
The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is applied to state and local governments by Amendment 14, prohibits government was forcing a person to profess a belief in God or in any religion as a condition of obtaining public services or benefits. Despite the Torcaso decision, a few states are holdouts and have retained unconstitutional religious tests for public office, for jury duty, etc. However, there have been a variety of lower-court decisions on the matter, including People v. Velarde, 616P.2d 104 (1980), in which the Colorado Supreme Court held that, although jurors are required to state affirmations, they are not required to swear an oath to a god.
Not an unbeliever. Just dont wanna listen to people tell me how to beleive. Especially since it involves supporting their sorry azz,s with my money.
Since the dawn of time....... And someone figured out how they could exploit it for an easy street living and not have to fight off saber tooth tigers like the rest had too.
Far as evolution and what the bible says ( which version is the true word anyways?) Beleive what ya want. Someone or something made us. Might be shocking to either side of the fence if ever found out one way or the other. With concrete undisputed evidence....
Live my life my way and not based on some turd telling me how too according to what his version of the bible says....
Done more good than bad in my life. If a person dont know that about their ownself, then their moral compass is fugged.....
Dont need another person telling me my soul is hollow according to their convictions and I need to be saved according to their own beliefs on what they read or hear.
Said Roman Catholic on my dog tags. I would have rather been a non compliant jewish person than locked into this absoulote Catholic stuff. Heck When I die if my body aint disposed in a approved catholic way, or place. I'm gonna burn. If I go free agent and change teams to another branch of christianity. Im gonna burn... Who made this schitt up ??? Man or god??? Man for money is the answer.....
So maybe you could tell us why every year there are more and more Ph.D. scientists becoming creationists biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc., etc. Are they not as educated as you?
A scant few actual Ph.D..biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc., become Creationists, and those that do are cranks. Some Ph.Ds legitimately in those fields may, like myself, believe in divine creation, as it's poetically related in Genesis, but that's far from being a Creationist. Creationism is a system of belief invented fairly recently in history (most of its roots being found in the Twentieth Century), holding its adherents to a childish, pre-scientific, interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
I'm old enough to at least Google it before I posted it. This is what I found when I searched the web in numerous sites . By the way, how old are you? You seem to think a lot of your own opinion in most matters. I'm just asking questions.
"United States Oath:
Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)? "Swear" may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[14] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[15] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[16]
Oath (California):
You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
I was called as a witness in court. While I was in the hall waiting to be called I read Matthew. Jesus says don't swear..... When the clerk asked if I swear to tell the truth... I told him I just read what Jesus said. Therefore I will not swear. He then asked if I would affirm and I told him that was just a cleaver way to get me to say the same thing. The D.A. who knew me turned to the judge and said, "He will tell the truth, Your Honor." That settled it and I testified.
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book. If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true? No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus
If that’s the way you see it, so be it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's also the way Kent Hovind, the subject of the OP see it, along with millions of other Christians. He has a whole talk on how you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, because without the OT, there is no NT, no NT, no Jesus, and no trip past the Pearly Gates.
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book. If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true? No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus
If that’s the way you see it, so be it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's also the way Kent Hovind, the subject of the OP see it, along with millions of other Christians. He has a whole talk on how you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, because without the OT, there is no NT, no NT, no Jesus, and no trip past the Pearly Gates.
That's also the way Kent Hovind, the subject of the OP sees it, along with millions of other Christians. He has a whole talk on how you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, because without the OT, there is no NT, no NT, no Jesus, and no trip past the Pearly Gates.
I’m in disagreement with anyone (Kent Hovind, you, other followers of Jesus, etc.) who thinks the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith. Some people worship a book, others attack the faith of Christianity by attacking that book, and others try to follow Jesus’ teachings and worship Him.
See, there's your problem. Your posts are not a search for truth. Merely some kind of weird game intended to stroke your ego. Believe what you want, I couldn't care less,
Typical elitist catholic thinking others have the problem.
Fact is there were direct enquiring questions about your claims that you ran away from, coz you had already painted yourself into a corner.
What you Lost was not a competition, . what you lost is credibilty in your argument. because it was full of holes. So you dumped it, bundled up your pride [ego] and ran... then put up some sad lame excuse.
Its not the first time your crapola has been shown to be nonsense... You've had your ass handed to to you before, yet you persist with your intellectual giant stance on such matters. You get so caught up in your own web of convoluted bullschit and contradictions that you don't see the trap you lay for yourself... 😂
You are good at pissing until it comes to actually getting it in the bowl.
Why are you so uncomfortable with us believers? It's to comfort YOURSELF.
It aint uncomfort with believers. Its hearing some of them spew their pieholes about it and condeming others for not falling in line lock step in what they believe to be their mission to save someone else's soul. And feeling fugging smug about it all while doing it.
I dont need anyone to set me straight about what I beleive. Espeically when their are a million six christain religons all reading outta different versions of gods book. Cut copied and pasted by those men with power thruout time on what they wanted in it or out of it. Then throw benjamins into the equation.
So maybe you could tell us why every year there are more and more Ph.D. scientists becoming creationists biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc., etc. Are they not as educated as you?
A scant few actual Ph.D..biologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc., become Creationists, and those that do are cranks. Some Ph.Ds legitimately in those fields may, like myself, believe in divine creation, as it's poetically related in Genesis, but that's far from being a Creationist. Creationism is a system of belief invented fairly recently in history (most of its roots being found in the Twentieth Century), holding its adherents to a childish, pre-scientific, interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
You don't know what you are addressing so confidently. In what field is your Ph.D.? Consider Dr. Jason Lisle. He is a six day young universe creationist who made discoveries in the sun that no other scientist discovered prior to his discovery. I heard him say (I will paraphrase. But it's close.) "Evolution is myth for which there is NO evidence." Consider Dr. Russell Humphreys. He is a six day young universe creationist who predicted what would be discovered by the solar system research projects. He made his prediction based on God's Word where It read the universe came from water. What are your discoveries or prediction that are scientifically supported?
Why are you so uncomfortable with us believers? It's to comfort YOURSELF.
It aint uncomfort with believers. Its hearing some of them spew their pieholes about it and condeming others for not falling in line lock step in what they believe to be their mission to save someone else's soul. And feeling fugging smug about it all while doing it.
I dont need anyone to set me straight about what I beleive. Espeically when their are a million six christain religons all reading outta different versions of gods book. Cut copied and pasted by those men with power thruout time on what they wanted in it or out of it. Then throw benjamins into the equation.
Just saying.....
renegade50, you seem to be missing in some education. I didn't get permission from either of the following so punch me in the head next time you see me. Take a look at this quote from Doc Rocket responding to antlers.
Originally Posted By antlers If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain. Answered by Doc Rocket
Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.
However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.
The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.
So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.
The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.
So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.
Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.
Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.
So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.
And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book.
If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true?
No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus.
There's no necessary contradiction between the Genesis account of the events within the Garden of Eden (understood poetically) and evolution. At some point, there had to be a first man, at which point God could have separated him out, breathed a soul into him, and from him made Eve. Adam's parents could very well (consistent with the Genesis account) have been physiologically identical to himself, but only lacking something that would have made them fully human in God's eyes.
You can test the most devout christians faith by asking them if they reach for Glock or begin by praying to a God if they have a home invasion.
or give them choice of foxhole or concrete bunker when it's raining proximity fuse artillery.
Heart attack - medical science paramedics..or just call for much needed prayers from your church friends cause it will fix everything...
Lots of dead church people, but how many actually faithfully living through Christ. Talk and just keeping empty appearances is cheap.
People telling themselves they know they have made the cut into a heaven.... hilarious.
I know there are lawyers who have never tried a case in a court of law in their entire. They make a living "Mitigating". If a lawyer does have to try a case in a court of law and question witnesses, does the witness still have to swear to "I swear by Almighty God [to tell] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If so, how does a person questioning and a person answering in such a procedure place any credibility in the process if they hold nothing but contempt for the very oath that must be sworn in order to give or receive testimony in court. Have you ever objected to the Judge that you have no believe or hold no faith at all to the oath that must be sworn to testify, or are you yourself a hypocrite and just "play along"? I admit I have never been sworn to testify and do not personally know how everything is done in every court of law, just asking your great intellectual input into such matters.
How old and out of touch are you?
No! You do not have to swear to any divine power when sworn in in an American Court.
I'm old enough to at least Google it before I posted it. This is what I found when I searched the web in numerous sites . By the way, how old are you?
"United States Oath:
Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)? "Swear" may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[14] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[15] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[16]
Oath (California):
You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
Might want to read that little document called The Constitution and the surrounding case law:
The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is applied to state and local governments by Amendment 14, prohibits government was forcing a person to profess a belief in God or in any religion as a condition of obtaining public services or benefits. Despite the Torcaso decision, a few states are holdouts and have retained unconstitutional religious tests for public office, for jury duty, etc. However, there have been a variety of lower-court decisions on the matter, including People v. Velarde, 616P.2d 104 (1980), in which the Colorado Supreme Court held that, although jurors are required to state affirmations, they are not required to swear an oath to a god.
Thanks for posting that. It reads that some States do indeed still require the old oath. I see that web address is for the Freedom From Religion website, not sure they are my endall reference to the Constitution.
Fortunately, one’s salvation does NOT depend on the Biblical story of Creation.
Adam and Eve, and the basis for Original Sin are in the same book.
If the creation story is not "true", is Adam an Eve not true?
No Adam and Eve, no original sin, no need for Jesus.
There's no necessary contradiction between the Genesis account of the events within the Garden of Eden (understood poetically) and evolution. At some point, there had to be a first man, at which point God could have separated him out, breathed a soul into him, and from him made Eve. Adam's parents could very well (consistent with the Genesis account) been physiologically identical to himself, but only lacking something that would have made them fully human in God's eyes.
That's also the way Kent Hovind, the subject of the OP sees it, along with millions of other Christians. He has a whole talk on how you have to believe in a literal interpretation of the OT, because without the OT, there is no NT, no NT, no Jesus, and no trip past the Pearly Gates.
I’m in disagreement with anyone (Kent Hovind, you, other followers of Jesus, etc.) who thinks the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith. Some people worship a book, others attack the faith of Christianity by attacking that book, and others try to follow Jesus’ teachings and worship Him.
Of course you do. You might be a Christian, but I see no indications you are one of the radical nutty fundamentalist Christians. There's over 30,000 flavors of Christianity, and they are not all equal. But for some who are, scientific realities such as and old Earth, Evolution, and in some cases, even a round earth are a threat to their faith and the conditions they believe necessary for an eternal afterlife in paradise.
Ringman, it’s more than OK with me for you to use this discourse between DocRocket and I anytime and wherever you want. It’s public information and you don’t need permission. Also, although it was a good discourse, I stand by what I said...
“If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain.”
My faith and belief in Jesus is not threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain. At all.
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Are you using "yet evolution is clearly evident" meaning from the Big Bang to the present? Other than life exists what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
I merely conveyed the proposition that there's plenty of room for interpretation, within the Genesis account of creation and man's origin, without contradicting what we understand to be true via scientific discovery. They are not mutually exclusive.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Why are you so uncomfortable with us believers? It's to comfort YOURSELF.
It aint uncomfort with believers. Its hearing some of them spew their pieholes about it and condeming others for not falling in line lock step in what they believe to be their mission to save someone else's soul. And feeling fugging smug about it all while doing it.
I dont need anyone to set me straight about what I beleive. Espeically when their are a million six christain religons all reading outta different versions of gods book. Cut copied and pasted by those men with power thruout time on what they wanted in it or out of it. Then throw benjamins into the equation.
Just saying.....
renegade50, you seem to be missing in some education. I didn't get permission from either of the following so punch me in the head next time you see me. Take a look at this quote from Doc Rocket responding to antlers.
Originally Posted By antlers If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain. Answered by Doc Rocket
Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.
However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.
The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.
So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.
The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.
So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.
Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.
Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.
So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.
And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
Not missing any education... Nice innuendo shot attempt though. Which is typical of people that wanta preach to people that dont wanta hear them spread their belief. A mission from god. With just a little smugness for a side dish......
Canons were conducted by men not divine beings. Men with power or men with power behind them deciding and influencing what they wanted in the bible thruout various times .
King charles lost his head basically as a result from his Father king james creating his bible and all that was lost in its translations coming outta the protestant reformation times... Those 2 cats thought they were devine and above god also.
The KJV bible endures to this day. Cut copied pasted edited by man in the 1600,s...... Even had a little tiff associated with it called the english civil war...
Why are you so uncomfortable with us believers? It's to comfort YOURSELF.
It aint uncomfort with believers. Its hearing some of them spew their pieholes about it and condeming others for not falling in line lock step in what they believe to be their mission to save someone else's soul. And feeling fugging smug about it all while doing it.
I dont need anyone to set me straight about what I beleive. Espeically when their are a million six christain religons all reading outta different versions of gods book. Cut copied and pasted by those men with power thruout time on what they wanted in it or out of it. Then throw benjamins into the equation.
Just saying.....
renegade50, you seem to be missing in some education. I didn't get permission from either of the following so punch me in the head next time you see me. Take a look at this quote from Doc Rocket responding to antlers.
Originally Posted By antlers If ones personal faith and belief in The Messiah is threatened by what others say or believe, or by what ancient manuscripts contain...then maybe the problem isn't with what others say or believe, or with what ancient manuscripts contain. Answered by Doc Rocket
Well, you're kind of right about this, on a basic level.
However, it appears you are not up to speed on the history surrounding the Canon of New Testament scripture, nor the Judeo-Christian tradition of debate over minutiae! Don't worry, you're not alone. I doubt that 1 Christian in 10 in the USA knows even the basic history of the First Century Church. Nonbelievers, maybe 1 in 1000.
The first thing, i.e., why are we Christians so quick to argue about What others say and believe about the Christian faith, is because what we ALL say about our faith matters to EVERY Christian believer. The traditions of Judaism, outlined in the Torah and multiple rabbinical texts, argue that discussion of every new viewpoint on Scripture is not just desirable, but a mandatory exercise in the Jewish religion. And Christianity, which is nothing more nor less than the fulfillment of the Jewish religion in the person, life works, and teachings of Jesus, has followed that tradition for millennia.
So that's why we argue about it. It's our tradition. If you don't like our tradition, butt out and go take care of your own traditions. I'm not being mean or angry here, I'm just sayin'.
The second thing: why does every new "ancient" text or artifact that pops up stir up immediate opposition by so many Christians? Well, it's because our faith is founded on a very carefully selected set of writings from the first century A.D. While some non-Christians (i.e., outsiders who don't "get" our traditions) may take delight in promoting "new" texts that appear to contradict the Canon of Scripture--because they're mostly ch!tt-disturbers, in my experience--these texts are almost always the same old crap that's been popping up since the 2nd or 3rd century, and which has been cataloged in the Pulp Fiction aisle of the theological library for the better part of 2000 years.
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig, you know what I'm saying? Oh, and keep in mind that in the First Century it wasn't like today, when any schmoe can write a book and publish it online... if you wrote a book then, the only way it got published was if other people agreed that it was really good stuff, and copied it out by hand for other folks to read.
So the people who actually wrote down the life, words, teachings, and miracles of Jesus were guys who actually knew him. If someone didn't really know him and TELL THE TRUTH as it was known by hundreds of first-hand witnesses, their scribblings would've been ignored. If not burned and the author stoned to death. By the early 2nd Century, the de facto Canon of Scripture we know as the New Testament had been pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Church leaders and scholars, based on a very tight-knit history they all shared.
Mark wrote his Gospel first, probably within about 20 years of Jesus' death and resurrection. John's gospel was probably written within a few years of the Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew and Luke somewhere in between. Lots of other folks wrote down their memories of the events, too, but for the most part these were ignored by the Church because the majority of the Churches thought they were incomplete, contained too many untruths, or were flawed in other ways. The four main Gospels were endorsed and widely circulated as a result.
Now, there were some dissenters (as there always are in human affairs) and they started up their own versions of church that were anywhere from slightly wonky to batsh!t-crazy. And by the early 3rd Century, enough of these outliers existed that the orthodox Church had no choice but to lay down the law--in keeping with ancient Judeo-Christian traditions of heterodoxy--and they held a series of councils in which the majority of Christian leaders and scholars said what was the truest material in keeping with the historical writings of Church Fathers. All of batsh!t-crazy gospels were ch!tt-canned at that time, but all manner of non-believers keep bringing them up as "proof" against the Christian religion.
So that's why we care about somebody resurrecting (pun intended) some piece of batsh!t-crazy "Christian" writing from the 6th Century. Our forefathers worked really, really hard to clean up the true story about Jesus for us. They paid for it with their blood and their very lives, and we owe them a debt for that.
And that's why we tend to be derisive and dismissive about "ancient" texts that get "discovered" that were written at least 500 years after the Biblical texts we endorse. It's part of our tradition.
People who aren't Bible-believing Christians can say and think what they like for themselves, but they can't expect us not to defend our religion, our tradition, our history is something precious to us, and we don't care to have fools who are ignorant of our tradition and our history to pass off their ignorance as valid opinion.
Not missing any education... Nice innuendo shot attempt though. Which is typical of people that wanta preach to people that dont wanta hear them spread their belief. A mission from god. With just a little smugness for a side dish......
Canons were conducted by men not divine beings. Men with power or men with power behind them deciding and influencing what they wanted in the bible thruout various times .
King charles lost his head basically as a result from his Father king james creating his bible and all that was lost in its translations coming outta the protestant reformation times... Those 2 cats thought they were devine and above god also.
The KJV bible endures to this day. Cut copied pasted edited by man in the 1600,s...... Even had a little tiff associated with it called the english civil war...
Getting deep!
I agree with the editing...... copy paste to fit some narrative.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
I've studied the Scientific Method and have applied it many years inside of laboratory settings AND in the field. It's obvious to anyone with one mg of intellectual HONESTY that their belief system is based upon FAITH rather than any SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am Not here to debate true science because it will fall upon your deaf ears. What REALLY matters is where you will spend eternity.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue of macroevolutionism, I have provided you with more than a billion dollars worth of information above. IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see what it says about the faith of Jesus, it is in your best interest to consider.
God didn't literally, using his hands, mold Adam from the muck of the earth (as it's poetically described in Genesis). Just like God didn't literally deliver Israel from an iron furnace, as it's described in Deuteronomy. The latter was a poetical way of stating that it was harsh for the Israelites in Egypt. God molding Adam from muck, similarly, refers to Adam's origins stemming from inorganic matter.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
I've studied the Scientific Method and have applied it many years inside of laboratory settings AND in the field. It's obvious to anyone with one mg of intellectual HONESTY that their belief system is based upon FAITH rather than any SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am Not here to debate true science because it will fall upon your deaf ears. What REALLY matters is where you will spend eternity.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue of macroevolutionism, I have provided you with more than a billion dollars worth of information above. IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see what it says about the faith of Jesus, it is in your best interest to consider.
In your shaded highlights.
I always thought God was the creator and Jesus his son.
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Are you using "yet evolution is clearly evident" meaning from the Big Bang to the present? Other than life exists what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Do you not find the existence of life rather compelling evidence...?
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
That God didn't pull Israel from an iron furnace? Just doesn't make sense interpreted literally. Was there enough iron to even build a furnace that large? Makes much more sense that it was poetical.
I went to the Painted Desert last year. When in the visitors center by the petrified forest, I started telling everyone how this was all a big hoax, because it didnt fit into the bibles narrative...
God was playing a big joke on us with all that petrified rainforest we were standing, in the middle of Ari freaking zona hahahahahaha
They looked at me just as freaking crazy as I look at all of Jag’s posts hahahaha
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Are you using "yet evolution is clearly evident" meaning from the Big Bang to the present? Other than life exists what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Do you not find the existence of life rather compelling evidence...?
I went to the Painted Desert last year. When in the visitors center by the petrified forest, I started telling everyone how this was all a big hoax, because it didnt fit into the bibles narrative...
God was playing a big joke on us with all that petrified rainforest we were standing, in the middle of Ari freaking zona hahahahahaha
They looked at me just as freaking crazy as I look at all of Jag’s posts hahahaha
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
I am not referring to biblical times. I am giving testimony as to the source and reality of my faith....here and now, in these times.
That God didn't pull Israel from an iron furnace? Just doesn't make sense interpreted literally. Was there enough iron to even build a furnace that large? Makes much more sense that it was poetical.
Yeah ok. Not arguing here, just asking. How do you know? Isn’t there more to the story?
Again, just asking, not trying to be confrontational.
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Are you using "yet evolution is clearly evident" meaning from the Big Bang to the present? Other than life exists what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Do you not find the existence of life rather compelling evidence...?
I went to the Painted Desert last year. When in the visitors center by the petrified forest, I started telling everyone how this was all a big hoax, because it didnt fit into the bibles narrative...
God was playing a big joke on us with all that petrified rainforest we were standing, in the middle of Ari freaking zona hahahahahaha
They looked at me just as freaking crazy as I look at all of Jag’s posts hahahaha
Jag aint nuts. He believes in god. But he knew this thread would go big. He has us on strings right now. LOL!!!
I'm cutting mine Threads like this go round and round and round. Its a belief/ opinon thread.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
I am not referring to biblical times. I am giving testimony as to the source and reality of my faith....here and now, in these times.
God is active today. I testify to that.
Nah dude, thats Jared Leto... he threw me off too...
I posted all what you see below on a previous thread....
Originally Posted by Starman
January 3, 1954, Einstein reply to Eric Gutkind:
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
March 1954, Einstein reply to Joe Dispentiere:
" It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
EINSTEINS book of Ideas and Opinions (1954) stated:
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."
1950, Einstein letter to M.Berkowitz:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
April 1929, Einstein cable to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God {of Philosophy} , who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
December 1922 Einstein stated the following on the concept of a savior:
"Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me."
EINSTEIN to Japanese magazine Kaizō 1923:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.."
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
I am not referring to biblical times. I am giving testimony as to the source and reality of my faith....here and now, in these times.
God is active today. I testify to that.
Yes you were whether you realize it or not. You used the court analogy as a basis about faith testimony. Everything beleived in christianity is based on biblical events in the bible none of us alive today event observed. Faith testimony .....
Versus observed verifiable one way or the other event testimony in court.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
I am not referring to biblical times. I am giving testimony as to the source and reality of my faith....here and now, in these times.
God is active today. I testify to that.
Yes, and satan too. BLM, Piglosis satanic pin, Schiefty, Hill n Bill and Zeros acts testify to that.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Testimony in courts is based on observed events. To be proved or disproved by facts. None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
I am not referring to biblical times. I am giving testimony as to the source and reality of my faith....here and now, in these times.
God is active today. I testify to that.
Yes, and satan too. BLM, Piglosis satanic pin, Schiefty, Hill n Bill and Zeros acts testify to that.
Evil condones evil. Thats why evil gets away with schitt....
Not an unbeliever. Just dont wanna listen to people tell me how to beleive. Especially since it involves supporting their sorry azz,s with my money.
Religious money scoopers are just following the model in Bible. Jesus gave up carpentry in Nazareth and convinced others in paying jobs (fisherman, Tax collector].. to join him in his new ministry in Capernaum.,.. there they sustained themselves on donations.
Keep cutting those checks to your preacher boys. Remember 10%. Don't be short changing the lord. He knows everything. 15% might get you into a gold membership.
None of the BullShlt choices listed, the mangy dog that I am, when my heart stops beating, I am dead, it's over, nothing else, just like a regular dog, to believe in an afterlife is sorcery/witchcraft etc, etc!
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
In which case God is irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world. Which is the same as no God at all.
For sure. The evolutionists say the big bang caused the first spark of life and that progressed to us.
This is the second time you posted this drivel.
You're stupid.
The big bang happened 13,800,000,000 billion years ago. Life started about 10,000,000,000 years later. That's a 10 billion year difference, for those who are mathematically challenged.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
As is described very clearly in Genesis, Chapter 1, reproduced by me above.
Genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings evenings, etc, not natural evolution over billions of years. Two entirely different things.
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
In which case God is irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world. Which is the same as no God at all.
What or who was god. What or where did he come from or begin. Higher power or benevolent creator or combo of both. Science and Faith intertwined? Faith and Science intertwined? Soul have an afterlife? Near death experiences documented. We already know evil exist thruout history and now. That has shown itself plenty of times seen and felt. Undeniable...
Good needs ta show up and prove itself outside of faith. Something tangible you can see and feel. Cant deny.....
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
In which case God is irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world. Which is the same as no God at all.
If the world and life on this earth are God's creation, and evolution was a very clever way that God used to achieve His creative objectives, that hardly makes Him “irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world”. And it most certainly is not “the same as no God at all”.
Mid 90s is when I got boring.... Stopped, quit.... don’t i could enjoy a trip these days.! Lol!
Every once in awhile . Get the flutter side vision, little feeling of disconnected euphoria, but totally in control and know it. 30 45 second flashback. 3 4 6 9 yrs once in awhile. Never can tell.
Undetectable and free.
Lol!!! Has happened in some strange situations. Helicoptor rides. Big training meetings. Dean of a college office. Bayonet assualt course. Totally in control functioning per the situation. IIRC was with slumlord hunting during the last one. Think he was jealous cause I let him know I was riding a freebie.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
As is described very clearly in Genesis, Chapter 1, reproduced by me above.
Genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings evenings, etc, not natural evolution over billions of years. Two entirely different things.
I take it you believe in a 6000 year old universe, then. How do you explain the geologic column and radiometric dating?
You literalists have painted yourselves into a corner with that position.
Either the world is a special creation made by God, whatever that is, or the world and life evolved through natural processes. If one is true the other must be false. Both cannot be true.
Or the world and life evolved through natural processes set in motion by the Creator.
In which case God is irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world. Which is the same as no God at all.
If the world and life on this earth are God's creation, and evolution was a very clever way that God used to achieve His creative objectives, that hardly makes Him “irrelevant to the evolution of life and whatever happens in the world”. And it most certainly is not “the same as no God at all”.
Creative objectives? What may they be? The dinosaurs didn't work out?
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
For sure. The evolutionists say the big bang caused the first spark of life and that progressed to us.
This is the second time you posted this drivel.
You're stupid.
The big bang happened 13,800,000,000 billion years ago. Life started about 10,000,000,000 years later. That's a 10 billion year difference, for those who are mathematically challenged.
Sheesh, just asking.
So, now we actually have 2 real big bangs to contemplate (Just as my question was designed to reveal).
Since you're so smart, where did the stuff come from that made the big bang that created the universe?
Universe is expanding now per science. What is outside of the universe. Universe contracts from gravity between objects eventually per theory. Or is some other force acting on expansion outside the universe Pushing it inward then allowing objects to use gravity to ontract down to one concentrated point again for another big bang
When did cycle start. What did this cycle start from??
Schitt we will probably never know. Could this theory of the big bang be a faith based belief also like religon in many ways.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
I've studied the Scientific Method and have applied it many years inside of laboratory settings AND in the field. It's obvious to anyone with one mg of intellectual HONESTY that their belief system is based upon FAITH rather than any SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am Not here to debate true science because it will fall upon your deaf ears. What REALLY matters is where you will spend eternity.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue of macroevolutionism, I have provided you with more than a billion dollars worth of information above. IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see what it says about the faith of Jesus, it is in your best interest to consider.
In your shaded highlights.
I always thought God was the creator and Jesus his son.
The meals for me part is subject to beliefs also.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:... For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:". Colossians 1
" This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:6-7
The Word here is The Living Word, Jesus the Christ. He demonstrated His Power through miracles and fulfilling hundreds of specific prophecies. Yes, Jesus made food. Thousands of potential critics could have interviewed thousands from the town's that heard Him teach and written all kinds of books discounting the books written by the Apostles IF they didn't happen.
The fact is that He will either become your Savior or your Judge someday. It's not difficult to believe Him. What is difficult is trying to save yourself. (Please see the video link above for the details of how to bypass judgement....IF a few short minutes is worth considering the message that Jesus gave on how to stay out of a Lake of Fire forever.)
Please see the quote below about those who will be judged by all their good looks and coming up short.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Quoting Jesus
Note: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
What is the will of the Father in heaven? Answer: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Universe is expanding now per science. What is outside of the universe. Universe contracts from gravity between objects eventually per theory. Or is some other force acting on expansion outside the universe Pushing it inward then allowing objects to use gravity to ontract down to one concentrated point again for another big bang
When did cycle start. What did this cycle start from??
Schitt we will probably never know. Could this theory of the big bang be a faith based belief also like religon in many ways.
Wish Gus would chime in...
LOL!!!
Wanna hear a funny story? To bad ya going to....
Grabbed a Uber this morning....... the driver, a black dude(not that it matters) picked me up.
Long story short, we found out we both served on the same USN ship. Small world. He was on board the USS Paul F. Foster: First ship to launch tomahawks into Iraq.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
I've studied the Scientific Method and have applied it many years inside of laboratory settings AND in the field. It's obvious to anyone with one mg of intellectual HONESTY that their belief system is based upon FAITH rather than any SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am Not here to debate true science because it will fall upon your deaf ears. What REALLY matters is where you will spend eternity.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue of macroevolutionism, I have provided you with more than a billion dollars worth of information above. IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see what it says about the faith of Jesus, it is in your best interest to consider.
In your shaded highlights.
I always thought God was the creator and Jesus his son.
The meals for me part is subject to beliefs also.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:... For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:". Colossians 1
" This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:6-7
The Word here is The Living Word, Jesus the Christ. He demonstrated His Power through miracles and fulfilling hundreds of specific prophecies. Yes, Jesus made food. Thousands of potential critics could have interviewed thousands from the town's that heard Him teach and written all kinds of books discounting the books written by the Apostles IF they didn't happen.
The fact is that He will either become your Savior or your Judge someday. It's not difficult to believe Him. What is difficult is trying to save yourself. (Please see the video link above for the details of how to bypass judgement....IF a few short minutes is worth considering the message that Jesus gave on how to stay out of a Lake of Fire forever.)
Please see the quote below about those who will be judged by all their good looks and coming up short.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Quoting Jesus
Note: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
What is the will of the Father in heaven? Answer: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Quoting Jesus
Your choices guys
Why should anyone believe anything the Bible claims?
All I can say is......someday we'll see who's right, won't we?
Not if there's no existence beyond death.
For someone who proclaims to be so smart, you're so dense. If there's no existence beyond death, YOU would be right, I'd be wrong. Vice versa, I'm right and you're wrong. It ain't that hard even for the swine.
Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to the swine; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.
As you know, parents have a huge influence upon their kids. You're betting the lives of your kids that you're right. That's a highly egotistical and not so lofty position to be in.
This short, but Great message is why I reconsidered the religion that I was heavily Indoctrinated in since I was in preschool! None of us know it all, especially a preschooler...but I believed my religion throughout childhood and adolescence as much as anyone here. If you have the courage, you will ask God of the Bible if He will convince you of the truth before and after watching it.
The RELIGION of Evol-utionism started long before Charley Darwin. It was started by someone who said, "Hath God said..?" Undermining God's integrity, calling Him a liar.
Then the father of the alternative religion opposed to friendship with God said, "Ye shall not surely die.". Again calling God a liar and deceiving an intelligent person...a genius, yet gullible. I'm not criticizing the woman, just giving the plain facts....just like most men are. We've been raised by the gt (public fool system), to despise God like the devil and choose to believe that religion's teachings without question. They teach us that we came from a rock and that eventually we shall be as gods.
Third, Satan, the guru of what eventually became a major doctrine of the Hindu religion said, ..."You shall be as god's..."
In a nutshell, keep in mind that Jesus IS THE CREATOR. He demonstrated it to over 10, 000 eye witnesses when He preached to them on multiple occasions He CREATED meals for them. "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins....ALL things were created by Him..." John chapter 1 That's easier for me to believe than other religions that teach that you are continually improving until someday you will be like a god..😄 1. "Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar". We have ALL lied and there is a consequence called hell, no matter what Satan says. God can't do something. What is that? He can NOT lie. As it is written,
"All liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Even the little white ones? Yup, all of them. And it's not just lies, it's all wrong... including the things we know that we should do, but don't. Revelation 21:8
2. No matter how uncomfortable it may be, You ARE going to die someday. "For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
3. You are not going to evolve/reincarnate and come back as a Brahma cow or whatever. Nor do people give birth to cows or anything besides other people. That's not hard to Believe. You are welcome to believe what you want to, but Jesus warned over and over that you are going to The Lake for longer than you can imagine! Satan is happy with that. Jesus is not.
That is why He willingly submitted to be tortured and die for YOU. Because He knows when you will die and that you WILL be tortured forever without Him. When He was crucified, He suffered the undescribable pain and punishment necessary that was required for your personal sins against a loving God. He can save you because after he died He came back to life and is THE only Savior. IF you want to try to save yourself, that makes you a savior and you are not ever going to be good enough. The mirror shows a man in need of God, not a savior.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.". ( Only Speaking to those who made this decision because it's past tense. Notice it's NOT because of your good works.)
The key to everlasting life is to reject the lie that your good works can make you right with God. No amount of works has ever saved anyone. Then you must make Jesus Christ alone the object of your trust. That previous verse continues,
" For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Don't put it off. Go to God right now and ask Him for what He is offering. The gift has already been paid for. Tell Him,
"Dear God, I don't deserve to go to heaven. I deserve hell, because I've committed sins against You. I know that Jesus Christ Your Son was punished for what I did, so that I won't have to be punished in hell. After He died, He came back to life the third day. I trust Him to save me and to take me to heaven some day. Thank You for the gift of everlasting life. Amen
I've studied the Scientific Method and have applied it many years inside of laboratory settings AND in the field. It's obvious to anyone with one mg of intellectual HONESTY that their belief system is based upon FAITH rather than any SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I am Not here to debate true science because it will fall upon your deaf ears. What REALLY matters is where you will spend eternity.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue of macroevolutionism, I have provided you with more than a billion dollars worth of information above. IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see what it says about the faith of Jesus, it is in your best interest to consider.
In your shaded highlights.
I always thought God was the creator and Jesus his son.
The meals for me part is subject to beliefs also.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:... For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:". Colossians 1
" This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:6-7
The Word here is The Living Word, Jesus the Christ. He demonstrated His Power through miracles and fulfilling hundreds of specific prophecies. Yes, Jesus made food. Thousands of potential critics could have interviewed thousands from the town's that heard Him teach and written all kinds of books discounting the books written by the Apostles IF they didn't happen.
The fact is that He will either become your Savior or your Judge someday. It's not difficult to believe Him. What is difficult is trying to save yourself. (Please see the video link above for the details of how to bypass judgement....IF a few short minutes is worth considering the message that Jesus gave on how to stay out of a Lake of Fire forever.)
Please see the quote below about those who will be judged by all their good looks and coming up short.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Quoting Jesus
Note: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
What is the will of the Father in heaven? Answer: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
Quoting Jesus
Your choices guys
Thank you Captain Cut and Paste...
Means alot to me I got ya ta dig that up and post it. Researching for words you think might have some impact and time you cant get back. Or a deposit on the rent either.... You just proved my point of smugness that exist in some people concerning belief.
renegade50,.... .Take a look at this quote from Doc Rocket responding to antlers. ......
Answered by Doc Rocket. .....
99% of Christians are largely ignorant of the history of the early Church, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was a time of enormous expansion of the Church, but the very cool part about it was that while the number of Christians exploded over the course of a few decades, the geographic expansion was very small. This meant that pretty much EVERYone knew somebody who actually knew, was taught by, and witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And the Jews, who comprised the early majority of Christians, were/are real sticklers for THE TRUTH.
This means nobody could bullsh!t about the Gospel of Christ. Posers were recognized and cast out immediately. You couldn't hide behind an internet handle in those days. You were either the real deal, or you got stoned to death. Sometimes you even got stoned to death if you WERE the real deal, so being a poser wasn't exactly a high-paying gig,
The Romans had overruling authority regarding capitol punishment. ~ jus gladii ~.You could not just go around stoning people to death.
The Sanhedrin held their own trial of Jesus before bringing him before Pontius Pilate, because Rome allowed the subjugated to run their own affairs to a large degree.. They could have metted out a variety of penalties to Jesus without need to bring him to Pilate....The reason they brought JC to Pilate is that the Sanhedrin trial had concluded that the penalty should be Death....the catch was Jews had conceded authority to implement Capitol Punishment to Rome. Thus the presentation before Pilate to seek the death penalty they themselves could not sanction. [Sanhedrin say this themselves in scripture].
********
Wrongman and DocCrockofCrap need to do better homework before sprouting.
If there is a God and God 'so loved the world,' being omnipotent, the world would be an entirely different place. And please, not the free will rationale.
Some people see ‘Christians’ as judgmental moralists who think that they are the only ones going to heaven...and they seem to relish the notion that everyone else (who doesn’t believe as they do) are going to hell.
All I can say is......someday we'll see who's right, won't we?
Not if there's no existence beyond death.
For someone who proclaims to be so smart, you're so dense. If there's no existence beyond death, YOU would be right, I'd be wrong. Vice versa, I'm right and you're wrong. It ain't that hard even for the swine.
Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to the swine; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.
As you know, parents have a huge influence upon their kids. You're betting the lives of your kids that you're right. That's a highly egotistical and not so lofty position to be in.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
Indeed.
Evolution isn't a theory. Theory is explaining how evolution works. Both fact and theory.
"The Theory of Evolution" is indeed a scientific theory. It's the prevailing theory, and has yet to be disproved. At the same time, it's a fact, since the evidence is so overwhelming as not to be doubted by any rational person. There are also companion evolution theories, i.e., explaining certain disputed aspects of evolution, e.g., punctuated equilibrium.
Some people see "some" ‘Christians’ as judgmental moralists who think that they are the only ones going to heaven...and they seem to relish the notion that everyone else (who doesn’t believe as they do) are going to hell.
You just summed it up.... Nailed it actually!!! I added the word " some" to your post though. No need to post anymore on this thread for me. Thanks Antlers!!!
All I can say is......someday we'll see who's right, won't we?
Not if there's no existence beyond death.
For someone who proclaims to be so smart, you're so dense. If there's no existence beyond death, YOU would be right, I'd be wrong. Vice versa, I'm right and you're wrong. It ain't that hard even for the swine.
Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to the swine; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.
As you know, parents have a huge influence upon their kids. You're betting the lives of your kids that you're right. That's a highly egotistical and not so lofty position to be in.
No.
It's you who failed to understand. If there is no existence beyond death, you will never know because there will be no "you" to experience that there is nothing to experience.
Some people see "some" ‘Christians’ as judgmental moralists who think that they are the only ones going to heaven...and they seem to relish the notion that everyone else (who doesn’t believe as they do) are going to hell.
You just summed it up.... Nailed it actually!!! I added the word " some" to your post though.
Some people see ‘Christians’ as judgmental moralists who think that they are the only ones going to heaven...and they seem to relish the notion that everyone else (who doesn’t believe as they do) are going to hell.
All I can say is......someday we'll see who's right, won't we?
Not if there's no existence beyond death.
For someone who proclaims to be so smart, you're so dense. If there's no existence beyond death, YOU would be right, I'd be wrong. Vice versa, I'm right and you're wrong. It ain't that hard even for the swine.
Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to the swine; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.
As you know, parents have a huge influence upon their kids. You're betting the lives of your kids that you're right. That's a highly egotistical and not so lofty position to be in.
Is amazing how big a fool you make if yourself.
Yep. Threatening the souls of my children is such an honest tactic.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
All I can say is......someday we'll see who's right, won't we?
Not if there's no existence beyond death.
For someone who proclaims to be so smart, you're so dense. If there's no existence beyond death, YOU would be right, I'd be wrong. Vice versa, I'm right and you're wrong. It ain't that hard even for the swine.
Matt 7:6 "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls to the swine; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and then turn and attack you.
As you know, parents have a huge influence upon their kids. You're betting the lives of your kids that you're right. That's a highly egotistical and not so lofty position to be in.
Is amazing how big a fool you make if yourself.
Yep. Threatening the souls of my children is such an honest tactic.
Religion is based on fear, and capitalises on fear.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
Now you are just being dishonest. I expected better from you, but welcome to the world of Doc Eyeball.
So many things OPs video are just ridiculous. It’s truly is for the “believers”.....of fallacy. And I am a Christian, but there’s lots of false narrative in that link...
So many things OPs video are just ridiculous. It’s truly is for the “believers”.....of fallacy. And I am a Christian, but there’s lots of false narrative in that link...
Yes, it was posted to "stir the pot", we hadn't had a good debate on the subject for a while now. Now that COVID-19 and FLOYD-20 are starting to settle down...
I merely conveyed the proposition that there's plenty of room for interpretation, within the Genesis account of creation and man's origin, without contradicting what we understand to be true via scientific discovery. They are not mutually exclusive.
Your problem is it is neither creation centered or scientific.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
Indeed.
Evolution isn't a theory. Theory is explaining how evolution works. Both fact and theory.
"The Theory of Evolution" is indeed a scientific theory. It's the prevailing theory, and has yet to be disproved. At the same time, it's a fact, since the evidence is so overwhelming as not to be doubted by any rational person. There are also companion evolution theories, i.e., explaining certain disputed aspects of evolution, e.g., punctuated equilibrium.
You ignore the nature of theory in science, which is used a narrative to explain actual observations and actual evidence. The evidence for evolution is more than sufficient to have proven the reality of evolution.
What remains is building on our understanding of how it works, which is where theory comes into it.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
Now you are just being dishonest. I expected better from you, but welcome to the world of Doc Eyeball.
Who wrote the Gospels had no knowledge of most of the world or the many large civilizations that lived in it during the time they wrote the Bible.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
Albert was a pretty smart guy “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Yet he couldn't make even one cell, much less the smallest of a human hair.
Dividing cells, life in general is no doubt a amazing miracle, I just dont believe it is due to divine intervention, hard to just blindly accept traditional christian beliefs that are meant to somehow explain what you cant see, smell, hear or physically feel.... yet evolution is clearly evident........
Are you using "yet evolution is clearly evident" meaning from the Big Bang to the present? Other than life exists what evidence is there for abiogenesis?
Do you not find the existence of life rather compelling evidence...?
I guess you have not heard of the Miller experiment and the billions of dollars and no telling how many hours highly educated scientists have spent over the last 65 years only to discover life comes from life. I find the existence of life as prima facia evidence that life is created by an Infinite Intelligent Energy we call God.
Even Crick said the DNA molecule is so complex it is miraculous. But rather than give glory to God, he invented panspermia. In other words, spacemen brought it. Of course my question is, from where did the spacemen come?
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
He doesnt chose not to believe. He has no choice or he has already made it. As the LORD said, he has scales on his eyes.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
That's a very Christian explanation.
And dishonest.
He omit's the part where you also have to reject uniformitarianism to make his hypothesis work:
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Aerologist are a branch of meteorology. What exactly do meteorologist know about history, and how do they prove the Bible to be true?
For sure. The evolutionists say the big bang caused the first spark of life and that progressed to us.
This is the second time you posted this drivel.
You're stupid.
The big bang happened 13,800,000,000 billion years ago. Life started about 10,000,000,000 years later. That's a 10 billion year difference, for those who are mathematically challenged.
So are you saying there would have been life without the Big Bang?
For sure. The evolutionists say the big bang caused the first spark of life and that progressed to us.
This is the second time you posted this drivel.
You're stupid.
The big bang happened 13,800,000,000 billion years ago. Life started about 10,000,000,000 years later. That's a 10 billion year difference, for those who are mathematically challenged.
So are you saying there would have been life without the Big Bang?
He's saying you are too stupid to understand that the big bang falls under Cosmology, and Evolution if part of Biology, and that Biology does not explain Cosmology and vise versa.
How do you explain the geologic column and radiometric dating?
You literalists have painted yourselves into a corner with that position.
One either believes in God's Word and the Flood, which accounts for all the geologic column and fossils or one believes in fossils forming over millions of years. There are dozens of experiments showing fossils form in as little as days and weeks and months depending on what kind. Where are the fossils of American bison? After all millions died a rather short.
Radiometric dating is a whole nother kettle of fish. You start with assumptions and carry those assumptions forward and then conclude with assumptions. The folks at Institute For Creation Research have been dong testing for years and have made some rather exciting discoveries. Check out the RATE project.
Universe is expanding now per science. What is outside of the universe. Universe contracts from gravity between objects eventually per theory. Or is some other force acting on expansion outside the universe Pushing it inward then allowing objects to use gravity to ontract down to one concentrated point again for another big bang
When did cycle start. What did this cycle start from??
Schitt we will probably never know. Could this theory of the big bang be a faith based belief also like religon in many ways.
Wish Gus would chime in...
LOL!!!
You are forgetting entropy. With each collapse there would be less free energy for the next Big Bang. Eventually there would be only a total heat death.
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
It says so in Genesis, specifying the morning of the first day, the evening, the morning of the second day, etc. Epochs or eons don't have a morning and an evening, they have countless mornings and evenings....
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
He doesnt chose not to believe. He has no choice or he has already made it. As the LORD said, he has scales on his eyes.
Whats the lord say about you being so adamant about him, making so many mistakes with his creations... like blacks, gays, snakes, and oddly enough sharks???
Such a fine specimen of a Christian you are, lmao...
Universe is expanding now per science. What is outside of the universe. Universe contracts from gravity between objects eventually per theory. Or is some other force acting on expansion outside the universe Pushing it inward then allowing objects to use gravity to ontract down to one concentrated point again for another big bang
When did cycle start. What did this cycle start from??
Schitt we will probably never know. Could this theory of the big bang be a faith based belief also like religon in many ways.
Wish Gus would chime in...
LOL!!!
You are forgetting entropy. With each collapse there would be less free energy for the next Big Bang. Eventually there would be only a total heat death.
Nope.
Total heat death only works in an expanding universe.
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land? Or, one fish laid two mutated eggs that hatched into fowl of the opposite sex?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
You ignore the nature of theory in science, which is used a narrative to explain actual observations and actual evidence. The evidence for evolution is more than sufficient to have proven the reality of evolution.
What remains is building on our understanding of how it works, which is where theory comes into it.
The theory of evolution is both fact and theory.
You denied that it was a theory, which was a mistake on your part. It certainly is, since, were it wrong, there would be a myriad of ways of disproving it, i.e., it is falsifiable. The fact that it hasn't been falsified, and only supported by observation across a wide body of research, is what makes it also an established fact in the ordinary sense of that word.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade.
This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang.
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade.
This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang.
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
A wee wee bit lmao..
But they also uncover facts that counter the biblical claims too... lots of them.
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day.
Where did LIGHT come from if the heavenly bodies were not created till the 4th day?
Genesis 1: 3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4. And God saw the light, and it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce?
Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them?
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade.
This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang.
You realize that God neither wrote the Bible, nor dictated it to its authors, right? The books were written by multiple human authors under divine inspiration. That only means that, correctly interpreted, they are without error with regard to theological and moral matters. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything in it is to be interpreted in the literal sense.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
Now you are just being dishonest. I expected better from you, but welcome to the world of Doc Eyeball.
So, please explain why you think I am “dishonest.”
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce?
Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them?
The answer is at the bottom of that handle man, just keep drinking and you’ll soon learn everything!
The Egyptians had better divine inspiration I feel. Multiple gods, and look at what they achieved - legacies still able to be seen today.
The remains of the Jewish Temple are still there after Rome turned the many acres site to rubble,... and Masada is still there, well jews didn't build it coz its a Natural formation, but the big mutha Roman seige ramp is still there.. 👍
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce?
Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them?
Evolution works on population, not individuals, and over long periods of time.
You ignore the nature of theory in science, which is used a narrative to explain actual observations and actual evidence. The evidence for evolution is more than sufficient to have proven the reality of evolution.
What remains is building on our understanding of how it works, which is where theory comes into it.
The theory of evolution is both fact and theory.
You denied that it was a theory, which was a mistake on your part. It certainly is, since, were it wrong, there would be a myriad of ways of disproving it, i.e., it is falsifiable. The fact that it hasn't been falsified, and only supported by observation across a wide body of research, is what makes it also an established fact in the ordinary sense of that word.
I denied nothing. I pointed out that evolution happens and scientists who study evolution work on theoretical models on how evolution works. Life evolves, scientific theory seeks to explain how it works. That's all.
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade.
This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang.
You realize that God neither wrote the Bible, nor dictated it to its authors, right? The books were written by multiple human authors under divine inspiration. That only means that, correctly interpreted, they are without error with regard to theological and moral matters. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything in it is to be interpreted in the literal sense.
That all depends on the form of Christianity one follows.
“As faith is a belief held without the support of evidence it is a position that needs constant reinforcement, church, fellowship, reading selected material, etc. So if someone questions the faith, they are a threat to the faith.”
You clearly state that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. I then quoted Hebrews 11:1….”“.... faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see....”
Faith like I am describing is not a belief held without the support of evidence. Let me delve into that.
See John 14:23…” Jesus replied, If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.”
Let me repeat…. “…we will make our home with him.”
See also, John 15:3…. “Remain in me and I will remain in you.”
When God is in you, when the Holy Spirit witnesses to your inner being, there is no doubt about it. This is not blind faith at all. It is belief based on a living and active relationship with God Himself.
So, how does this come about? The thief on the cross …. Luke 23…..knew he was a criminal and only a few crucial words are spoken…”Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is another example….Luke 18 ….. the Pharisee prayed but prayed out of pride…. then….the tax collector prayed….”But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Jesus then said…) I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God…..”
So, it is as simple as that…. here it is re-phrased: “Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Then, God comes into your inner being and then, YOU KNOW.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
Oh, it is indeed evidence. Not proof for you, but testimony. Testimony. Think about it. Testimony is accepted in courts of law.
It is also an explanation for the origin of faith.
Heard a story once about a man blind from birth who denied the existence of light because he had never seen it, never felt it and he rejected the testimony of the sighted people around him.
Do we accept testimony in a court of law from Anonymous sources?
Odd response.
Anyway, the sources are not anonymous and you know that...... but you would never admit that.
The fact is there a numerous firsthand and “eyewitness” testimonies. I am just one of many.
BUT, if you choose not to believe, then so be it.
Now you are just being dishonest. I expected better from you, but welcome to the world of Doc Eyeball.
So, please explain why you think I am “dishonest.”
Watch the video. Just as it describes, you know the authors of the gospels are anonymous, and, at best, repeating hearsay, both of which would disqualify them as testimony in a modern court.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
Who the heck says for sure the first seven days were actually 24 hours each?
God describes them as "evening and morning" and on the forth day we are instructed by God He created the sun, moon and stars for "signs, and seasons and days and years." Everywhere outside of the First Chapter where evening and morning are used it refers to a solar day. So we either accept God at His Word or accept fallible men's theories which change from decade to decade.
This leaves absolutely no room for claiming Genesis is compatible with the Big Bang. The Bible tells us the universe and the earth started out cool and will end with intense heat. The Big Bang says the universe started out hot and will end in the ultimate heat death were entropy has runs its course. The Bible tells us God made the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The Big Bang teaches there were eons of time before the stars formed. And then more eons of time before the sun formed. There is NO compatibility between the First Chapter of the Bible and the Big Bang.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
Nice job dummy (Ringman). You just painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. Six-day Genesis literalisms utterly and thoroughly repudiated by science. (Whereas a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is wholly consistent with science).
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
Nice job dummy (Ringman). You just painted yourself into a corner you cannot get out of. Six-day Genesis literalisms utterly and thoroughly repudiated by science. (Whereas a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is wholly consistent with science).
So we agree we can throw out the literal creation myth.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
And when was that added to The Book of John?
It wasn't added. Its in there.
It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
And when was that added to The Book of John?
It wasn't added. Its in there.
It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts.
It's in the KJV. Shall we talk about the faith required to believe in neo-Darwinism?
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
He has told us: "In the beginning was the Word (information, logos)..."
And when was that added to The Book of John?
It wasn't added. Its in there.
It's not in the earliest and best copies of John. It's a late addition to the text. The earlier the copies, the greater the variance between them. A lot of mistakes, edits, and changes in the early copies. Just because somethings in your King James version, that doesn't mean it was in the earliest texts.
It's in the KJV. Shall we talk about the faith required to believe in neo-Darwinism?
No more then that required to move past the problem of hard solipsism. Next subject?
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce?
Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them?
Evolution works on population, not individuals, and over long periods of time.
And evidently leaves no in between, connecting critters behind.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn in to lead by now. Uranium therefore can't be that old. Also, an agnostic scientist said granite rock could not be formed by evolution. Granite is 5% uranium and the uranium is thoroughly mixed evenly in granite. He said it is like taking an Alka-Selzer while still fizzing and freeze it instantly. He said granite had to be created instantly. He also said they tried to recreate granite in a lab with the same atoms and material. They cannot do it by heat or by cold. It always separates. This scientist became a Christian because of granite rock and proof that it had to be created instantly.
Evolution also violates one of the laws of thermodynamics which states everything is in a state of decay, not evolving upward.
These two facts totally destroy evolution theory. Also, I though only communist athiests believe in evolution.
Mutations are not evolution. No existing animal is or has evolved into another. Mutated maybe but not evolved. Dogs and wolves can recreate, because they are in the same family of animals. Grizzlies and Polar bears can breed. Humans share 98% of DNA of [bleep], but we can't breed because we are entirely different and unique species. Wolves cannot breed with hyenas. Similar, but different species.
You mean all through history 2 fish didnt mutate into chickens at the same time in the same pond and then start propagating on land?
And then two chickens didnt suddenly have two mutated babies be cats? Or one chicken have two mutated cats of the opposite sex at the same time?
Come on you kook, you were the so called doctor...
The small trace amounts of radioactive material found in granite decays rapidly into radon.... you cant quote a retarded ass post like that to support your “mythology”.... if granite was rockin 5% uranium, you really think we’d be rocking granite countertops in kitchens to make our food on? Lmao.
Uugghh...
PS - its not difficult to google how granites formed.... no agnostic scientist needed lol..
So tell me then how the rare mutations happened to produce the first two cats at the same time in the same neighborhood and were of the required opposite sex required for them to mate and reproduce?
Were there gradual changes in the creatures they changed from and if so, where did those intermediate life forms go? The sharks could survive and the salamanders they gradually became could survive, but where are the animals that were the link between them?
Evolution works on population, not individuals, and over long periods of time.
And evidently leaves no in between, connecting critters behind.
As I've said before dumber and more dishonest by the post.
Why in hell do you religionists (the anti-Darwinian, not the Darwinian ones) insist in grounding your arguments in losing premises? Do you enjoy getting your asses handed to you? The moment you frame the argument in terms of Biblical truth you are done. You've lost the argument. Stop embarrassing yourselves and the rest of us who think there is a rational case to be made for the existence of God.
If the God of the Bible can't tell us how the universe was created, he's not much of a god. He's certainly not "all knowing", which creates more than reasonable doubt for the rest of it.
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
I didn't bring up Krauss in this thread, you did.
T Create a strawman, then accuse the opposition of bringing up said strawman? Wow, that's not what I would expect from you.
Well, you declined to explain why you accused me of being dishonest.
You simply do a cut and paste of some Bart Ehrman yada yada and somehow think you’ve justified your comment.
Not so.....
This reminds me of how strongly you stood behind Magic Larry Krause when he came out with his book about how science could show how the universe “came from nothing.” Stephen Colbert embarrassed him and Krause finally admitted that you had to start with “something.” His comments about “not needing a God to explain the universe” proved to be just more baloney ginned up to boost books sales. He further discredited himself when ASU canned him for his sexual improprieties and relationship with Epstein.
So why am I bringing this up? You hailed Magic Larry and he turned out to be just a huckster.
The same is true of Bart Ehrman..... he’s a book salesman and found his audience. He cares little for the truth but he has found itching ears to scratch.
Read “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’”
Again you're being dishonest. Never "finally admitted that you had to start with “something.”", In his book (which I'm sure you've never read) he's very up front about how he defines "nothing" as he is in his video presentations.
Besides even if Krause's hypothesis is not true, it doesn't not prove your god, you are creating a false dichotomy, even if this one falls, you still have all your work before you to meet your burden of proof for your theistic claims.
Not so, you are again mistaken. Krauss did in fact admit it right there on the Colbert video. See it for yourself. As I recall, Colbert closed the interview by saying ..... in response to his admission that you had to start with a box of ‘something’ ........”.... and that is not nothing!”
Further, I did indeed buy the book and did indeed read it. It was clear that the title of the book was simply a come on and gave the wrong impression about a “universe” from nothing. He also did indeed say that science has now shown “God” is not necessary to explain how the universe came into existence.
I have never said nor implied that refuting Magic Larry proves there is a god. You just made that up. This is simply more bob and weave from you. I suspect you brought that up to deflect from your errors and misrepresentations.
I didn't bring up Krauss in this thread, you did.
T Create a strawman, then accuse the opposition of bringing up said strawman? Wow, that's not what I would expect from you.
Wrong again, I brought up Krauss to show you that Bart Ehrman is just like him.... a book salesman.
You post links and excerpts from these guys and go on to assert that these “experts” support what ever thesis you espouse at the time. This is simply not true.....
Now, what is this condescending baloney about “.... not what I would expect from you....?
Assuming an undeserved air of superiority? This may be a characteristic of a ...... well, you look it up.
A last pathetic shot from someone who sees himself swamped and sinking in his own misrepresentations and cannot defend his allegations?
Well, that’s enough for tonight. We can resume tomorrow if you like. G’night.
Genesis was believed to be a literal account of the creation of the world by God, as written by people who had no idea about the age, scale or scope of the world or the universe.
Many believers in this day and age move away from a literal interpretation of genesis because a literal creation as described in genesis is clearly wrong.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
Yep. Yet that old chestnut is dragged out time after time regardless of explanation.
Come move Pike's Peak for me with nothing but your Faith.
All we need see is some good old text book miracles - walk on water, water into wine, bring to life a 3 day cold cadaver,...
Many more christians now with bucketloads of faith , yet none able to replicate the above.
Still no Christian here can explain where the physical body of Jesus ended up after ascending into the clouds.. unless they are suggesting one is flesh & blood in the heavenly spiritual Realm?
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Just watched a show about Jericho tonight on TV. According to the show, archeologists have determined that Jericho had been reduced to rubble and ashes by nearby rival tribes several hundred years before the Israelites were in the area. According to that show, the Israelites must have stolen local legends from earlier in time about Jericho, and rewrote themselves into the tale as the victors. Pretty interesting stuff.
what dates do they give for the destruction of Jericho? and, What date do they give for the Exodus?
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Thankfully man will never disprove the existence of Odin, Tor, Freya, Loki, Balder and all the other Gods my ancestors followed... or the other 20.000+++ Gods other people belive in.
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
Thankfully man will never disprove the existence of Odin, Tor, Freya, Loki, Balder and all the other Gods my ancestors followed... or the other 20.000+++ Gods other people belive in.
You left out Zero. Remember when you told us we had nothing to fear regarding losing our guns to dhimmicraps, or something like that?
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
A wee wee bit lmao..
But they also uncover facts that counter the biblical claims too... lots of them.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
God didn't literally, using his hands, mold Adam from the muck of the earth (as it's poetically described in Genesis). Just like God didn't literally deliver Israel from an iron furnace, as it's described in Deuteronomy. The latter was a poetical way of stating that it was harsh for the Israelites in Egypt. God molding Adam from muck, similarly, refers to Adam's origins stemming from inorganic matter.
I like to think of it this way and is similar to your statement.
"God formed man from the dust of the earth...."
what was the smallest particles man knew about thousands of years ago? "dust". Now if God said that He formed man from atoms, molecules, protons, electrons, neutrons, etc , man would not have any concept of what He was talking about..... until the microscope was invented. What is this "dust"? the same particles of matter that the earth is made of, yet arranged differently.
Does this mean that God did not literally use "real dust"? no. He could/can do whatever He wants.
Abiogensis (life arising from non-living matter" is a main teaching that Macroevolutionists must believe..... if the universe has a beginning. Unfortunately, many Christians discount abiogenesis, yet the Book of Genesis actually supports the concept of abiogenesis....... because "God formed man from the dust of the earth."
Young Earth Creationist Fundamentalists are an unusual bunch to me. They so badly want to argue against evolutionists that they actually contradict the Bible in their own argument. The Bible supports a "Big Bang" type of event and it also demands abiogenesis as true. Also, the Hebrew word "Yom" found in Genesis and translated as "day" does not literally or always refer to a 24 hour period of time. It literally means the ending of one time period and the beginning of another.
When one studies the Hebrew instead of the King James Version, one comes to understand that a 6,000 yr old earth viewpoint is not demanded by Scripture and an ancient earth is actually more logical when examining Genesis 1-3.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
None of us alive today can testify about observed events in biblical times.
You are correct. But we have scientists called aerologists who study history. None of the stories of the Bible have been proven untrue and many, many have been confirmed by them.
Did you really say aerologists study history? In an argument about mythology vs reality?
Wowsers....
Didnt know atmoshperic scientists can confirm biblical stories.... i guess you could argue they are studying the “heavens” hahahaha
Sorry for the spell check error. Let's try it again. Archeologists. Does that make more sense?
A wee wee bit lmao..
But they also uncover facts that counter the biblical claims too... lots of them.
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God or an afterlife of glory for His followers.
If man could fully disprove it, I'd be worried about god's followers . Many need that carrot at the end of the stick to keep them from doing bad things, without it, they'd be the worse around.
The problem lies not with disproving the existence of God, but in the absence of evidence, proving the proposition. Which is why a belief in the existence of a God (which version?) is a matter of faith.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
reread it in Hebrew.
It still specifies mornings and evenings, which is why it was translated as mornings and evenings and why that translation relates to the narrative of special creation.
The seven days of creation in Genesis 1 correlate to 7000 yrs of human history. The last 1000 yrs will be the millennial reign with Jesus Christ.
God revealed the end in Genesis 1. God revealed the end at the beginning.
“9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is no one else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Isaiah 46:9-10
God’s 7000-year calendar has been there since the very beginning. God sees a day as a 1000 years and 1000 years as a day.
Yet, there will be mockers and scoffers at the end times, just as we are seeing, and people willfully and boldly rejecting the Word of God.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
reread it in Hebrew.
It still specifies mornings and evenings, which is why it was translated as mornings and evenings and why that translation relates to the narrative of special creation.
Hebrew word "boqor" can mean morning or dawn, but generally can mean the beginning (or "dawn") of any length period of time. Hebrew word "ereb" can mean sunset or night, but generally can mean the ending of any length period of time.
Read Psalm 90:6 In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.
Do you know of any grass that sprouts in the morning and dies the same day? No, it refers to a period of time greater than 12 or 24 hour, much more.
Likewise, the Hebrew word "Yom" is translated as "day". The Hebrew word and the English word can mean: 8 hours- I work and 8 hour day. 12 hours- Daylight lasts 12 hours. 24 hours- a whole day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve once. 4 years- Ie. "In my day, I was a great college football player. "
In the Bible, Yom, ereb, and bogor are used these ways, sometimes to mean morning, evening, 24 hours or any number of beginnings, endings, or time periods.
You actually don't have to go very far to see an example of this..... Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.[color:#CC0000][/color] Now, Genesis 1 refers to 6 days of Creation. Gen 2:4 says that it was 1 day (the day). If you are going to demand that Yom means 24 hours specifically, then what do you do with Gen 2:4? It calls 6 days "1 day".
No it does not always mean 24 hours., Yom can mean 24 hours or 24 years or 240 million years.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. A
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
The Bible also says a day with the Lord is like a watch in the night. That's four hours. In other words time is irrelevant to God. After all He created time for our convenients. The Bible was not written to God by for men. Therefore an evening and morning is to be understood as evening and morning: One solar.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
With respect, Ringman, you do not understand ratioactive decay.
Different isotopes decay at different rates. Uranium? Billions of years. Carbon 14? Thousands of years. Some of the trans-uranium elements (those with atomic numbers higher than 92, which have been created by colliders) decay in seconds.
If one believes that the universe is only 7,000 years old, which you do but I don't, a 4.5 billion year old uranium half life would do nothing to prove or disprove that. All that would mean is that most uranium has not decayed yet. You have better arguments to make.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
Show your documentation for your information, please.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
reread it in Hebrew.
It still specifies mornings and evenings, which is why it was translated as mornings and evenings and why that translation relates to the narrative of special creation.
Hebrew word "boqor" can mean morning or dawn, but generally can mean the beginning (or "dawn") of any length period of time. Hebrew word "ereb" can mean sunset or night, but generally can mean the ending of any length period of time.
Read Psalm 90:6 In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.
Do you know of any grass that sprouts in the morning and dies the same day? No, it refers to a period of time greater than 12 or 24 hour, much more.
Likewise, the Hebrew word "Yom" is translated as "day". The Hebrew word and the English word can mean: 8 hours- I work and 8 hour day. 12 hours- Daylight lasts 12 hours. 24 hours- a whole day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve once. 4 years- Ie. "In my day, I was a great college football player. "
In the Bible, Yom, ereb, and bogor are used these ways, sometimes to mean morning, evening, 24 hours or any number of beginnings, endings, or time periods.
You actually don't have to go very far to see an example of this..... Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.[color:#CC0000][/color] Now, Genesis 1 refers to 6 days of Creation. Gen 2:4 says that it was 1 day (the day). If you are going to demand that Yom means 24 hours specifically, then what do you do with Gen 2:4? It calls 6 days "1 day".
No it does not always mean 24 hours., Yom can mean 24 hours or 24 years or 240 million years.
If you were to use Hebrew and want to communicate six solar days, what words would you use?
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
With respect, Ringman, you do not understand ratioactive decay.
Different isotopes decay at different rates. Uranium? Billions of years. Carbon 14? Thousands of years. Some of the trans-uranium elements (those with atomic numbers higher than 92, which have been created by colliders) decay in seconds.
If one believes that the universe is only 7,000 years old, which you do but I don't, a 4.5 billion year old uranium half life would do nothing to prove or disprove that. All that would mean is that most uranium has not decayed yet. You have better arguments to make.
You are assuming God did not create a mature universe. How old were the plants the animals and people ate? God instructed his creation to multiply. How could they do that if they were less than mature?
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
reread it in Hebrew.
It still specifies mornings and evenings, which is why it was translated as mornings and evenings and why that translation relates to the narrative of special creation.
Hebrew word "boqor" can mean morning or dawn, but generally can mean the beginning (or "dawn") of any length period of time. Hebrew word "ereb" can mean sunset or night, but generally can mean the ending of any length period of time.
Read Psalm 90:6 In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. If yo
Do you know of any grass that sprouts in the morning and dies the same day? No, it refers to a period of time greater than 12 or 24 hour, much more.
Likewise, the Hebrew word "Yom" is translated as "day". The Hebrew word and the English word can mean: 8 hours- I work and 8 hour day. 12 hours- Daylight lasts 12 hours. 24 hours- a whole day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve once. 4 years- Ie. "In my day, I was a great college football player. "
In the Bible, Yom, ereb, and bogor are used these ways, sometimes to mean morning, evening, 24 hours or any number of beginnings, endings, or time periods.
You actually don't have to go very far to see an example of this..... Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.[color:#CC0000][/color] Now, Genesis 1 refers to 6 days of Creation. Gen 2:4 says that it was 1 day (the day). If you are going to demand that Yom means 24 hours specifically, then what do you do with Gen 2:4? It calls 6 days "1 day".
No it does not always mean 24 hours., Yom can mean 24 hours or 24 years or 240 million years.
If you were to use Hebrew and want to communicate six solar days, what words would you use?
If you were to use Hebrew to communicate an indefinite period of time or a long period of time that had a beginning and an ending, what words would you use?
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
Show your documentation for your information, please.
Since all of science is in agreement on the matter, due to overwhelming proof, the burden is yours.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
With respect, Ringman, you do not understand ratioactive decay.
Different isotopes decay at different rates. Uranium? Billions of years. Carbon 14? Thousands of years. Some of the trans-uranium elements (those with atomic numbers higher than 92, which have been created by colliders) decay in seconds.
If one believes that the universe is only 7,000 years old, which you do but I don't, a 4.5 billion year old uranium half life would do nothing to prove or disprove that. All that would mean is that most uranium has not decayed yet. You have better arguments to make.
You are assuming God did not create a mature universe. How old were the plants the animals and people ate? God instructed his creation to multiply. How could they do that if they were less than mature?
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
Either the Bible is accurate or it's not. If it's 99% accurate it leaves man to decide for himself what 1% is not from God. So 1% of 100% gives every man 100 chances to decide where the Bible is wrong.
But if we use the true Textus Receptus to translate from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into English (as was done by the comity under the orders of King James) we do not find contradictions.
You can't use Science to prove Jesus was the Son of God, and the Scriptures themselves will tell you that. It must be a matter of faith. But the history and the science of scripture is easy to examine and it's withstood the test of millions of challenges over many many years.
I no longer waist time arguing with anyone who have made up their mind before they hear the argument on both sides. Again the scriptures tell you to do that. Many (if not most) people who argue against the Bible have never read it let along studied it. They were taught a line by someone they want to believe, and put their faith in their education (so called). If they have already made up their mind and are closed to any other information it's best to allow them to go on with their lives and let God Himself tell them ----------at the time of His choosing.
But to address the "Day=Age theory" of Bible reading I would point out that God made the plants and trees on day 3.
Day 1 he made the heavens and the Earth calling it THE first day in Gen 1:5. On day 2 God made the firmament which we'd call the atmosphere today (the Birds fly in the open firmament) and called it THE 2nd day in Gen 1:8 On day 3 God made the continents and caused plant life to grow and cover the face of the dry ground Gen- 1 :11 12 and 13. Calling it THE 3rd day! On day 4 God made the Sun and the moon.
OK stop............ #1 Why would God make the sun after he made light. Later in scripture in a few places God is said to produce light and make light in Himself, so there would be light before God made the sun and stars, but would it not seem logical to make the sun before the earth? I believe God did it that way and recorded it that way for only 1 reason. To have a record that He was "the light' even before he gave us a star (the sun) to light the planet earth and also to destroy the day-age theory that would come a few thousand years later for any believe in the Holy Scriptures. All plants need light and God made light on THE 1st day. But if the Sun is also source of light, and the days are "ages", the plants and trees would have to live for a long period of time without any sunlight , weather it's 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years 10,000,000 and any other length of time.
So we come to the "1%" I spoke of first. Either the scripture is true or it's not. If any part is not, which part do we choose to be gods ourselves and say we know better?
NONE of the forgoing will have any positive effect on anyone who has chose to disbelieve the Holy Bible and that OK with me. I am writing only to other Believers in the Holy God and those that believe the Bible is truthful, accurate and trustworthy. Speaking for myself, I do!
Hebrew writing is clear and every rabbi will tell you the clear meaning of all the writing about days in Genesis are written to mean literal days as we know them today, of about 24 hours. God said he made plant life before the sun . Go read it yourself and see from the reliable Textus Receptus (not the Alexandrian texts which gave us the non-reliable translations of Scripture) If you wish to believe the "Day-Age" theory you are forced to then say you are "intelligent and educated" past the level of the scriptures and you get to make the decision on what 1% (or more) of the Holy writings are inaccurate. If that is what you want to do that's between you and God, not you and I ----------or any other Christian.
But Genesis SAYS the plants and trees were made AFTER the sun moon and stars, so consider that in your beliefs as to the accuracy of the scriptures.
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
With respect, Ringman, you do not understand ratioactive decay.
Different isotopes decay at different rates. Uranium? Billions of years. Carbon 14? Thousands of years. Some of the trans-uranium elements (those with atomic numbers higher than 92, which have been created by colliders) decay in seconds.
If one believes that the universe is only 7,000 years old, which you do but I don't, a 4.5 billion year old uranium half life would do nothing to prove or disprove that. All that would mean is that most uranium has not decayed yet. You have better arguments to make.
You are assuming God did not create a mature universe. How old were the plants the animals and people ate? God instructed his creation to multiply. How could they do that if they were less than mature?
No comment on rhat post. I was merely stating that radioactive decay rates did not refute--or confirm--your point of view.
Christians should follow the advice of St. Thomas Aquinas:
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Amen, brother.there is only one true way to Heaven and that is through our Savior, Jesus Christ!
This my way or the highway nonsense is why i rejected the Christian religion. I really believe that many other religions are just as "good" as yours. There are many non-Christians that I would like to meet and sit and talk with. They were good people too.
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Amen, brother.there is only one true way to Heaven and that is through our Savior, Jesus Christ!
This my way or the highway nonsense is why i rejected the Christian religion. I really believe that many other religions are just as "good" as yours. There are many non-Christians that I would like to meet and sit and talk with. They were good people too.
'
Yes, sir. There have been lots of good people on Earth.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Exactly. But, they cant just move on and be happy with their belief. Why?
Satans minions or trying to convince themselves? Like, if a believer cant answer me this, or convince me to my satisfaction, he must be rong. Therefore, I can rest assured i will die and be eaten by worms. I knew i was only flesh and bone and no soul and had no spirit. Whew! I'm nothing more than a dog or monkey or amoeba.
It would be more accurate to say that you want your opinion of what is truth to prevail. In other words, you want to win, so thanks for clearing up part of my uncertainty about your motivation. But why so you want to win? What difference does it make if I have a different opinion of truth from yours? If there is no heaven or hell, who should care what I believe?
Like I said, we will all die; and we will either find out the truth is, or just cease to exist.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
Understood completely. Which is why hopefully Christians will realize that Christ is a false god and following him is the pathway to hell. It is my love of my fellow man and my concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates christians to follow a false prophet.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
Understood completely. Which is why hopefully Christians will realize that Christ is a false god and following him is the pathway to hell. It is my love of my fellow man and my concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates christians to follow a false prophet.
I pray for their souls.
Far out, what god is it that you are praying to? Where did you hear about him/her/it? What are the tenets of your faith? Sounds like you have a hell, too. What a coinkydink.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
Understood completely. Which is why hopefully Christians will realize that Christ is a false god and following him is the pathway to hell. It is my love of my fellow man and my concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates christians to follow a false prophet.
I pray for their souls.
Far out, what god is it that you are praying to? Where did you hear about him/her/it? What are the tenets of your faith? Sounds like you have a hell, too. What a coinkydink.
Why are you worried about what I believe? I'm sorry you are going to hell, but it's your choice.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
Understood completely. Which is why hopefully Christians will realize that Christ is a false god and following him is the pathway to hell. It is my love of my fellow man and my concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates christians to follow a false prophet.
I pray for their souls.
Far out, what god is it that you are praying to? Where did you hear about him/her/it? What are the tenets of your faith? Sounds like you have a hell, too. What a coinkydink.
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
Originally Posted by Northman
Originally Posted by RemModel8
Thankfully man will never be able to disprove the existence of God.. .
Thankfully man will never disprove the existence of Odin, Tor, Freya, Loki, Balder and all the other Gods my ancestors followed... or the other 20.000+++ Gods other people belive in.
Countless unanswered prayers do not support a christian God... and stories of miracles that Christians say could all be allegorical /myth do not support a Christian God.
One has got as much chance of succcess praying to what Christians call false gods.
Christians are basically saying their feeble imaginations are superior to all others.
Children grow up and stop believing in a Cinderella fairy Godmother turning a pumpkin into a carriage, and you'd be concerned about their mental health if they still believed such as an adult.... yet many Christians remain in such a naive state their whole lives.. 😂
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
Countless unanswered prayers do not support a christian God... and stories of miracles that Christians say could all be allegorical /myth do not support a Christian God.
One has got as much chance of succcess praying to what Christians call false gods.
Christians are basically saying their feeble imaginations are superior to all others.
You and AS and the rest of the swine will just have to live with the fact that numerous Christians believe by faith the Holy Bible is the inherent word of God spoken through the prophets. You don't like it, too bad, and believe what you wish. just as I will do. Like I told the intellectually dishonest AS many times before, some day we'll see won't we?
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Those details are unknowable.
Quote
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
It didn't. Our ancestry goes back to the Precambrian.
You and AS and the rest of the swine will just have to live with the fact that numerous Christians believe by faith the Holy Bible is the inherent word of God spoken through the prophets. You don't like it, too bad, and believe what you wish. just as I will do. Like I told the intellectually dishonest AS many times before, some day we'll see won't we?
Nobody is getting in the way of your free will personal beliefs... so why are you so butthurt?
You follow people around on this CF forum questionIng them with an axe to grind, but don't like Christianity being questioned,
You and AS and the rest of the swine will just have to live with the fact that numerous Christians believe by faith the Holy Bible is the inherent word of God spoken through the prophets. You don't like it, too bad, and believe what you wish. just as I will do. Like I told the intellectually dishonest AS many times before, some day we'll see won't we?
Nobody is getting in the way of your free will personal beliefs... so why are you so butthurt?
You follow people around on this CF forum questionIng them with an axe to grind, but don't like Christianity being questioned,
why the double standard?
Why do you carry resentment and personal grudges?
Maybe it's some of that fruit of the spirit stuff being revealed, you know "..love, joy, peace patience...etc" Aren't you just feeling the love of jesus flowin' Starman..?
If you were to use Hebrew to communicate an indefinite period of time or a long period of time that had a beginning and an ending, what words would you use?[/quote]
I'm not surprised you don't post your answer. It's always the same for those who reject God infallible Word and accept man's fallible word.
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Those details are unknowable.
Is it knowable that a "soul" is a construct of human imagination? As are the many, many gods?
Quote
Quote
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
It didn't. Our ancestry goes back to the Precambrian.
You have never identified as a literalist or young earther/creationist!
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Great post by someone who is comfortable in his own skin.
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
Your premise is totally flawed. There's no such thing as a proto human. All these ethnic groups were and are descendants of Adam and Eve. It's racist to think otherwise.
[quote=Dixie_Dude]The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first? I think they were created first.
The college professor who discovered the granite rock creation was at the University of Tennessee in the 1980's. Don't remember his name.
Yet genesis specifies six literal days of creation, mornings and evenings.
It still specifies mornings and evenings, which is why it was translated as mornings and evenings and why that translation relates to the narrative of special creation.
Hebrew word "boqor" can mean morning or dawn, but generally can mean the beginning (or "dawn") of any length period of time. Hebrew word "ereb" can mean sunset or night, but generally can mean the ending of any length period of time.
Read Psalm 90:6 In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.
Do you know of any grass that sprouts in the morning and dies the same day? No, it refers to a period of time greater than 12 or 24 hour, much more.
Likewise, the Hebrew word "Yom" is translated as "day". The Hebrew word and the English word can mean: 8 hours- I work and 8 hour day. 12 hours- Daylight lasts 12 hours. 24 hours- a whole day is the length of time it takes for the Earth to revolve once. 4 years- Ie. "In my day, I was a great college football player. "
In the Bible, Yom, ereb, and bogor are used these ways, sometimes to mean morning, evening, 24 hours or any number of beginnings, endings, or time periods.
You actually don't have to go very far to see an example of this..... Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.[color:#CC0000][/color] Now, Genesis 1 refers to 6 days of Creation. Gen 2:4 says that it was 1 day (the day). If you are going to demand that Yom means 24 hours specifically, then what do you do with Gen 2:4? It calls 6 days "1 day".
No it does not always mean 24 hours., Yom can mean 24 hours or 24 years or 240 million years.
Given the context, the overall narrative, normal days 24 hour days is the only thing it can mean. The grass didn't need to sprout, it was created fully formed, the sun and moon where placed in the sky fully formed (the writer did not know the size or scale of the solar system or universe), Adam was not born a baby, but created fully formed, etc.....genesis describes magical creation, special creation, not evolution.
Maybe it's some of that fruit of the spirit stuff being revealed, you know "..love, joy, peace patience...etc" Aren't you just feeling the love of jesus flowin' Starman..?
Many christians are hooked on the 'spirit' stuff, But fail to address or even mention the condition of the MIND. . that is mentioned many times in scripture.
Hence why so many are adversely affected by their disfunctional mental & emotional state. but have told themselves they are just fine.
they start to believe its everyone else thats got a problem, (ie) " it can't be me" attitude.
They revert to projecting their insecurities onto others who don't buy their beliefs lock Stock and barrel,. Some try to get nasty and call you swine, others go Off the rails saying you work for a mythological horned devil.
[Yawn].. Just another day in the office when dealing with christians.
ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
There! That has been my point for fifty years. We have incontrovertible evidence for one. The other, we have oral legends and mythology of ignomious origin handed down generation by generation for centuries until finally put to ink and paper and then translated, and retranslated, and altered to fit the political climate of each particular age.
There! That has been my point for fifty years. We have incontrovertible evidence for one. The other, we have oral legends and mythology of ignomious origin handed down generation by generation for centuries until finally put to ink and paper and then translated, and retranslated, and altered to fit the political climate of each particular age.
Incontrovertible? What evidence do you have for the info in your post?
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
Your premise is totally flawed. There's no such thing as a proto human. All these ethnic groups were and are descendants of Adam and Eve. It's racist to think otherwise.
How can they be descendants of Adam and Eve when they are not even of the same species?
Not to mention, they predate the earliest human in many cases by millions of years.
????? If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and we know the birthplace of Humans is Africa. And we have traced and dated the movements of Black Africans out of Africa then across the globe.
There! That has been my point for fifty years. We have incontrovertible evidence for one. The other, we have oral legends and mythology of ignomious origin handed down generation by generation for centuries until finally put to ink and paper and then translated, and retranslated, and altered to fit the political climate of each particular age.
Incontrovertible? What evidence do you have for the info in your post?
One can walk into any natural history museum and see the evidence first hand. Or one can sit at the computer and google up the dates and timelines. Start with "Five major extinction level events in Earth's History".
Of course one must approach the subject with an open mind if one is to gain understanding.
A question for the literalists and young Earth believers.
We know there have been nine species within our Homo genus, including the "Red Deer Cave People" in China, H naledi in S Africa, the hobbits of the Phillipines- H luzonensis, H rhodesiensis of Central Africa.
We know that H neanderthalensis and H denisova lived alongside H sapiens and crossbred between the species. Many of us today carry DNA from one or both of these ancient species.
Where did the archeological evidence of these protohumans come from?
How did these other species cross breed with God's special chosen creation?
How many proto humans had a soul? Did Cro-Magnon have a soul?
Which cross breeds might have had a soul?
Finally, how did this all happen in 6000 to 7000 years since creation?
Your premise is totally flawed. There's no such thing as a proto human. All these ethnic groups were and are descendants of Adam and Eve. It's racist to think otherwise.
How can they be descendants of Adam and Eve when they are not even of the same species?
Not to mention, they predate the earliest human in many cases by millions of years.
????? If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and we know the birthplace of Humans is Africa. And we have traced and dated the movements of Black Africans out of Africa then across the globe.
Adam and Eve had to have been Black?????
Created in God's image? Where does that leave us?
Ive said that to Jag’s extremely racist but, lol, somehow extremely Christians butt several times...
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
All this is interesting, we should be wearing out the knees on our trousers, not our keyboards. Only One Thing is important.
Amen, brother.there is only one true way to Heaven and that is through our Savior, Jesus Christ!
This my way or the highway nonsense is why i rejected the Christian religion. I really believe that many other religions are just as "good" as yours. There are many non-Christians that I would like to meet and sit and talk with. They were good people too.
'
Yes, sir. There have been lots of good people on Earth.
Yet when you look at most major wars or human travesties... the majority are based on differences in “faith”....
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
What I posted regarding the radioactive decay of U-238 is factual. It’s universally acknowledged, accepted, and agreed upon by all credible scientific minds that have any real knowledge of this subject matter. Our knowledge of radioactive half-lives isn’t guesswork, it is known...factual...information. That knowledge is used to calculate how long radioactive waste must be stored; it enables doctors to use radioactive medical tracers; and it allows us to date objects/artifacts - just a few examples of how sound knowledge of radioactive half-lives can be/is used. If you choose to think otherwise, so be it.
[/quote]What I posted regarding the radioactive decay of U-238 is factual. It’s universally acknowledged, accepted, and agreed upon by all credible scientific minds that have any real knowledge of this subject matter. Our knowledge of radioactive half-lives isn’t guesswork, it is known...factual...information. That knowledge is used to calculate how long radioactive waste must be stored; it enables doctors to use radioactive medical tracers; and it allows us to date objects/artifacts - just a few examples of how sound knowledge of radioactive half-lives can be/is used. If you choose to think otherwise, so be it.
The age of the Earth is estimated at 14.5 billion. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. So that indicates at formation of the Earth, there was a bit more than 8 times as much U238 present as is today. There are 16 (iirc) intermediate steps including Thorium, before an atom of U238 becomes lead, each step with its own half life number.
Hardly the same as "Every bit of U238 would be lead today."
If the earth were billions of years old, then nuclear decay would have made all uranium turn into lead by now.
This is simply not true. Over 99% of the naturally occurring uranium in the world is U-238, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years. That means that we have half as much U-238 in the world now as we did 4.5 billion years ago when the earth was formed. It also means that in another 4.5 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we do now. And in another 9 billion years, we will still have half as much U-238 in the world then as we will have in another 4.5 billion years from now.
This goes back to assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption. You assume there was no daughter product in the beginning. You assume the rate has never changed. You assume none has been leached out or migrated into your sample. And there are many times more radiometric systems that show a much younger earth than show an older earth. The scientists who use the slow ones do so because they know they need billions of years for evolution to function. They are like the media. Dishonest.
What I posted regarding the radioactive decay of U-238 is factual. It’s universally acknowledged, accepted, and agreed upon by all credible scientific minds that have any real knowledge of this subject matter. Our knowledge of radioactive half-lives isn’t guesswork, it is known...factual...information. That knowledge is used to calculate how long radioactive waste must be stored; it enables doctors to use radioactive medical tracers; and it allows us to date objects/artifacts - just a few examples of how sound knowledge of radioactive half-lives can be/is used. If you choose to think otherwise, so be it.
You are truly brain washed. How long has radiometric dating been going on? Less than 120 years. You take that length of time and extrapolate it to 4,500,000,000 years and think nothing has changed!? I sure wouldn't bet my life or eternity on it.
What I posted regarding the radioactive decay of U-238 is factual. It’s universally acknowledged, accepted, and agreed upon by all credible scientific minds that have any real knowledge of this subject matter. Our knowledge of radioactive half-lives isn’t guesswork, it is known...factual...information. That knowledge is used to calculate how long radioactive waste must be stored; it enables doctors to use radioactive medical tracers; and it allows us to date objects/artifacts - just a few examples of how sound knowledge of radioactive half-lives can be/is used. If you choose to think otherwise, so be it.
The age of the Earth is estimated at 14.5 billion. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. So that indicates at formation of the Earth, there was a bit more than 8 times as much U238 present as is today. There are 16 (iirc) intermediate steps including Thorium, before an atom of U238 becomes lead, each step with its own half life number.
Hardly the same as "Every bit of U238 would be lead today."[/quote]
How 'bout the half life of the earth's magnetic field? Do you believe in it? It's been measured way longer than radiometric dating has.
What I posted regarding the radioactive decay of U-238 is factual. It’s universally acknowledged, accepted, and agreed upon by all credible scientific minds that have any real knowledge of this subject matter. Our knowledge of radioactive half-lives isn’t guesswork, it is known...factual...information. That knowledge is used to calculate how long radioactive waste must be stored; it enables doctors to use radioactive medical tracers; and it allows us to date objects/artifacts - just a few examples of how sound knowledge of radioactive half-lives can be/is used. If you choose to think otherwise, so be it.
The age of the Earth is estimated at 14.5 billion. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. So that indicates at formation of the Earth, there was a bit more than 8 times as much U238 present as is today. There are 16 (iirc) intermediate steps including Thorium, before an atom of U238 becomes lead, each step with its own half life number.
Hardly the same as "Every bit of U238 would be lead today."
How 'bout the half life of the earth's magnetic field? Do you believe in it? It's been measured way longer than radiometric dating has. [/quote]
4.6 billion years "As the uranium in rocks decays, it emits subatomic particles and turns into lead at a constant rate. Measuring the uranium-to-lead ratios in the oldest rocks on Earth gave scientists an estimated age of the planet of 4.6 billion years.
Many independent lines of scientific evidence show that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Current measurements yield an age of about 4.54 billion years for the Earth and about 13.8 billion years for the Universe"
The age of the Earth is estimated at 14.5 billion. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. So that indicates at formation of the Earth, there was a bit more than 8 times as much U238 present as is today. There are 16 (iirc) intermediate steps including Thorium, before an atom of U238 becomes lead, each step with its own half life number.
Hardly the same as "Every bit of U238 would be lead today."
I'm sure it won't be long before the fallacy is brought up again, and again.
How long has radiometric dating been going on? Less than 120 years.
How long has space flight been going on...? A LOT less than 120 years...and science still knows quite a bit about it.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You take that length of time and extrapolate it to 4,500,000,000 years and think nothing has changed!?
The half-life of a specific radioactive isotope is constant. If you choose to think that the rate for that specific radioactive isotope ‘might’ have been different in the past, then so be it.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I sure wouldn't bet my life...on it.
If you get cancer and the oncologist recommends radiation therapy to save your life, you may feel differently then.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I sure wouldn’t bet my...eternity on it.
I’m not. My eternity doesn’t depend on the half-life of radioactive isotopes, or on the biblical story of creation.
OK stop............ #1 Why would God make the sun after he made light. Later in scripture in a few places God is said to produce light and make light in Himself, so there would be light before God made the sun and stars, but would it not seem logical to make the sun before the earth? I believe God did it that way and recorded it that way for only 1 reason. To have a record that He was "the light' even before he gave us a star (the sun) to light the planet earth... .
Light is a condition or state of matter; and the primeval light could have been electric, due to condensation and friction of the elements as they began to arrange in order...A restless force of which light was a product
ie; "Let there be light" as a result of invoking such process.
With such primeval elements/agents also later employed in forming other parts (4th day) as more specific sources of light.
The age of the Earth is estimated at 14.5 billion. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. So that indicates at formation of the Earth, there was a bit more than 8 times as much U238 present as is today. There are 16 (iirc) intermediate steps including Thorium, before an atom of U238 becomes lead, each step with its own half life number.
Hardly the same as "Every bit of U238 would be lead today."
I'm sure it won't be long before the fallacy is brought up again, and again.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
Show your documentation for your information, please.
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
Countless unanswered prayers do not support a christian God... and stories of miracles that Christians say could all be allegorical /myth do not support a Christian God.
One has got as much chance of succcess praying to what Christians call false gods.
Christians are basically saying their feeble imaginations are superior to all others.
You and AS and the rest of the swine will just have to live with the fact that numerous Christians believe by faith the Holy Bible is the inherent word of God spoken through the prophets. You don't like it, too bad, and believe what you wish. just as I will do. Like I told the intellectually dishonest AS many times before, some day we'll see won't we?
How are you going to "see" anything if you are dead, and there's no afterlife to experience?
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
What exactly is an antelope sniper?
It's a nick name I was given by friends and family due to the distances at which I shoot antelope.
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
How are you going to "see" anything if you are dead, and there's no afterlife to experience?
JG is gambling that his heavy investment in what could very well be snake oil, is going to offer some advantage in a Hypothetical situation no one is certain will actually happen.
Its like Jack buying magic beans and taking the sellers word for it that they are genuine.
If you were to use Hebrew to communicate an indefinite period of time or a long period of time that had a beginning and an ending, what words would you use?
I'm not surprised you don't post your answer. It's always the same for those who reject God infallible Word and accept man's fallible word. [/quote] I am 100% convinced of the infallibility of God’s Word. It is your understanding of it that is highly fallible
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
I am not a believer in macro evolution. You are putting words in my mouth
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
I am not a believer in macro evolution. You are putting words in my mouth
Evolution is just change in allele frequency over time. That's it. The difference between what you are calling micro vs. macro evolution is just the accumulation of more changes over more time. That's it. Nothing more.
The Bible also says a day in Gods eyes is as a thousand years to man. So a literal 7 human or earth days may not be to God. Another fact. Honey bees use logarithms to tell distance to flowers to other bees with a brain the size of a pinhead. Some plants cannot survive without bees and the bees cannot survive without flowering plants. Which evolved first?
They co-evolved. Originally, the plants benefited from incidental contact with the bees, but didn't depend on them. Gradually, they came to depend on them. Same with the nectar vis a vis the bees.
Show your documentation for your information, please.
It's some pretty silly people who think they are no different than dumb animals yet get on here and strive to prove how much smarter they are than believers.
Which unbelievers think animals dream of taking fishing trips with their grandkids and put away for their college and contemplate flying in a plane or going to the moon or - living in heaven forever?
Goid point Antlers, in reminding it doesn't matter how long humans have walked the earth or how long it's been here to be forgiven and saved.
Brain size and complexity makes the difference between having language and being dumb. Animals are quite intelligent in their own way. A brain damaged human may not be as intelligent as some animals. Biologically we are animals.
Something isn't a fact if there are alternative explanations for what is observed.
Your belief is in evolution, mine is in creation. Neither can be proven, but there is evidence for both. Here's the rest of my post which Hawkeye responded to:
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
Originally Posted by Valsdad
I thought you folks hashed this all out a few month back.
Big thread, many pages.
Can't remember who won.
Yep, been beat to death several times over many pages. Nobody "won" then, and nobody is going to win now. You will either die and find out what actually happened, or you will just die. Me, I think I know what happened and I expect to have it confirmed.
Sad that many allow the theory of evolution to prevent them from believing in Jesus.
On my screen there are 19 pages so far....and nobody's won...and nobody's going to win.
I'm not sure this is about winning or losing. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe, and jaguartx and others merely stating their acceptance of the presence of God in their life and beliefs. It amazes me that the the non-believers in God must continuously blow these threads up to validate their reasoning and prove the believers in the existence of God wrong and ridicule them for their beliefs. I tend to side with the opinion of renegade about the whole thing and see no need to quote Einstein or the Freedom From Religion website to prove someone else with a different opinion wrong if they don't believe the same as I do and aren't willing to validate my beliefs also. If you don't believe in a greater presence than man, just move along and be comfortable in your own opinions and beliefs.
Christians are instructed to spread the gospel, so when discussions on the origin of the world pop up, we engage in these debates out of love for our fellow man and concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates non-believers.
Understood completely. Which is why hopefully Christians will realize that Christ is a false god and following him is the pathway to hell. It is my love of my fellow man and my concern for their souls (even though it seems futile). I am not sure what motivates christians to follow a false prophet.
I pray for their souls.
Far out, what god is it that you are praying to? Where did you hear about him/her/it? What are the tenets of your faith? Sounds like you have a hell, too. What a coinkydink.
Why are you worried about what I believe? I'm sorry you are going to hell, but it's your choice.
And just like that. the man is condemned to a eternal existence of hellfire...!
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
Wow, do you actually read ths stuff before you hit "post reply"...?
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
Interesting. I’ve read of fragments being found. A skeleton of a mammal that is still debated, with a large number (and growing) of scientists believing it’s an extinct ape (Lucy)? A small section of ape femur found 15 ft away from number of human skull remains (Java man)?
Am I missing something here in regards to evidence?
That's why evolution is accepted as a reality by those who have studied evolution.
The same can be said of Christianity and those that study the bible. Accepting something as a reality based on evidence when the evidence is disputable (bringing into question the definition of evidence) requires faith in an unsubstantiated theory. By that measure, the theory of evolution is no more established than Christianity.
The fact is, there is no evidence of man’s evolution from another mammal. It’s as if he just appeared one day. To believe anything else is is a fact is based on faith.....not science
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
No. The species on each side of those fossils supposedly lived, but not the in between which would have had the advantage of both habitats or environments each was more adapted to but even so benefitted, couldnt survive?
I studied comparative anatomy in university and it didnt convince me. Passed also.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc)?
Oh, my gosh, yes. Long ago. For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject. Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread. It will take you one afternoon to watch all of them. Each installment is less than ten minutes.
For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject.
That’s a bit presumptuous.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread.
Okay, but before I potentially waste my time, please tell me: Does it have indisputable scientific evidence of an evolution in which we evolved from another species?
For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject.
That’s a bit presumptuous.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread.
Okay, but before I potentially waste my time, please tell me: Does it have indisputable scientific evidence of an evolution in which we evolved from another species?
No “faith”required.......right?
I’ll wait for your reply.
The videos give an excellent summary....and yes, the evidence is more than sufficient to prove evolution. No faith needed.
For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject.
That’s a bit presumptuous.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread.
Okay, but before I potentially waste my time, please tell me: Does it have indisputable scientific evidence of an evolution in which we evolved from another species?
No “faith”required.......right?
I’ll wait for your reply.
He presents the evidence known to science, yes. Lays it out very clearly. You can visit the various universities and museums around the world to personally inspect the evidence, if you believe yourself to be qualified to make a sound assessment of them. Do you have a strong biology background?
If you start from the premise that there is no God or if there is, he couldn't or didn't create the world as the Bible states, then of course you will believe in evolution. At that point, there is really no other explanation for what we see around us. However, if you start with the premise that there is a God and he could indeed create the world as described in the Bible, then you will find that evolution is not the irrefutable fact that it is portrayed as being.
That's why evolution is accepted as a reality by those who have studied evolution.
The same can be said of Christianity and those that study the bible. Accepting something as a reality based on evidence when the evidence is disputable (bringing into question the definition of evidence) requires faith in an unsubstantiated theory. By that measure, the theory of evolution is no more established than Christianity.
The fact is, there is no evidence of man’s evolution from another mammal. It’s as if he just appeared one day. To believe anything else is is a fact is based on faith.....not science
“The human lineage of Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.” “Human evolution, the process by which human beings developed on Earth from now-extinct primates. Viewed zoologically, we humans are Homo sapiens, a culture-bearing upright-walking species that lives on the ground and very likely first evolved in Africa about 315,000 years ago. We are now the only living members of what many zoologists refer to as the human tribe, Hominini, but there is abundant fossil evidence to indicate that we were preceded for millions of years by other hominins, such as Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and other species of Homo, and that our species also lived for a time contemporaneously with at least one other member of our genus, H. neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals).” Encyclopedia Britannica
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc)?
Oh, my gosh, yes. Long ago. For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject. Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread. It will take you one afternoon to watch all of them. Each installment is less than ten minutes.
Here, I'll post it again:
This atheist activist clown ran for the Texas state senate a few years ago (unsuccessfully). He is so hung up on evolution that his name has now evolved to just Aron Ra.
He presents the evidence known to science, yes. Lays it out very clearly.
I don’t know what “it” is, but “it” isn’t indisputable.
I watched episode 1, 2 and the episode addressing the Noah’s ark. A few glaring issues that I’m sure you’ll dismiss because they’re not scientific law, but evolutionists seem to have no problem passing theory off as such.
First, his sarcastic tone reveals an obviously bias, which is not exactly the “open-minded” approach a person would expect to see from a practitioner that demands such from his audience.
Second, he likes to slip in words like “likely” and “markers” which suggests evidence, but really isn’t.
Lastly, even though we have thousands of fossils before and after these evolutional species transformations, he goes over the transforming “evidence“ so quick and generally (while flashing a skeleton of a.....frog?) that it’s really not addressed. It’s literally 2-3 seconds.
So while there seems to be a lot of good scientific information, to base a theory on, it is just that..... theory. The only problem is, it’s too often passed as law.
I guess the equivalent is that Jesus is stated in numerous writings of theologians and scholars of all walks. Even Atheists. So what, you say? There was some dude named Jesus that told people he was the Son of God and died on a cross. Doesn’t prove anything....except there just as much physical evidence that God exists as we come from apes. The big difference is, however, Christianity is based on faith and requires no physical evidence. Evolution, however, is based on physical evidence and requires a significant amount of faith.
There was no episode about Noah's Ark. You must have switched to something else he produced. Just watch the Systematic Classifications series to the end.
Wow, do you actually read ths stuff before you hit "post reply"...?
So we haven’t found them? Asking for a friend.
Earlier in this thread, someone asks atheist should debate Christians. Ray's a good example. Because of his faith, he's not even permitted to believe basic scientific facts, but instead must deny them in order to preserve an illusion of truth for his preferred myth. There are many more just like Ray who think his myths should be taught in our schools and real science should not. This is an example of how belief in something untrue can negatively impact the real world, and not just the believer but others as well.
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
Interesting. I’ve read of fragments being found. A skeleton of a mammal that is still debated, with a large number (and growing) of scientists believing it’s an extinct ape (Lucy)? A small section of ape femur found 15 ft away from number of human skull remains (Java man)?
Am I missing something here in regards to evidence?
There was no episode about Noah's Ark. You must have switched to something else he produced. Just watch the Systematic Classifications series to the end.
Thanks, but no thanks. I reckon I wasted as much time as I’m willing to. Interesting, but not compelling.
If y’all find that indisputable physical evidence on which real science is based, let me know. Thanks.
For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject.
That’s a bit presumptuous.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread.
Okay, but before I potentially waste my time, please tell me: Does it have indisputable scientific evidence of an evolution in which we evolved from another species?
There was no episode about Noah's Ark. You must have switched to something else he produced. Just watch the Systematic Classifications series to the end.
Thanks, but no thanks. I reckon I wasted as much time as I’m willing to. Interesting, but not compelling.
If y’all find that indisputable physical evidence on which real science is based, let me know. Thanks.
If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your choice.
If you start from the premise that there is no God or if there is, he couldn't or didn't create the world as the Bible states, then of course you will believe in evolution. At that point, there is really no other explanation for what we see around us. However, if you start with the premise that there is a God and he could indeed create the world as described in the Bible, then you will find that evolution is not the irrefutable fact that it is portrayed as being.
Oh, so if you don't just start by examining the evidence, but just pre-suppose that some god did it, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
What evidence do you have that the Bible is "True"? Why should anyone believe anything in the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter?
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc)?
Oh, my gosh, yes. Long ago. For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject. Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread. It will take you one afternoon to watch all of them. Each installment is less than ten minutes.
Here, I'll post it again:
This atheist activist clown ran for the Texas state senate a few years ago (unsuccessfully). He is so hung up on evolution that his name has now evolved to just Aron Ra.
He went by Aron Ra for decades before he ran for office. Regardless the information he's providing is a good summary of the current science around evolution.
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
He presents the evidence known to science, yes. Lays it out very clearly.
I don’t know what “it” is, but “it” isn’t indisputable.
I watched episode 1, 2 and the episode addressing the Noah’s ark. A few glaring issues that I’m sure you’ll dismiss because they’re not scientific law, but evolutionists seem to have no problem passing theory off as such.
First, his sarcastic tone reveals an obviously bias, which is not exactly the “open-minded” approach a person would expect to see from a practitioner that demands such from his audience.
Second, he likes to slip in words like “likely” and “markers” which suggests evidence, but really isn’t.
Lastly, even though we have thousands of fossils before and after these evolutional species transformations, he goes over the transforming “evidence“ so quick and generally (while flashing a skeleton of a.....frog?) that it’s really not addressed. It’s literally 2-3 seconds.
So while there seems to be a lot of good scientific information, to base a theory on, it is just that..... theory. The only problem is, it’s too often passed as law.
I guess the equivalent is that Jesus is stated in numerous writings of theologians and scholars of all walks. Even Atheists. So what, you say? There was some dude named Jesus that told people he was the Son of God and died on a cross. Doesn’t prove anything....except there just as much physical evidence that God exists as we come from apes. The big difference is, however, Christianity is based on faith and requires no physical evidence. Evolution, however, is based on physical evidence and requires a significant amount of faith.
Ray,
Serious question. Did you make it past the 8th grade?
Did you go to school in some really backwards state, or graduate in the 1920's before much of this was learned?
Or do you just not care because modern science conflicts with your fundamentalist version of Christianity?
You are so scientifically illiterate, you don't even know the difference between fact, law, hypothesis, and theory.
There was no episode about Noah's Ark. You must have switched to something else he produced. Just watch the Systematic Classifications series to the end.
Thanks, but no thanks. I reckon I wasted as much time as I’m willing to. Interesting, but not compelling.
If y’all find that indisputable physical evidence on which real science is based, let me know. Thanks.
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
Please enlighten me on your beliefs. I admit that I don't spend the time on this forum that a lot of you do and I have missed where you have posted your beliefs in a "greater force that man". If you would be so kind as to repost your thoughts on the subject again, it might provide the scratch to the itch that many such as myself and possibly other can't seem to quite reach. That's not really too much to ask is it?
Serious question. Did you make it past the 8th grade?
Did you go to school in some really backwards state, or graduate in the 1920's before much of this was learned?
Or do you just not care because modern science conflicts with your fundamentalist version of Christianity?
You are so scientifically illiterate, you don't even know the difference between fact, law, hypothesis, and theory.
LOL, well I’m not going to trade thinly veiled personal attacks with you, but I don’t believe any of those questions are serious.
I will point out, however, that as intelligent as you are, you chose to focus on my misused terms and avoid addressing the point that was made. We all have our challenges.
How can they be descendants of Adam and Eve when they are not even of the same species?
Not to mention, they predate the earliest human in many cases by millions of years.
????? If all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and we know the birthplace of Humans is Africa. And we have traced and dated the movements of Black Africans out of Africa then across the globe.
Adam and Eve had to have been Black?????
Created in God's image? Where does that leave us?
Again your premise if flawed. You are assuming evolution. You are assuming millions of years, for which there is good evidence are figments of a fertile imagination. For some reason there are "missing links" for humans but none for cats, rats, bats or any number of creatures. The fossil record should be very difficult to determine what is what, but that is not what we find. It is easy to say, "Look! I found a fish," or "Look! I found an elephant."
There! That has been my point for fifty years. We have incontrovertible evidence for one. The other, we have oral legends and mythology of ignomious origin handed down generation by generation for centuries until finally put to ink and paper and then translated, and retranslated, and altered to fit the political climate of each particular age.
Incontrovertible? What evidence do you have for the info in your post?
One can walk into any natural history museum and see the evidence first hand. Or one can sit at the computer and google up the dates and timelines. Start with "Five major extinction level events in Earth's History".
Of course one must approach the subject with an open mind if one is to gain understanding.
You are dreaming. The curator starts with evolution is a fact and anything that refutes that is rejected. Take a look for yourself at the movie, "Expelled. No Intelligence Allowed."
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
Please enlighten me on your beliefs. I admit that I don't spend the time on this forum that a lot of you do and I have missed where you have posted your beliefs in a "greater force that man". If you would be so kind as to repost your thoughts on the subject again, it might provide the scratch to the itch that many such as myself and possibly other can't seem to quite reach. That's not really too much to ask is it?
Chucky,
Just because no theist to date's been able to provide sufficient evidence to their god claims, this in no way translates to "there's no greater power than man". That's an absurd logical fallacy know as a "false dichotomy". If someone wished to claim "there is no greater power than man in the Universe", that's it's own separate claim that must rise or fall on it's own body of evidence.
Let me ask you this. Are you so arrogant and filled with hubris to claim that if your god does not exist, that automatically means "Man is the greatest force is the Universe"? Really? That requires a level a hubris that I just don't have. Do other interstellar civilizations exist? They sure could. Are there any with "greater power" than ours? I don't know.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example:
A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
Again your premise if flawed. You are assuming evolution. You are assuming millions of years, for which there is good evidence are figments of a fertile imagination. For some reason there are "missing links" for humans but none for cats, rats, bats or any number of creatures. The fossil record should be very difficult to determine what is what, but that is not what we find. It is easy to say, "Look! I found a fish," or "Look! I found an elephant."
Actually, there are missing links for cats, etc. Lots of them.
The ones for humans get a lot more attention--and grant money--because we are more interested in our origins than in other animals. Aren't you?
Some people appear to have religious beliefs that are so shaky and tenuous that they’re afraid the least little puff of scientific knowledge will blow it away...! Even though their very lives are made WAY better by science every single day of their life...! If one’s belief in God depends upon the non-existence of dinosaurs or the universe not being billions of years old, then they are in more trouble than they know regarding their faith...and how weakly convicted they appear to be regarding their faith.
Some people appear to have religious beliefs that are so shaky and tenuous that they’re afraid the least little puff of scientific knowledge will blow it away...! Even though their very lives are made WAY better by science every single day of their life...! If one’s belief in God depends upon the non-existence of dinosaurs or the universe not being billions of years old, then they are in more trouble than they know regarding their faith...and how weakly convicted they appear to be regarding their faith.
If you start from the premise that there is no God or if there is, he couldn't or didn't create the world as the Bible states, then of course you will believe in evolution. At that point, there is really no other explanation for what we see around us. However, if you start with the premise that there is a God and he could indeed create the world as described in the Bible, then you will find that evolution is not the irrefutable fact that it is portrayed as being.
Oh, so if you don't just start by examining the evidence, but just pre-suppose that some god did it, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
What evidence do you have that the Bible is "True"? Why should anyone believe anything in the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter?
You and I have had this discussion before and I am not going to go around in circles with you again on it. You demand evidence, but are dismissive of interpretations of the evidence that don't conform to your beliefs. But you just confirmed what I said: You have made it your premise that there is no God; in other words, you have pre-supposed that no god "did it." If I didn't believe in God, I'd believe in evolution just as you do.
If you start from the premise that there is no God or if there is, he couldn't or didn't create the world as the Bible states, then of course you will believe in evolution. At that point, there is really no other explanation for what we see around us. However, if you start with the premise that there is a God and he could indeed create the world as described in the Bible, then you will find that evolution is not the irrefutable fact that it is portrayed as being.
Not so.
Science did start with the premise that the Bible was 100% true. The problem was that the things that scientists discovered, starting in about the 1700s, showed that it couldn't be 100% true.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc)?
Oh, my gosh, yes. Long ago. For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject. Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread. It will take you one afternoon to watch all of them. Each installment is less than ten minutes.
Here, I'll post it again:
This atheist activist clown ran for the Texas state senate a few years ago (unsuccessfully). He is so hung up on evolution that his name has now evolved to just Aron Ra.
This guy is just another purveyor of baloney. He gets to a good start when he characterizes taxonomy and and the “tree...or bush” of life as ..... what did he say....? What. ..... “Comparative anatomy?” Well, folks, that is not proof of evolution.
Later he claims that there are many transitional forms and Seems to claim justication whe he flashes a picture of archaeopteryx (?) ..... which ...recently anyway, most respected paleontologists classify as a bird.
He finishes up with the “Phylogeny Challenge” which is nothing but a facetious call for folks to get sucked into a never to end Brandolini “do loop.”
As has been said before, the Bible states THAT God created and does not give details of HOW he did it.
There was no episode about Noah's Ark. You must have switched to something else he produced. Just watch the Systematic Classifications series to the end.
Thanks, but no thanks. I reckon I wasted as much time as I’m willing to. Interesting, but not compelling.
If y’all find that indisputable physical evidence on which real science is based, let me know. Thanks.
Sapiens is a pretty good read on the subject, biological science did a documentary as well as PBS, Also your inner fish by PBS. Plenty of scientific studies, documents. If you are expecting someone on the fire to present to you overwhelming scientific evidence, than you are going to be disappointed. Bible stories are compelling, but written by men, for what reason...? To explain something they did not understand? To bend others to their will? If god wanted man to follow and believe he sure made it difficult to do so.... to what end does this serve? Why did man distort the word of god? (I guess we all know the answer to that)....Why so many religions? Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
If you start from the premise that there is no God or if there is, he couldn't or didn't create the world as the Bible states, then of course you will believe in evolution. At that point, there is really no other explanation for what we see around us. However, if you start with the premise that there is a God and he could indeed create the world as described in the Bible, then you will find that evolution is not the irrefutable fact that it is portrayed as being.
Not so.
Science did start with the premise that the Bible was 100% true. The problem was that the things that scientists discovered, starting in about the 1700s, showed that it couldn't be 100% true.
I don't think we know what the mindset of scientists was at that time.
I am more inclined to this than any religion that requires tithing to be a member.
Animism (from Latin anima, "breath, spirit, life")[1][2] is the belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork and perhaps even words—as animated and alive. Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many indigenous peoples,[7] especially in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organised religions.[8]
Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[9] the term is an anthropological construct.
Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinion has differed on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world, or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the late 19th century (1871) by Sir Edward Tylor, who created it as "one of anthropology's earliest concepts, if not the first".[10][11]
Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no hard and fast distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites, ... . Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists (such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan and many contemporary Pagans).[12]
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
At the end of the day, one must do his own investigation and let,those investigations... hopefully thorough and honest research.. lead him to conclusions or at least a “current way of thinking.”
Reliance on internet experts is fraught with error and pitfalls.
IF christians still had their way, They'd convert people by the sword, Then burn them at the stake for being a heretic.
Christians do have their way. They even founded the greatest country on earth with tolerance non-believers.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc) or are we still relying on faith in an evidence-based practice?
The evidence is there, including transitional fossils.
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
Please enlighten me on your beliefs. I admit that I don't spend the time on this forum that a lot of you do and I have missed where you have posted your beliefs in a "greater force that man". If you would be so kind as to repost your thoughts on the subject again, it might provide the scratch to the itch that many such as myself and possibly other can't seem to quite reach. That's not really too much to ask is it?
Chucky,
Just because no theist to date's been able to provide sufficient evidence to their god claims, this in no way translates to "there's no greater power than man". That's an absurd logical fallacy know as a "false dichotomy". If someone wished to claim "there is no greater power than man in the Universe", that's it's own separate claim that must rise or fall on it's own body of evidence.
Let me ask you this. Are you so arrogant and filled with hubris to claim that if your god does not exist, that automatically means "Man is the greatest force is the Universe"? Really? That requires a level a hubris that I just don't have. Do other interstellar civilizations exist? They sure could. Are there any with "greater power" than ours? I don't know.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example:
A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
Antelopy, Forgive me for being late to the table in realizing that this thread had taken the jump from Possible Creator and Benevolent Protector of Mankind to little green men. Reminds me a little of the good old Gus days. Actually, I too believe that what ever transpired on this small rock called Earth could of very well happened on one of the other billions of planets in the universe. And if it did, what proof have you they are greater than Humankind at this point. Could they still be at the fungus or moss state that Humans evolved from according to Evolution? Are you too hubris in your opinions ( I had to Google that after you posted it) that you feel others should allow you and I to possibly believe in Martians without any proof what so ever they actually exists, except childhood lore and Hollywood movies, yet still deny jaguartx or antlers their believes in something with just as much physical evidence to support it's existence as our little green men have.
. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
Some people remain open minded as to whether such does/does not exist., or what it precisely may be... You may think there is deadline to start firmly believing in a God and type/form of God, but others don't..
Secondly, you have now asked a question without addressing my previous quedtions. #1 Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
#2 Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
Some people remain open minded as to whether such does/does not exist., or what it precisely may be... You may think there is deadline to start firmly believing in a God, but others don't..
Secondly, you have now asked a question without addressing my previous quedtions.
> Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
> Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
Forgive me my grievances STARMAN, as stated earlier, I don't spend a great deal of time on this board as compared to other Intellectual Scholars such as yourself. I just happen to be home today and am killing a little time. I'm sure I have missed what you are eluding to and only ask that you repost your beliefs instead of continuously talking around them. Please enlighten me on the Greater Presence of the Universe as STARMAN sees it. Where did I state I "think there is deadline to start firmly believing in a God, but others don't.." Did I say " Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one"? I think not. And please try to use little words that a Hillbilly from KY can understand without me right clicking and Googling constantly. You and Antelope sniper are wearing my uneducated a$$ out looking these words up. Google couldn't even tell me what "quedtions" means.
What a clown show.......only fools think they understand. Turns out they don't know what they don't know. Keep going you hard charging fools, it's very entertaining.
Proverbs 26 11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. 12 Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
1 Corinthians 8:2 (NLT) Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.
1 Corinthians 2:11, NIV: "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Isaiah 55:8-9 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Romans 11:33-34 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
I don't pretend to know the existence of a "God" or what precisely such would be, though you have labeled it... "Greater Presence of the Universe" nor do I pretend to know such does not exist.
My posts revolve around what christians assert to be the one and only truth on the matter, even though they argue and squabble amongst themselves like primitive middle eastener Christians did before the time of Constantine... LoL.
Re: "Greater Presence of the Universe"
Is such presence actually within the universe or outside of it?
What a clown show.......only fools think they understand. Turns out they don't know what they don't know. Keep going you hard charging fools, it's very entertaining.
Proverbs 26 11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. 12 Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.
1 Corinthians 8:2 (NLT) Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.
1 Corinthians 2:11, NIV: "For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Isaiah 55:8-9 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Romans 11:33-34 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
Are you seriously going to go by Scripture instead of how a person feels about the topic?
I don't pretend to know the existence of a "God" or what precisely such would be, though you have labeled it... "Greater Presence of the Universe" nor do I pretend to know such does not exist.
My posts revolve around what christians assert to be the one and only truth on the matter, even though they argue and squabble amongst themselves like primitive middle eastener Christians did before the time of Constatine... LoL.
Re: "Greater Presence of the Universe"
Is such presence actually within the universe or outside of it?
The answer to that is far above my Paygrade if you are asking me. Again, I am not asking what your posts revolve around. I am asking specifically what your own personal beliefs are regarding the 22 page topic at hand which you have already posted 16 times in without really stating anything.
I am more inclined to this than any religion that requires tithing to be a member.
Animism (from Latin anima, "breath, spirit, life")[1][2] is the belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork and perhaps even words—as animated and alive. Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many indigenous peoples,[7] especially in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organised religions.[8]
Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[9] the term is an anthropological construct.
Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinion has differed on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world, or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the late 19th century (1871) by Sir Edward Tylor, who created it as "one of anthropology's earliest concepts, if not the first".[10][11]
Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no hard and fast distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites, ... . Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists (such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan and many contemporary Pagans).[12]
You notice the evolutionary premise of the definition? It assumes ancient man was primitive. I suggest to you ancient man was ten times as smart as modern man. After the Flood they started away from Babel they were forced to live in caves or anywhere else they felt save. Modern man is discovering ancient man, soon after the Flood, made things we have no idea how they were made.
I am more inclined to this than any religion that requires tithing to be a member.
Animism (from Latin anima, "breath, spirit, life")[1][2] is the belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Potentially, animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork and perhaps even words—as animated and alive. Animism is used in the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of many indigenous peoples,[7] especially in contrast to the relatively more recent development of organised religions.[8]
Although each culture has its own different mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual" or "supernatural" perspectives. The animistic perspective is so widely held and inherent to most indigenous peoples that they often do not even have a word in their languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even "religion");[9] the term is an anthropological construct.
Largely due to such ethnolinguistic and cultural discrepancies, opinion has differed on whether animism refers to an ancestral mode of experience common to indigenous peoples around the world, or to a full-fledged religion in its own right. The currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the late 19th century (1871) by Sir Edward Tylor, who created it as "one of anthropology's earliest concepts, if not the first".[10][11]
Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no hard and fast distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans, but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites, ... . Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Some members of the non-tribal world also consider themselves animists (such as author Daniel Quinn, sculptor Lawson Oyekan and many contemporary Pagans).[12]
You notice the evolutionary premise of the definition? It assumes ancient man was primitive. I suggest to you ancient man was ten times as smart as modern man. After the Flood they started away from Babel they were forced to live in caves or anywhere else they felt save. Modern man is discovering ancient man, soon after the Flood, made things we have no idea how they were made.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
Yep, like a little child has the sense to do with a loving father. Why, because HE is a loving FATHER, even if he doesn't "love" HIS like some of them.think HE should.
Of course, those same people do as their little children always want them to, dont they?
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Who says any such God is actually like the Judeo Christian primitive narrative one?
Countless unanswered prayers do not support a christian God... and stories of miracles that Christians say could all be allegorical /myth do not support a Christian God.
One has got as much chance of succcess praying to what Christians call false gods.
Christians are basically saying their feeble imaginations are superior to all others.
You and AS and the rest of the swine will just have to live with the fact that numerous Christians believe by faith the Holy Bible is the inherent word of God spoken through the prophets. You don't like it, too bad, and believe what you wish. just as I will do. Like I told the intellectually dishonest AS many times before, some day we'll see won't we?
If you are the light, I'll happily run to the dark.
I am convinced Dr. Kindell is correct when he says the intellectual rejects Jesus for the same reason the garbage man or politician does. They prefer to run their own life instead of submit to a Higher Authority.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
Follow on thought:
A little bit melodramatic, but true...here’s the short version.
A young person came to me once. Upset and unhappy that they were not “smart” like the other young folk. Also upset that there were some very real psychiatric issues present that were making life difficult.
I asked this person to think about a poor boy with crippled up legs and in a wheelchair. I asked if when this boy died and went to be with Jesus, if he would still be crippled up. She was aghast and told me No!
So, I asked if the brains that people had were all equal? ......”No, some are smart and some not smart, and some like “me” are goofed up.” Ok, the brain is a physical organ, and your brain like that young boy’s legs will be healed and ok, in heaven. The light came on and there was hope.
Now, some of you will immediately castigate me for giving some kid false hope in something that is not true....and telling them lies. Nope, that is rejected. Search the Scriptures about this.
Also, let me go a step further....... I would not be surprised at all, if in Heaven, we are all “smart.” I expect we will all have the same intellectual capacity. I think it might be this way; on earth, some of us are “5’s” on the intelligence scale. Some of us may be “2’s” ... But in heaven, we will all be “100’s.”
One more and I will quit.... “.....ain’t nobody gonna be ugly in heaven!”
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
Follow on thought:
A little bit melodramatic, but true...here’s the short version.
A young person came to me once. Upset and unhappy that they were not “smart” like the other young folk. Also upset that there were some very real psychiatric issues present that were making life difficult.
I asked this person to think about a poor boy with crippled up legs and in a wheelchair. I asked if when this boy died and went to be with Jesus, if he would still be crippled up. She was aghast and told me No!
So, I asked if the brains that people had were all equal? ......”No, some are smart and some not smart, and some like “me” are goofed up.” Ok, the brain is a physical organ, and your brain like that young boy’s legs will be healed and ok, in heaven. The light came on and there was hope.
Now, some of you will immediately castigate me for giving some kid false hope in something that is not true....and telling them lies. Nope, that is rejected. Search the Scriptures about this.
Also, let me go a step further....... I would not be surprised at all, if in Heaven, we are all “smart.” I expect we will all have the same intellectual capacity. I think it might be this way; on earth, some of us are “5’s” on the intelligence scale. Some of us may be “2’s” ... But in heaven, we will all be “100’s.”
One more and I will quit.... “.....ain’t nobody gonna be ugly in heaven!”
Now I feel bad for slamming JGRaider. Thanks for sharing
I am convinced Dr. Kindell is correct when he says the intellectual rejects Jesus for the same reason the garbage man or politician does. They prefer to run their own life instead of submit to a Higher Authority.
No.
I reject your claims due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
[. I think it might be this way; on earth, some of us are “5’s” on the intelligence scale. Some of us may be “2’s” ... But in heaven, we will all be “100’s.”
Why not just ZERO in the humbled presence of a glorified God?
IF it's a matter of the heart as TF49 says, what need is there for intelligence in a heaven?
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
One more and I will quit.... “.....ain’t nobody gonna be ugly in heaven!”
Then I guess there's hope for you yet.
Yes, there is hope.
Btw, I mentioned this before .. I expect there will be animals, but no death in heaven. At a campfire one night this came up..... when in heaven and hungering for a steak.. What do you do????.. Well, just go on over to the “ribeye tree” and grab one!
One more and I will quit.... “.....ain’t nobody gonna be ugly in heaven!”
Then I guess there's hope for you yet.
Yes, there is hope.
Btw, I mentioned this before .. I expect there will be animals, but no death in heaven. At a campfire one night this came up..... when in heaven and hungering for a steak.. What do you do????.. Well, just go on over to the “ribeye tree” and grab one!
What about the bacon wrapped lobster tree and a couple of Valkyries to go with it?
One more and I will quit.... “.....ain’t nobody gonna be ugly in heaven!”
Then I guess there's hope for you yet.
Yes, there is hope.
Btw, I mentioned this before .. I expect there will be animals, but no death in heaven. At a campfire one night this came up..... when in heaven and hungering for a steak.. What do you do????.. Well, just go on over to the “ribeye tree” and grab one!
Is that like Bernie Sanders' Money Tree? Is he God?
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
Legit question. Examine the evidence available to you and then honestly seek an answer from God. But, check that answer with Scipture.... if it squares, continue on..... if it does not square, it is false and you may be hearing a satanic being or even an echo of your own mind.
For me, it Takes two witnesses..... One, internal from the Spirit and a confirming one from the Bible.
Oh and btw..... I know all about hearing an echo of my own desire. Paid the price for it as well.
. Again, I am not asking what your posts revolve around. I am asking specifically what your own personal beliefs are.. .
I told you I don't pretend to know either way.
But seems like you want me to invent an opnion supporting one or the other?
one does not require a "taking sides" opinion to scrutinize Christian claims [as widely varied as they be within the "church".]
IF there are any Christian claims which you believe, which ones are they?.. and why do you take them as being true?
Than you know nothing. You have never answered a question that even you yourself has asked of others. One doesn't have to "know" beyond absolute scientific certainty the definitive answer to anything to have an opinion. Believe me, I already know you don't know. You simply type to be able to read what you just typed, and I would assume you talk to just hear yourself talk. Starman, you are a man without character and any distinguishable good traits that might have come across in any of your posts if you had been of high enough character to back up your rambling babble. You are an educated fool.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
Legit question. Examine the evidence available to you and then honestly seek an answer from God. But, check that answer with Scipture.... if it squares, continue on..... if it does not square, it is false and you may be hearing a satanic being or even an echo of your own mind.
For me, it Takes two witnesses..... One, internal from the Spirit and a confirming one from the Bible.
Oh and btw..... I know all about hearing an echo of my own desire. Paid the price for it as well.
Why the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedas, or Tripitaka?
Dogs and trees cant go to Heaven..Doesnt mean they cant be taken.
Does it say that in the Bible?
Iirc, it says its paradise. You want flat desert or dirt hills or rock mountains for your paradise?.
That makes it kind of subjective. What about those child molesting catholic priests that god failed to stop here on earth - I guess they get to continue their version of paradise in heaven too.
You think it would be Heaven or paradise if they were there?
Your fairy tale - you tell me
Besides, if god created earth and evil as a "first pass" test for admission to heaven, how to you know what his interpretation is of said "paradise"? Could it not be a "second stage" test to weed out the true believers from the "Clayton" ones? Feel free to consult the bible and get back once you've found the answer - we'll be waiting and looking forward to your response.
No. That's a lie. I guess you're guesser is off kilter again. I swear I didnt write a word of the Good News other than copy portions of it as a messenger or reporter. I never made a story of it.
Maybe it would help you to crack the book and see if I am the author.
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
Please enlighten me on your beliefs. I admit that I don't spend the time on this forum that a lot of you do and I have missed where you have posted your beliefs in a "greater force that man". If you would be so kind as to repost your thoughts on the subject again, it might provide the scratch to the itch that many such as myself and possibly other can't seem to quite reach. That's not really too much to ask is it?
Chucky,
Just because no theist to date's been able to provide sufficient evidence to their god claims, this in no way translates to "there's no greater power than man". That's an absurd logical fallacy know as a "false dichotomy". If someone wished to claim "there is no greater power than man in the Universe", that's it's own separate claim that must rise or fall on it's own body of evidence.
Let me ask you this. Are you so arrogant and filled with hubris to claim that if your god does not exist, that automatically means "Man is the greatest force is the Universe"? Really? That requires a level a hubris that I just don't have. Do other interstellar civilizations exist? They sure could. Are there any with "greater power" than ours? I don't know.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example:
A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
Antelopy, Forgive me for being late to the table in realizing that this thread had taken the jump from Possible Creator and Benevolent Protector of Mankind to little green men. Reminds me a little of the good old Gus days. Actually, I too believe that what ever transpired on this small rock called Earth could of very well happened on one of the other billions of planets in the universe. And if it did, what proof have you they are greater than Humankind at this point. Could they still be at the fungus or moss state that Humans evolved from according to Evolution? Are you too hubris in your opinions ( I had to Google that after you posted it) that you feel others should allow you and I to possibly believe in Martians without any proof what so ever they actually exists, except childhood lore and Hollywood movies, yet still deny jaguartx or antlers their believes in something with just as much physical evidence to support it's existence as our little green men have.
Chuck,
Let me help you out a bit and see if I can help you understand a different perspective.
One of the things you asked for if "proof". Generally, in these discussion I see someone asking for "proof" as a red herring. If you haven't followed many of these discussion, you may not have noticed that I never ask for "proof". I will ask for evidence, or good evidence, or sufficient evidence. Often times we don't have "proof", but claims supported with insufficient evidence, or evidence that something is "likely" or "probably" etc. Besides, since there's no real way to get around the problem of hard solipsism (you are just a brain in a vat, and all your experiences occur only within you brain) it can be argued that there is never really "proof" for anything, so it's best we talk in term of evidence that we can evaluate.
As for the existence of life beyond our planet, I consider it likely. We know it happened at least once, it's able to adapt to a surprising range of environments, and, excluding helium which is inert, we are made up of the most common elements in the universe one for one, in order of abundance.
Considering there's around 200 billion starts in the Milky way, and 200 galaxies just in the visible universe, and some number of planets and moons around each of those stars, that's a lot of dice to roll continuously over the billions of years since what we call the Big Bang (which was neither big, nor a bang). So do I think life outside our solar system is likely, yes. But do I know, no, I don't, and I'm ok with that. If there is life outside our solar system, we can build models of what, under certain circumstances, it might be likely to be like, but again, that's not the same thing as knowing.
Could there be life outside the solar system that's at the level of moss or bacteria. Yep, sure could be, or it could be highly advanced, living on the surface of a Dysan Sphere, or the moss could be the Dysan sphere, and more then we could possibly imagine in between these possibilities. I don't know. We don't know, and considering what we currently understand regarding the universal limit of causality, we may never know.
There's much we don't know, and I'm ok with accepting there are limits to our current knowledge. IME that's a common thematic difference between non-believers, and the hard core fundamentalist. Many fundamentalist have such a need to know they would rather blindly accept a fairly tale them accept the level of uncertainly and now knowing that comes with living in a world with scientific discovery.
You ask about what people should be "allowed to believe". It's a common trick for believer to ask as if engaging in an intellectual debate is "not allowing them to have their beliefs". I hope you would agree, that's absurd. Nobody's forced to join this forum, or clink on this thread. Everyone participating in this debate is doing so of their own free will (to the extent that freewill actually does or does not exist). The only force I've ever used to change someone's beliefs is the force of my reason. If your beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny, perhaps you should change them, but they should be changed because they fail to meet their burden of proof, not at the point of a gun. Of course there are exceptions to that. If you faith calls for child sacrifice, everyone drinking grape Kool Aid, or Sarin gas on the subways, then yes, your ideas need to be changed or eliminated with the proper application of firepower.
I can know what paradise means and it's obvious if the lion and lamb lay together there are animals there.
I can put 2 and 2 together as evidently some here are unable to do.
Your guesses and questions, being no better than starman s relegates your posts to ignore.
Why don't you appease yourself and do the same with mine.
Since the bible can't be taken literally, how do you really know what "paradise" is? Maybe the lions and lambs lie together until such time they can be slaughtered for a big feast. Isn't paradise going to be worship 24/7, I mean shouldn't you be eternally thankful for making it to heaven and showing the gratitude? The time for beer and skittles will have long passed.
.. how do you really know what "paradise" is? Maybe the lions and lambs lie together until such time they can be slaughtered.. .
I put 2 and 2 together and it's blindingly obvious!
Theres a Colosseum in paradise, the lambs are symbolic for christians chilling out with the lions till the games begin... but the Christians don't really die in the spectacle, due to immortality.
I can know what paradise means and it's obvious if the lion and lamb lay together there are animals there.
I can put 2 and 2 together as evidently some here are unable to do.
Your guesses and questions, being no better than starman s relegates your posts to ignore.
Why don't you appease yourself and do the same with mine.
Since the bible can't be taken literally, how do you really know what "paradise" is? Maybe the lions and lambs lie together until such time they can be slaughtered for a big feast. Isn't paradise going to be worship 24/7, I mean shouldn't you be eternally thankful for making it to heaven and showing the gratitude? The time for beer and skittles will have long passed.
But what about Valkyries?
What if my paradise involves tasting wine from the lips of, and eating skittles from the belly of this one:
antelope_sniper wrote “.......tasting wine from the lips of, and eating skittles from the belly of, this one:” Wherever THAT line is, I wanna get in it...!
Yes you nailed it, jX stopped taking his Lithium meds.
"Lithium compounds, also known as lithium salts, are primarily used as a psychiatric medication. It is primarily used to treat bipolar disorder and treat major depressive disorder that does not improve following the use of antidepressants."
. I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Where have I ever stated that No Form [of what you chose to call God ] exists?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I believe it is more about Starman and antelope sniper and others seeking validation from others that their believe in an absence of God justifies and validates their belief of no greater power than man in the universe,
Show me where I've asserted that there is not greater power than man in the universe.
That's just TFF. Enlighten my simpleton heart. Who or what is this "greater power than man" you both believe in?
So you can't demonstrate where I've made such an assertion, and have no idea what I really believe on the subject. Nice attempt at "straw-manning".
You are the one who believes in some god. Define your god and lets here your evidence.
Please enlighten me on your beliefs. I admit that I don't spend the time on this forum that a lot of you do and I have missed where you have posted your beliefs in a "greater force that man". If you would be so kind as to repost your thoughts on the subject again, it might provide the scratch to the itch that many such as myself and possibly other can't seem to quite reach. That's not really too much to ask is it?
Chucky,
Just because no theist to date's been able to provide sufficient evidence to their god claims, this in no way translates to "there's no greater power than man". That's an absurd logical fallacy know as a "false dichotomy". If someone wished to claim "there is no greater power than man in the Universe", that's it's own separate claim that must rise or fall on it's own body of evidence.
Let me ask you this. Are you so arrogant and filled with hubris to claim that if your god does not exist, that automatically means "Man is the greatest force is the Universe"? Really? That requires a level a hubris that I just don't have. Do other interstellar civilizations exist? They sure could. Are there any with "greater power" than ours? I don't know.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example:
A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
Antelopy, Forgive me for being late to the table in realizing that this thread had taken the jump from Possible Creator and Benevolent Protector of Mankind to little green men. Reminds me a little of the good old Gus days. Actually, I too believe that what ever transpired on this small rock called Earth could of very well happened on one of the other billions of planets in the universe. And if it did, what proof have you they are greater than Humankind at this point. Could they still be at the fungus or moss state that Humans evolved from according to Evolution? Are you too hubris in your opinions ( I had to Google that after you posted it) that you feel others should allow you and I to possibly believe in Martians without any proof what so ever they actually exists, except childhood lore and Hollywood movies, yet still deny jaguartx or antlers their believes in something with just as much physical evidence to support it's existence as our little green men have.
Chuck,
Let me help you out a bit and see if I can help you understand a different perspective.
One of the things you asked for if "proof". Generally, in these discussion I see someone asking for "proof" as a red herring. If you haven't followed many of these discussion, you may not have noticed that I never ask for "proof". I will ask for evidence, or good evidence, or sufficient evidence. Often times we don't have "proof", but claims supported with insufficient evidence, or evidence that something is "likely" or "probably" etc. Besides, since there's no real way to get around the problem of hard solipsism (you are just a brain in a vat, and all your experiences occur only within you brain) it can be argued that there is never really "proof" for anything, so it's best we talk in term of evidence that we can evaluate.
As for the existence of life beyond our planet, I consider it likely. We know it happened at least once, it's able to adapt to a surprising range of environments, and, excluding helium which is inert, we are made up of the most common elements in the universe one for one, in order of abundance.
Considering there's around 200 billion starts in the Milky way, and 200 galaxies just in the visible universe, and some number of planets and moons around each of those stars, that's a lot of dice to roll continuously over the billions of years since what we call the Big Bang (which was neither big, nor a bang). So do I think life outside our solar system is likely, yes. But do I know, no, I don't, and I'm ok with that. If there is life outside our solar system, we can build models of what, under certain circumstances, it might be likely to be like, but again, that's not the same thing as knowing.
Could there be life outside the solar system that's at the level of moss or bacteria. Yep, sure could be, or it could be highly advanced, living on the surface of a Dysan Sphere, or the moss could be the Dysan sphere, and more then we could possibly imagine in between these possibilities. I don't know. We don't know, and considering what we currently understand regarding the universal limit of causality, we may never know.
There's much we don't know, and I'm ok with accepting there are limits to our current knowledge. IME that's a common thematic difference between non-believers, and the hard core fundamentalist. Many fundamentalist have such a need to know they would rather blindly accept a fairly tale them accept the level of uncertainly and now knowing that comes with living in a world with scientific discovery.
You ask about what people should be "allowed to believe". It's a common trick for believer to ask as if engaging in an intellectual debate is "not allowing them to have their beliefs". I hope you would agree, that's absurd. Nobody's forced to join this forum, or clink on this thread. Everyone participating in this debate is doing so of their own free will (to the extent that freewill actually does or does not exist). The only force I've ever used to change someone's beliefs is the force of my reason. If your beliefs cannot withstand scrutiny, perhaps you should change them, but they should be changed because they fail to meet their burden of proof, not at the point of a gun. Of course there are exceptions to that. If you faith calls for child sacrifice, everyone drinking grape Kool Aid, or Sarin gas on the subways, then yes, your ideas need to be changed or eliminated with the proper application of firepower.
The two words are completely interchangeable. They have virtually the same exact meaning. If you have asked for evidence, you have asked for proof. The very definition of proof is evidence. Your long winded explanation holds no water. To be honest, your post borders on ramblings. You need to learn to get to the point while you still have your reader's interest at hand, if you are indeed writing these post for the interest of others and not yourself.
Dictionary
proof /pro͞of/
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Dictionary evidence /ˈevədəns/
noun the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Curious, did we ever find all of those missing links (water to land, ape to human, reptile to bird, etc)?
Oh, my gosh, yes. Long ago. For you not to know this tells me you've been entirely incurious about the subject. Just watch the series I posted episode one of earlier in this thread. It will take you one afternoon to watch all of them. Each installment is less than ten minutes.
Here, I'll post it again:
This atheist activist clown ran for the Texas state senate a few years ago (unsuccessfully). He is so hung up on evolution that his name has now evolved to just Aron Ra.
It's not about the man himself but the case for evolution that's being presented. Ra presents a very good case for evolution, but it doesn't depend on him or what he says. The information he presents is readily available in textbooks, online, libraries, schools, universities.....
Closing your mind to logical debate is a safe tactic to adopt.
2 Peter 2:22, the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” In His sermon, Jesus uses dogs and pigs as representative of those who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it is presented to them. We are not to expose the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have no other purpose than to trample it and return to their own evil ways. Repeatedly sharing the gospel with someone who continually scoffs and ridicules Christ is like casting pearls before swine. We can identify such people through discernment, which is given in some measure to all Christians (1 Corinthians 2:15–16).
We are responsible to share the good news; we are not responsible for people’s response to the good news. Pigs don’t appreciate pearls, and some people don’t appreciate what Christ has done for them. Our job is not to force conversions or cram the gospel down people’s throats; there’s no sense in preaching the value of pearls to swine. Jesus’ instruction to His apostles on how to handle rejection was to simply go elsewhere. There are other people who need to hear the gospel, and they are ready to hear it.
And why would I answer my questions put to others ? 🤔..
You honestly don't know do you?
It's a concept called "Integrity"
I dont believe that me answering questions I put to other people is a show of integrity.
Question for You,
Do you have any christian beliefs that you believe to be true rather than Myth?
You don't want to answer that... So you would prefer I answer it on your behalf?
I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic Family. I went to a Catholic school and church every Sunday. As a kid, I believed what I was told to believe. As I got older, I didn't remember there being a Pope when Jesus walked the Earth. I began to doubt the policy (politics) of the church as "gospel" and started to gravitate to a sense of treating others as I would want to be treated and listening to that little voice in the back of my mind as my path of guidance to true parity with myself and others. I harbor no ill content to those who feel they need to adhere to a more traditional faith and strict church doctrine, in fact I admire them for their ability to adhere to such a structured way of faith in their lives. I tend to more closely associate my religious beliefs the same way Renegade50 so eloquently stated earlier in this post. Sometimes I wonder how a Loving God would allow a child to be strictin in some life changing illness and at other times I marvel at the sight of a mother's loving embrace of her child and know this had to be more than mere pond scum that got us here. I question these things nearly on a daily pattern. I would not expect a fool such as yourself to answer these questions for me. I would only ask you to answer the same question now that I am asking of you that you just asked of me and I answered.
Closing your mind to logical debate is a safe tactic to adopt.
2 Peter 2:22, the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” In His sermon, Jesus uses dogs and pigs as representative of those who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it is presented to them. We are not to expose the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have no other purpose than to trample it and return to their own evil ways. Repeatedly sharing the gospel with someone who continually scoffs and ridicules Christ is like casting pearls before swine. We can identify such people through discernment, which is given in some measure to all Christians (1 Corinthians 2:15–16).
We are responsible to share the good news; we are not responsible for people’s response to the good news. Pigs don’t appreciate pearls, and some people don’t appreciate what Christ has done for them. Our job is not to force conversions or cram the gospel down people’s throats; there’s no sense in preaching the value of pearls to swine. Jesus’ instruction to His apostles on how to handle rejection was to simply go elsewhere. There are other people who need to hear the gospel, and they are ready to hear it.
You're quoting from fictional material, but I appreciate your intended insults. Christians lash out with derogatory statements, threats and condescending statements, I'm not sure why but like I said earlier anger is more productive than despair. If you feel good about ignoring facts and logic and comparing your fellow man to swine, power to you.
As for the existence of life beyond our planet, I consider it likely. We know it happened at least once, it's able to adapt to a surprising range of environments, and, excluding helium which is inert, we are made up of the most common elements in the universe one for one, in order of abundance.
Considering there's around 200 billion starts in the Milky way, and 200 galaxies just in the visible universe, and some number of planets and moons around each of those stars, that's a lot of dice to roll continuously over the billions of years since what we call the Big Bang (which was neither big, nor a bang). So do I think life outside our solar system is likely, yes. But do I know, no, I don't, and I'm ok with that. If there is life outside our solar system, we can build models of what, under certain circumstances, it might be likely to be like, but again, that's not the same thing as knowing.
Could there be life outside the solar system that's at the level of moss or bacteria. Yep, sure could be, or it could be highly advanced, living on the surface of a Dysan Sphere, or the moss could be the Dysan sphere, and more then we could possibly imagine in between these possibilities. I don't know. We don't know, and considering what we currently understand regarding the universal limit of causality, we may never know.
There's much we don't know, and I'm ok with accepting there are limits to our current knowledge. IME that's a common thematic difference between non-believers, and the hard core fundamentalist. Many fundamentalist have such a need to know they would rather blindly accept a fairly tale them accept the level of uncertainly and now knowing that comes with living in a world with scientific discovery.
Very well stated. And very close to my own conclusions. In the billions of years since the big bang, billions of life filled planets could have come and gone, and billions more will very likely come and go after humans have gone extinct. And any number of those planets might have or maybe will generate "intelligent life". Some of that intelligent life might gain scientific knowledge enough that we could well be convinced they are gods, just as the ancient cave peoples of ten thousand years ago would believe we are gods due to our technological tricks.
I know not what greater forces than man might exist in the Universe. But due the insurmountable reaches of space and TIME in our Universe, I firmly believe we shall never meet them.
Beyond what I believe, I know for a fact! There is no scribe in the sky recording MY every act and thought. There is nothing nor anyone who cares for what happens when my EEG goes flat. I know there is absolutely no existence after brain activity stops. Our "soul" is the sum of electrical impulses, chemistry, genetics, and learning. From dust we arise, and surely to dust shall we return.
And I am comfortable with this knowledge. I am experiencing heaven right here and now. 40 hour weeks, all the food I can eat, a warm dry bed, a wonderful wife to share my bed, a safe full of guns, a yard full of kids and grandkids, a nice boat in the yard, full of fishing poles and tackle, mountains nearby with deer and elk, lakes nearby full of fish. The assurance of a well funded retirement just around the corner.
What more could a man dream of?
I need no promise of Paradise, nor threat of Hell to force morality upon me. I know right from wrong. I know what actions would bring harm and unhappiness to my loved ones or the community.
If promises and threats is what it takes to keep you on the "Straight and Narrow". So be it. You have my blessing. Just don't expect that every man has the same needs as you, and I will not expect that you should live without your mythology.
So you asked the question, and you were not really interested in the answer.
Good to know.
You probably won't listen but for those who care to, there's a more nuanced difference between proof and evidence.
"Proof", is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument to establish the truth of a proposition
Where evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Evidence can be of different qualities, and depending on the nature you of the question you may have different burdens of proof. Poor evidence may not meet a high burden of proof, so as is often the case with English, words with similar usages are often not really the same.
Of course the overall question in this thread revolves around the existence of a god(s), which is an extraordinary claim, so, in order to meet it's burden of proof the claimant would need to provide extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see anyone present good evidence, let a lone extraordinary evidence for any theistic claims.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
Legit question. Examine the evidence available to you and then honestly seek an answer from God. But, check that answer with Scipture.... if it squares, continue on..... if it does not square, it is false and you may be hearing a satanic being or even an echo of your own mind.
For me, it Takes two witnesses..... One, internal from the Spirit and a confirming one from the Bible.
Oh and btw..... I know all about hearing an echo of my own desire. Paid the price for it as well.
Why the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedas, or Tripitaka?
Well, we have been over this before. Complex subject I suppose, but this is the ‘Fire and twitter commo rules seem to apply. You may want to do an internet search of how to find Jesus..... or encountering God. It would be worthwhile as there are key verses that add depth to my words.
To start with, it seems to me that God deals with us as individuals. Honest seekers get their own “individual pathway” to God......My experience will not be your experience and vice versa. And while our relative experiences and timetables may be different, there does seem to a commonality of experience. Makes sense as we are all different from one another but God,is still God as he presents Himself to us.
So, here are some thoughts....God will be found by the honest seeker. There will be a call to the inner man and a way of knowing. I have ... at times...been “unsettled” in my soul and later realized God was nudging, warning, encouraging a specific action etc God speaking to me in my spirit if you will. It has been referred to it as the “inner man.” As, I said previously, some care must be taken to be sure it is God doing the talking. Seeking God and recognizing His reply seems simple, but often we let our own issues, sin and desire get in the way and our “spiritual ears” don’t hear. But, God is patient and He loves us and so will deal with us according to His love and keeping our weaknesses in mind. Thank God for that!
Keys are honest seeking....,ask God to reveal Himself.... and ardent listening. Then an honest response to God.
But what about the other religions? They are false and may lead men astray. The honest seeker will recognize their emptiness.
One great difference is it seems to be that all other religions teach one how to be more pleasing to God, or to this or do that so that one will found worthy. Short version.... salvation is dependent upon the individual working to become “good enough” for God.....you work to make yourself worthy of entering into some deity’s presence or achieve some higher level.
Christianity is completely different. There is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, it is a gift.... from God to you. Seek, listen with the ears of the inner man....see yourself honestly as you stand before God... humble yourself, ask and thank Him. Christianity is unique in this. God, by His blood and sacrifice.... makes you holy.
Now there will be some that say “well, you had to ask for salvation and forgiveness, so isn’t that the same as working for one’s acceptance from god?” The answer is no it is not. God offers a gift, you just reach out and accept it. Recognize God for who He is and see yourself as you really are.
Remember, this is not a mental exercise.... it is not an “intellectual” endeavor. The Pharisees were “....wise in their own eyes....”. They were haughty, proud and self righteous. Not honest seekers. Likely did not turn out well for those that cherished those ideas about themselves.
So you asked the question, and you were not really interested in the answer.
Good to know.
You probably won't listen but for those who care to, there's a more nuanced difference between proof and evidence.
"Proof", is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument to establish the truth of a proposition
Where evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Evidence can be of different qualities, and depending on the nature you of the question you may have different burdens of proof. Poor evidence may not meet a high burden of proof, so as is often the case with English, words with similar usages are often not really the same.
Of course the overall question in this thread revolves around the existence of a god(s), which is an extraordinary claim, so, in order to meet it's burden of proof the claimant would need to provide extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see anyone present good evidence, let a lone extraordinary evidence for any theistic claims.
Antolopy,
I've got to be honest, after about the third paragraph I lost interest. One could hash each others definitions out to death if you chose to. Everyone chooses to copy and paste the one that more closely entaintains their own argument, myself included. In your own words, "I have yet to see anyone present good evidence, let a lone extraordinary evidence" of your greater presence than man you mentioned earlier either.
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
Very well said, I do know of which you speak..... However I have had a hard time associating that I have rudimentary explored.... My personal experience with the bible is fraught with frustration trying to interpret, so therefore I distrust it what was written.... And I do not trust most organized religion. Some much wrong has been committed under the guise of religion that it is suspect. Self exam is my path.... And I need correction frequently..... there is something more than just the nerve endings in our asses that we seek to satisfy. As humans are a greedy selfish lot. And anyone that buys into a guaranteed afterlife is kidding themselves and a fakir. Is the promise of a afterlife the only thing that establishes one morals....?
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
Legit question. Examine the evidence available to you and then honestly seek an answer from God. But, check that answer with Scipture.... if it squares, continue on..... if it does not square, it is false and you may be hearing a satanic being or even an echo of your own mind.
For me, it Takes two witnesses..... One, internal from the Spirit and a confirming one from the Bible.
Oh and btw..... I know all about hearing an echo of my own desire. Paid the price for it as well.
Why the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedas, or Tripitaka?
Well, we have been over this before. Complex subject I suppose, but this is the ‘Fire and twitter commo rules seem to apply. You may want to do an internet search of how to find Jesus..... or encountering God. It would be worthwhile as there are key verses that add depth to my words.
To start with, it seems to me that God deals with us as individuals. Honest seekers get their own “individual pathway” to God......My experience will not be your experience and vice versa. And while our relative experiences and timetables may be different, there does seem to a commonality of experience. Makes sense as we are all different from one another but God,is still God as he presents Himself to us.
So, here are some thoughts....God will be found by the honest seeker. There will be a call to the inner man and a way of knowing. I have ... at times...been “unsettled” in my soul and later realized God was nudging, warning, encouraging a specific action etc God speaking to me in my spirit if you will. It has been referred to it as the “inner man.” As, I said previously, some care must be taken to be sure it is God doing the talking. Seeking God and recognizing His reply seems simple, but often we let our own issues, sin and desire get in the way and our “spiritual ears” don’t hear. But, God is patient and He loves us and so will deal with us according to His love and keeping our weaknesses in mind. Thank God for that!
Keys are honest seeking....,ask God to reveal Himself.... and ardent listening. Then an honest response to God.
But what about the other religions? They are false and may lead men astray. The honest seeker will recognize their emptiness.
One great difference is it seems to be that all other religions teach one how to be more pleasing to God, or to this or do that so that one will found worthy. Short version.... salvation is dependent upon the individual working to become “good enough” for God.....you work to make yourself worthy of entering into some deity’s presence or achieve some higher level.
Christianity is completely different. There is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, it is a gift.... from God to you. Seek, listen with the ears of the inner man....see yourself honestly as you stand before God... humble yourself, ask and thank Him. Christianity is unique in this. God, by His blood and sacrifice.... makes you holy.
Now there will be some that say “well, you had to ask for salvation and forgiveness, so isn’t that the same as working for one’s acceptance from god?” The answer is no it is not. God offers a gift, you just reach out and accept it. Recognize God for who He is and see yourself as you really are.
Remember, this is not a mental exercise.... it is not an “intellectual” endeavor. The Pharisees were “....wise in their own eyes....”. They were haughty, proud and self righteous. Not honest seekers. Likely did not turn out well for those that cherished those ideas about themselves.
Got the exact same answer from a Muslim once. You 100% sure you got the right religion? We all make mistakes don't we?
A thought about the religions. I read a book by an Egyptian who was second in a class of 6,000 in the Cairo University. He was an Imam by the time he was twenty-five. He continued his studies an earned a doctorate in World Religions. I doubt if many, maybe none, on this sight have more education than him in this field. When the dust settled he became an ardent follower of Jesus Christ!
As to working for the gift of God's Son.... Some of us were given cars when we turned sixteen. If we wished to appropriate the car we had to receive the keys, insert them into the ignition, twist the ignition switch, put it into gear and give it some throttle to go. How much were we doing to earn the gift?
And why would I answer my questions put to others ? 🤔..
You honestly don't know do you?
It's a concept called "Integrity"
I dont believe that me answering questions I put to other people is a show of integrity.
Question for You,
Do you have any christian beliefs that you believe to be true rather than Myth?
You don't want to answer that... So you would prefer I answer it on your behalf?
I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic Family. I went to a Catholic school and church every Sunday. As a kid, I believed what I was told to believe. As I got older, I didn't remember there being a Pope when Jesus walked the Earth. I began to doubt the policy (politics) of the church as "gospel" and started to gravitate to a sense of treating others as I would want to be treated and listening to that little voice in the back of my mind as my path of guidance to true parity with myself and others. I harbor no ill content to those who feel they need to adhere to a more traditional faith and strict church doctrine, in fact I admire them for their ability to adhere to such a structured way of faith in their lives. I tend to more closely associate my religious beliefs the same way Renegade50 so eloquently stated earlier in this post. Sometimes I wonder how a Loving God would allow a child to be strictin in some life changing illness and at other times I marvel at the sight of a mother's loving embrace of her child and know this had to be more than mere pond scum that got us here. I question these things nearly on a daily pattern. I would not expect a fool such as yourself to answer these questions for me. I would only ask you to answer the same question now that I am asking of you that you just asked of me and I answered.
How is that part about treating others as you want to be treated working out for you...?
As for the existence of life beyond our planet, I consider it likely. We know it happened at least once, it's able to adapt to a surprising range of environments, and, excluding helium which is inert, we are made up of the most common elements in the universe one for one, in order of abundance.
Considering there's around 200 billion starts in the Milky way, and 200 galaxies just in the visible universe, and some number of planets and moons around each of those stars, that's a lot of dice to roll continuously over the billions of years since what we call the Big Bang (which was neither big, nor a bang). So do I think life outside our solar system is likely, yes. But do I know, no, I don't, and I'm ok with that. If there is life outside our solar system, we can build models of what, under certain circumstances, it might be likely to be like, but again, that's not the same thing as knowing.
Could there be life outside the solar system that's at the level of moss or bacteria. Yep, sure could be, or it could be highly advanced, living on the surface of a Dysan Sphere, or the moss could be the Dysan sphere, and more then we could possibly imagine in between these possibilities. I don't know. We don't know, and considering what we currently understand regarding the universal limit of causality, we may never know.
There's much we don't know, and I'm ok with accepting there are limits to our current knowledge. IME that's a common thematic difference between non-believers, and the hard core fundamentalist. Many fundamentalist have such a need to know they would rather blindly accept a fairly tale them accept the level of uncertainly and now knowing that comes with living in a world with scientific discovery.
Very well stated. And very close to my own conclusions. In the billions of years since the big bang, billions of life filled planets could have come and gone, and billions more will very likely come and go after humans have gone extinct. And any number of those planets might have or maybe will generate "intelligent life". Some of that intelligent life might gain scientific knowledge enough that we could well be convinced they are gods, just as the ancient cave peoples of ten thousand years ago would believe we are gods due to our technological tricks.
I know not what greater forces than man might exist in the Universe. But due the insurmountable reaches of space and TIME in our Universe, I firmly believe we shall never meet them.
Beyond what I believe, I know for a fact! There is no scribe in the sky recording MY every act and thought. There is nothing nor anyone who cares for what happens when my EEG goes flat. I know there is absolutely no existence after brain activity stops. Our "soul" is the sum of electrical impulses, chemistry, genetics, and learning. From dust we arise, and surely to dust shall we return.
And I am comfortable with this knowledge. I am experiencing heaven right here and now. 40 hour weeks, all the food I can eat, a warm dry bed, a wonderful wife to share my bed, a safe full of guns, a yard full of kids and grandkids, a nice boat in the yard, full of fishing poles and tackle, mountains nearby with deer and elk, lakes nearby full of fish. The assurance of a well funded retirement just around the corner.
What more could a man dream of?
I need no promise of Paradise, nor threat of Hell to force morality upon me. I know right from wrong. I know what actions would bring harm and unhappiness to my loved ones or the community.
If promises and threats is what it takes to keep you on the "Straight and Narrow". So be it. You have my blessing. Just don't expect that every man has the same needs as you, and I will not expect that you should live without your mythology.
That is a mouthful of how it is and how man should think..... !
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
What about the Faith of the Muslims, or Hindus, or Shinto's, Buddhist, or Ásatruar. If Faith is a pathway to truth, who can you claim yours is true and theirs is not. Since these faiths are mutually exclusive, how do you tell which one is true?
Legit question. Examine the evidence available to you and then honestly seek an answer from God. But, check that answer with Scipture.... if it squares, continue on..... if it does not square, it is false and you may be hearing a satanic being or even an echo of your own mind.
For me, it Takes two witnesses..... One, internal from the Spirit and a confirming one from the Bible.
Oh and btw..... I know all about hearing an echo of my own desire. Paid the price for it as well.
Why the Bible and not the Koran or the Vedas, or Tripitaka?
Well, we have been over this before. Complex subject I suppose, but this is the ‘Fire and twitter commo rules seem to apply. You may want to do an internet search of how to find Jesus..... or encountering God. It would be worthwhile as there are key verses that add depth to my words.
To start with, it seems to me that God deals with us as individuals. Honest seekers get their own “individual pathway” to God......My experience will not be your experience and vice versa. And while our relative experiences and timetables may be different, there does seem to a commonality of experience. Makes sense as we are all different from one another but God,is still God as he presents Himself to us.
So, here are some thoughts....God will be found by the honest seeker. There will be a call to the inner man and a way of knowing. I have ... at times...been “unsettled” in my soul and later realized God was nudging, warning, encouraging a specific action etc God speaking to me in my spirit if you will. It has been referred to it as the “inner man.” As, I said previously, some care must be taken to be sure it is God doing the talking. Seeking God and recognizing His reply seems simple, but often we let our own issues, sin and desire get in the way and our “spiritual ears” don’t hear. But, God is patient and He loves us and so will deal with us according to His love and keeping our weaknesses in mind. Thank God for that!
Keys are honest seeking....,ask God to reveal Himself.... and ardent listening. Then an honest response to God.
But what about the other religions? They are false and may lead men astray. The honest seeker will recognize their emptiness.
One great difference is it seems to be that all other religions teach one how to be more pleasing to God, or to this or do that so that one will found worthy. Short version.... salvation is dependent upon the individual working to become “good enough” for God.....you work to make yourself worthy of entering into some deity’s presence or achieve some higher level.
Christianity is completely different. There is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, it is a gift.... from God to you. Seek, listen with the ears of the inner man....see yourself honestly as you stand before God... humble yourself, ask and thank Him. Christianity is unique in this. God, by His blood and sacrifice.... makes you holy.
Now there will be some that say “well, you had to ask for salvation and forgiveness, so isn’t that the same as working for one’s acceptance from god?” The answer is no it is not. God offers a gift, you just reach out and accept it. Recognize God for who He is and see yourself as you really are.
Remember, this is not a mental exercise.... it is not an “intellectual” endeavor. The Pharisees were “....wise in their own eyes....”. They were haughty, proud and self righteous. Not honest seekers. Likely did not turn out well for those that cherished those ideas about themselves.
Got the exact same answer from a Muslim once. You 100% sure you got the right religion? We all make mistakes don't we?
And why would I answer my questions put to others ? 🤔..
You honestly don't know do you?
It's a concept called "Integrity"
I dont believe that me answering questions I put to other people is a show of integrity.
Question for You,
Do you have any christian beliefs that you believe to be true rather than Myth?
You don't want to answer that... So you would prefer I answer it on your behalf?
I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic Family. I went to a Catholic school and church every Sunday. As a kid, I believed what I was told to believe. As I got older, I didn't remember there being a Pope when Jesus walked the Earth. I began to doubt the policy (politics) of the church as "gospel" and started to gravitate to a sense of treating others as I would want to be treated and listening to that little voice in the back of my mind as my path of guidance to true parity with myself and others. I harbor no ill content to those who feel they need to adhere to a more traditional faith and strict church doctrine, in fact I admire them for their ability to adhere to such a structured way of faith in their lives. I tend to more closely associate my religious beliefs the same way Renegade50 so eloquently stated earlier in this post. Sometimes I wonder how a Loving God would allow a child to be strictin in some life changing illness and at other times I marvel at the sight of a mother's loving embrace of her child and know this had to be more than mere pond scum that got us here. I question these things nearly on a daily pattern. I would not expect a fool such as yourself to answer these questions for me. I would only ask you to answer the same question now that I am asking of you that you just asked of me and I answered.
How is that part about treating others as you want to be treated working out for you...?
I doubt you actually know any more about the "Law" than you do of anything else.
Its your perogative to doubt what ever you choose. of course a Law dictionary could dispell your doubt.
You havent actually detailed what christian text book beliefs you hold as true in your long winded response.. = still avoiding the question.
All your responses are just attempts to grind your axe, like you usually do.
If you had actually read my post before you asked this, you would see I don't place a great deal of value in any written christian text books as you describe.You would have also seen I placed the same question to you that you asked of me, and as usual you have ability to answer.
Reagan didnt lie, and I remember him correcting Ssm Donaldson saying, your folks may have come from monkeys, but mine didnt.
What would make Reagan right and the vast majority of the worlds scientists wrong?
Matthew 7:13-14 New International Version The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
If you had actually read my post before you asked this, you would see I don't place a great deal of value in any written christian text books as you describe.
I have not seen you say that before, nor directly say that you doubt anything [or everything] in Bible.
Originally Posted by ChuckKY
I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic Family...... I began to doubt the policy (politics) of the church as "gospel"..
Doubting catholic politics I don't deem as doubting actual word of God scripture.
Do you believe the Bible is myth or True actual events?
People are sure jumping ship and swimming away from religion at an attention getting rate nowadays. Christianity especially. But I don’t think it’s because atheism is so appealing. I think it’s more likely because religion has lost its appeal. People once thought religion offered solutions. Nowadays, it appears that many people see it as a problem. I can’t blame em’ for it. There’s sure a lotta hate spewed at em’ in the name of God. It clearly is unattractive to those who are on the receiving end of it. Grace is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith...but it seems to very often be sorely lacking by many who profess to be Christians. The faith of Christianity is certainly more appealing when the message of grace is most apparent.
What’s this got to do with evolution...? Not a flippin’ thing...! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are many things in the Universe beyond our control. Here's a simple example: A single gamma ray burst too close to the earth and we are DONE, and there's nothing all of humanity could do about it.
They could pray to their god(s) to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place . . .
Originally Posted by johnn
Why would a loving god condemn a man of low intelligence because he didnt have faith?
Because modern Christianity is about control and power.
Note to johnn:
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.” They are however, thought to be “wise.”
Further, I have heard some say that a man who thinks himself to be “smart” is at a disadvantage when it come to salvation as his pride and ego get in the way. Maybe one would rather be dumb and humble than smart and prideful.
Quite a few teachings on this in the Bible.
Btw.... one does not have to understand how the earth was formed, created or what it is destined for to be saved. It’s a heart matter.... honest seeking, repentant, placing oneself before Jesus.... and asking.
See justified tax collector or thief on the cross.
Very well said, I do know of which you speak..... However I have had a hard time associating that I have rudimentary explored.... My personal experience with the bible is fraught with frustration trying to interpret, so therefore I distrust it what was written.... And I do not trust most organized religion. Some much wrong has been committed under the guise of religion that it is suspect. Self exam is my path.... And I need correction frequently..... there is something more than just the nerve endings in our asses that we seek to satisfy. As humans are a greedy selfish lot. And anyone that buys into a guaranteed afterlife is kidding themselves and a fakir. Is the promise of a afterlife the only thing that establishes one morals....?
I see some of the “hard time” issues. Frustrating and disappointing to be sure.
But, it does seem like you are working it out.
Maybe, as a suggestion, just forget others and the past ...... and just ponder about you and God. Just you two. Forget the rest of the world for awhile. I try to set aside some time each day..... sometimes I just think about myself, sometimes I ask God questions....Often I pray, for myself and for others...... sometimes I read the Bible....
sometimes I just sit and listen, let my thoughts drift.
I have a great blessing. Almost every morning, I go outside on the patio and sit in a rocking chair. I have that time you refer to. My wife accuses me of wasting time but I tell her I am not. I sit and watch over a little acreage and a creek we have. I set a rifle on the table next to me and “hunt coyotes” for a couple of hours.
Atheism is about control and power. Don't believe it? Look at Dem party. The truth is that a nation of believers requires far less government than a nation of unbelievers who are unrestrained by any moral code. This point was made repeatedly by the Founders.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
IN regards to power and control, pagans didnt force their religious beliefs onto others, or go to war over religious differences.
Those distanced cultures mentioned adopted each others dieties or made their own version of the same , or made new hybrid mix version dieties from the selection of their own and those introduced to them by other pagan cultures... It was largely a case of seeing Merit in other New dieties and the more gods the merrier approach.
Faith is not a matter intellect, but a matter of “the heart.” One does not have to be “intelligent” to develop a relationship with Jesus. I personally know some very fine Christian men that would not be thought of as “intelligent.”
INTELLECT and INTELLIGENCE should not be bundled together as being the same thing... Folks who dont know the difference best educate themselves.
Nor should intelligence be separated from matters of the heart.
Proverbs 18:15 "An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."
Is not your God then deemed a source of intelligence.?
Reagan didnt lie, and I remember him correcting Ssm Donaldson saying, your folks may have come from monkeys, but mine didnt.
What would make Reagan right and the vast majority of the worlds scientists wrong?
Matthew 7:13-14 New International Version The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Quotes from the bible can't be compared to fossil, geological strata, genetic and molecular evidence.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Syria, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
I have a hard time believing that. The priests of Zeuss never had a conflict with those of Apollo, or Mars, or Diana, or Athena etc, etc, over the best temple site or competed for accolytes????
Even the remaining mythology is full of competitions and outright battles between the gods of Greece/Rome.
We are well aware of battles fought and human sacrifice made to the gods of the S American indigenous peoples.
Polynesian cultures were also big on human sacrifice and yes, even cannibalism.
Those ancient Romans did not seem to be so friendly to the Judeo/Christian traditions when people started abandoning the old Roman Temples en masse and flocking to a new tradition. Hungry priests get vengeful and call upon all the power of civil authority.
Even the Crusades had little to do with religious conversions and much more to do with wealth, trade routes, and protection thereof. The wholesale slaughter of the peoples of South and Central America, and the catholicization of the remainder was much more to ensure a steady supply of labor for the Spanish Crown and income to The Church, than it was about the saving of souls.
People are sure jumping ship and swimming away from religion at an attention getting rate nowadays. Christianity especially. But I don’t think it’s because atheism is so appealing. I think it’s more likely because religion has lost its appeal. People once thought religion offered solutions. Nowadays, it appears that many people see it as a problem. I can’t blame em’ for it. There’s sure a lotta hate spewed at em’ in the name of God. It clearly is unattractive to those who are on the receiving end of it. Grace is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith...but it seems to very often be sorely lacking by many who profess to be Christians. The faith of Christianity is certainly more appealing when the message of grace is most apparent.
What’s this got to do with evolution...? Not a flippin’ thing...! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
DBT, I can't help notice: you're very quick to attack anything theistic, but I've not once heard you speak out against the virulent racism that is so prevalent on this board. Not once. What's the problem, no testicles or are you in sympatico with the racists here?
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
It is a function of enlightenment, but at the same time becoming enlightened seems also to mean becoming benighted. I mean, materialism, which is the default metaphysical belief of the cognoscenti today is so obviously self-refuting that one has to be willfully blind not to see it and how many of societies leading intellectuals are Marxists when marxism is such an obvious failure. So there is something more an work, a rebellion against God, or perhaps a hatred of the very possibility of the divine. I don't know. Just musing. As far as decreased family size, yes, that is a natural by-product of industrialization and the move away from agriculture which required larger families and of course technological advances in birth control.
. Those ancient Romans did not seem to be so friendly to the Judeo/Christian traditions when people started abandoning the old Roman Temples en masse and flocking to a new tradition.
Ive pointed out on this board before that Rome took exception to Druids and christians, and reason is given. as far as other pagan dieties go, they were accepting, nor did Rome interfere with Hebrews having their own beliefs and laws.
And only a couple roman Emperors had a serious thing against Christians going.
How many Christians were actually thrown to the lions? does anyone have a reliable total?.. and provide a timeline of when the practice first started and finally ended.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Starman
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Syria, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
I have a hard time believing that...
Scholarly books on the Romans I've read often cover the specific subject of religion, because of all the territories they conquered with broad range of dieties outside their own.
How much have you studied on such?
Rome recruited many soldiers from across the spance of the empire, and they permitted such foreign recruits to maintain their personal dieties. When Rome conquered people of different cultures they didnt deny them having their own dieties.
Rome's strategy and objective wasn't to impose everything Roman onto people across its empire.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
And yet, as we me make our transition from one nation under God to that of leftist secular enlightenment, the corruption, violence, general disrespect of fellow citizens and destruction of our society escalates.
The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
And yet, as we me make our transition from one nation under God to that of leftist secular enlightenment, the corruption, violence, general disrespect of fellow citizens and destruction of our society escalates.
Atheism is neither leftist or rightist. Hitler was a Catholic. Ivan the terrible spent his mornings in the Chapel and his afternoons dismembering and flaying victims in his dungeon. People act the way they do for a host of reasons. A right winger can be an atheist or a theist. A Left winger can be a theist or an atheist. In principle atheism has nothing to with politics, so any relationship is incidental....a right wing government can be secular or theistic, as with the left.
Hitler was a Catholic. Ivan the terrible spent his mornings in the Chapel and his afternoons dismembering and flaying victims in his dungeon.
Neither the title of “Catholic”, the attendance of chapel, or the broad stroke term “religion” is what Christianity is about. I understand the point you’re attempting to make, but it just muddies the waters. They are irrelevant with our country’s shift to secularism and the fact that the timeframe in which it becomes more pronounced is the same exact timeframe we increasingly become what is often described as a Godless society. The characteristics I described in my last post could be sheer coincidence and I can’t provide the missing link, but, apparently, missing links are of little value to the highly educated. If we can “just believe” one exists between ape and man, can we just believe one exists between Godlessness and a deteriorating society.....or is a PhD required to qualify our leaps of faith?
DBT, I can't help notice: you're very quick to attack anything theistic, but I've not once heard you speak out against the virulent racism that is so prevalent on this board. Not once. What's the problem, no testicles or are you in sympatico with the racists here?
I'm attacking nothing. Questioning beliefs and assumptions is neither an attack or something negative. It should be standard practice. A positive thing. A way of sorting fact from fiction.
Hitler was a Catholic. Ivan the terrible spent his mornings in the Chapel and his afternoons dismembering and flaying victims in his dungeon.
Neither the title of “Catholic”, the attendance of chapel, or the broad stroke term “religion” is what Christianity is about. I understand the point you’re attempting to make, but it just muddies the waters. They are irrelevant with our country’s shift to secularism and the fact that the timeframe in which it becomes more pronounced is the same exact timeframe we increasingly become what is often described as a Godless society. The characteristics I described in my last post could be sheer coincidence and I can’t provide the missing link, but, apparently, missing links are of little value to the highly educated. If we can “just believe” one exists between ape and man, can we just believe one exists between Godlessness and a deteriorating society.....or is a PhD required to qualify our leaps of faith?
Religion is defined by belief. If someone believes in the existence of a God or gods, they are by definition a theist. That someone believes in a different version of God does not make them any less a theist.
Religion is defined by belief. If someone believes in the existence of a God or gods, they are by definition a theist. That someone believes in a different version of God does not make them any less a theist.
Philosophical and impressive, although appearingly focused upon and written in avoidance of the issue of our society’s decay coinciding with the increased rejection of God.
Any thoughts pertaining directly to that? Perhaps we should call it a coincidence before going down another rabbit hole?
DBT, I can't help notice: you're very quick to attack anything theistic, but I've not once heard you speak out against the virulent racism that is so prevalent on this board. Not once. What's the problem, no testicles or are you in sympatico with the racists here?
Not to hijack the thread, but the definition of racist is someone who beleves ALL members of another race are infrerior to ALL members of one's own race.
I don't think anyone here believes that.
But anyone who doesn't understand that Negroes, when in groups, are hazardous to one's health, is simply crazy. Even Jesse Jackson said that.
Racial discrimination could be eliminated overnight if the Negroes would just stop committing crimes. Can they? Recent evengts seem to dictate otherwise. You are going to see a mass exodus from the big blue cities. Common sense is not racism.
The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
And yet, as we me make our transition from one nation under God to that of leftist secular enlightenment, the corruption, violence, general disrespect of fellow citizens and destruction of our society escalates.
Spot on, Ray.
Although America began as a Christian nation, we are seeing unparalleled apostasy (falling away of the Truth) and spiritual delusion in the world. 2 Thess 2:3
There is growing deception and the world is in rebellion to God. We are seeing literal moral degeneration of man. 2 Tim 3:1-15
All this, just as the Bible said, imagine that. And yes, the scoffers and mockers will be along shortly, just as the Bible said, to mock and scoff.
Scoffers and mockers will continue to reject the Word of God and the WARNINGS that are coming on the judgment of the world. 2 Peter 3:3-8
[quote=Tarquin]DBT, I can't help notice: you're very quick to attack anything theistic, but I've not once heard you speak out against the virulent racism that is so prevalent on this board. Not once. What's the problem, no testicles or are you in sympatico with the racists here?
Atheism is about control and power. Don't believe it? Look at Dem party. The truth is that a nation of believers requires far less government than a nation of unbelievers who are unrestrained by any moral code. This point was made repeatedly by the Founders.
Atheism is about a single proposition. Is there sufficient evidence to believe theistic claims or not. That's it, nothing more. The only way in which this proposition is about "power" is should you grant power to others on the basis of their theistic claims.
The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
And yet, as we me make our transition from one nation under God to that of leftist secular enlightenment, the corruption, violence, general disrespect of fellow citizens and destruction of our society escalates.
Spot on, Ray.
Although America began as a Christian nation, we are seeing unparalleled apostasy (falling away of the Truth) and spiritual delusion in the world. 2 Thess 2:3
There is growing deception and the world is in rebellion to God. We are seeing literal moral degeneration of man. 2 Tim 3:1-15
All this, just as the Bible said, imagine that. And yes, the scoffers and mockers will be along shortly, just as the Bible said, to mock and scoff.
Scoffers and mockers will continue to reject the Word of God and the WARNINGS that are coming on the judgment of the world. 2 Peter 3:3-8
Amen Whitetail. It's all just a means to and end.
2 Corinthians 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Starman
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Syria, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
I have a hard time believing that. The priests of Zeuss never had a conflict with those of Apollo, or Mars, or Diana, or Athena etc, etc, over the best temple site or competed for accolytes????
Even the remaining mythology is full of competitions and outright battles between the gods of Greece/Rome.
We are well aware of battles fought and human sacrifice made to the gods of the S American indigenous peoples.
Polynesian cultures were also big on human sacrifice and yes, even cannibalism.
Those ancient Romans did not seem to be so friendly to the Judeo/Christian traditions when people started abandoning the old Roman Temples en masse and flocking to a new tradition. Hungry priests get vengeful and call upon all the power of civil authority.
Even the Crusades had little to do with religious conversions and much more to do with wealth, trade routes, and protection thereof. The wholesale slaughter of the peoples of South and Central America, and the catholicization of the remainder was much more to ensure a steady supply of labor for the Spanish Crown and income to The Church, than it was about the saving of souls.
Yep. Wars are fought for economic reasons. It just so happens that economic and religious boundaries often align.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
If you are claiming that only those who believe in supernatural beings can self regulate you are wrong.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
We are in an obvious, and serious state of moral decline in the USA. Not to mention the millions of innocent babies that are slaughtered ever year here, what are some key signs of decline?
What are some common features of an empire’s culture in its declining period?
1. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of “living together” and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability. This happened among the upper class in the late Roman Republic and early Empire. The first-century writer Seneca once complained about Roman upper-class women: “They divorce in order to re-marry. They marry in order to divorce.”
The birthrate declines, and abortion and infanticide both increase as family size is deliberately limited. The historian W.H. McNeill has referred to the “biological suicide of the Roman upper classes” as one reason for Rome’s decline. Homosexuality becomes publicly acceptable and spreads, as was the case among the ancient Greeks before Rome conquered them.
2. Many foreign immigrants settle in the empire’s capital and major cities. The mixture of ethnic groups in close proximity in these cosmopolitan places inevitably produces conflicts.
Because of their prominent locations within the empire, their influence greatly exceeds their percentage of the population. Here diversity plainly leads to divisiveness. We see this today in the growing conflict in European countries such as France and the Netherlands, where large numbers of immigrants are stoking violent cultural clashes. German chancellor Angela Merkel recently made headlines when she stated that attempts to create a multicultural society had “utterly failed” and immigrants must do more to integrate into society.
3. Both irresponsible pleasure-seeking and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders. The spirit described in 1 Corinthians 15:32 spreads throughout society: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” As people cynically give up looking for solutions to the problems of life and society, they drop out of the system. They then turn to mindless entertainment, to luxuries and sexual activity, and to drugs or alcohol. The astonishingly corrupt and lavish parties of the Roman Empire’s elite are a case in point. The Emperor Nero, for instance, would spend the modern equivalent of $500,000 for just the flowers at some banquets.
4. The government provides extensive welfare for the poor. In the case of the city of Rome, which had perhaps 1.2 million people around A.D. 170, government-provided “bread and circuses” (food and entertainment) helped to keep the masses content. About one half of its non-slave population was on the dole at least part of the year. True, helping the poor shows Christian compassion (Mark 14:7). But such help also can lead to laziness and dependency (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). Such problems are especially likely when the poor believe state-provided charity is a permanent right or entitlement.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
If you are claiming that only those who believe in supernatural beings can self regulate you are wrong.
What a stupid statement. Of course I'm not saying that. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
Atheism is about control and power. Don't believe it? Look at Dem party. The truth is that a nation of believers requires far less government than a nation of unbelievers who are unrestrained by any moral code. This point was made repeatedly by the Founders.
Atheism is about a single proposition. Is there sufficient evidence to believe theistic claims or not. That's it, nothing more. The only way in which this proposition is about "power" is should you grant power to others on the basis of their theistic claims.
Good grief. You really believe your own nonsense don't you?
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
Well, if you are looking at the U.S., we are not and never have been a theocratic nation; and we are the most well-off society in history, at least in material terms. However, well-being goes far beyond material goods. The social pathologies we are seeing, despite our material prosperity, would indicate that people have needs beyond material goods. We are not in the mess we are in today because as a nation we have become increasingly Christian.
Pagans seemed to get along just fine when it came to personal choice of Gods.
The greeks, Romans. Gauls, and further east regions Like Egypt, Persia, etc,.didn't squabble over their Gods.
You're missing the point: each of those societies/cultures/countries appealed to a diety or dieties and held a belief in an absolute moral code.
The moral code of Babylon differed to Sumer which differed to Judaism which was not the same as Greco Roman morality, which was not the same as ours. Similar principles, but not the same. Similarity does not make an absolute.
Similarity comes from existential conditions, death, property, family, friends, nation, state, tribe....
Each believed their God was the true God and from that belief they derived what they also believed was a non-relative standard of right and wrong by which they regulated their behavior. Exemplary are the immortal words of Lord McCauley "Then out spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods." The salient point is that true religion and morality (not the spurious kind that characterizes so much of Christianity today [Exhibit A being our own Mr. Texas Jaguar]) tends to result in beings who regulate their own behavior without need of external regulation from the state. They don't tend to steal (for example) not merely because they might get caught, but because it is wrong. A society of those kinds of people requires a far less intrusive government than their opposite. The Founders were explicit about this.
If you are claiming that only those who believe in supernatural beings can self regulate you are wrong.
What a stupid statement. Of course I'm not saying that. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
I watched a beautiful sunset on the back deck the other night. Thin white clouds and pale blue sky up high. Low clouds in the foreground that were dark gray underneath and bright gold on top from the setting sun. No wonder the people once believed including those who put the bible together thought that was where heaven could be found. Cloud pictures are still used today to depict “Heaven.”
“According to Genesis, they did believe that Heaven was located above the earth (in fact, in Hebrew, the same word means “Heavens” and “Skies.” Genesis 28:12 “Then [Jacob] dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."
"A donkey is a simple creature. It would follow a carrot on a stick, but it is still capable, even with it's most basic of intellect, of determining when there is no carrot."
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalms 19:1
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
I watched a beautiful sunset on the back deck the other night. Thin white clouds and pale blue sky up high. Low clouds in the foreground that were dark gray underneath and bright gold on top from the setting sun. No wonder the people once believed including those who put the bible together thought that was where heaven could be found. Cloud pictures are still used today to depict “Heaven.”
“According to Genesis, they did believe that Heaven was located above the earth (in fact, in Hebrew, the same word means “Heavens” and “Skies.” Genesis 28:12 “Then [Jacob] dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
Hunter/gatherers... enslaved by their environment....I certainly dont see it that way, they spent most of their time surviving, I more so think they relished in it, there were no alternate lifestyles to choose from.... no advertising telling them how their life should be. they lived day to day, sometimes they flourished, sometimes they suffered.....I doubt they filled their days with hope of a afterlife... People need hope more now than ever as there are so many things outside their control that influence their lives....
When hunting all day, they just hoped they found something to eat,
People are sure jumping ship and swimming away from religion at an attention getting rate nowadays. Christianity especially. But I don’t think it’s because atheism is so appealing. I think it’s more likely because religion has lost its appeal. People once thought religion offered solutions. Nowadays, it appears that many people see it as a problem. I can’t blame em’ for it. There’s sure a lotta hate spewed at em’ in the name of God. It clearly is unattractive to those who are on the receiving end of it. Grace is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith...but it seems to very often be sorely lacking by many who profess to be Christians. The faith of Christianity is certainly more appealing when the message of grace is most apparent.
What’s this got to do with evolution...? Not a flippin’ thing...! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior. I remember one evolutionist in a lecture saying something like, "If we can destroy Genesis One we will find the burning remains of Jesus' cross in the ashes."
People are sure jumping ship and swimming away from religion at an attention getting rate nowadays. Christianity especially. But I don’t think it’s because atheism is so appealing. I think it’s more likely because religion has lost its appeal. People once thought religion offered solutions. Nowadays, it appears that many people see it as a problem. I can’t blame em’ for it. There’s sure a lotta hate spewed at em’ in the name of God. It clearly is unattractive to those who are on the receiving end of it. Grace is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith...but it seems to very often be sorely lacking by many who profess to be Christians. The faith of Christianity is certainly more appealing when the message of grace is most apparent.
What’s this got to do with evolution...? Not a flippin’ thing...! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior. I remember one evolutionist in a lecture saying something like, "If we can destroy Genesis One we will find the burning remains of Jesus' cross in the ashes."
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
False. Utah. [/quote] Apparently you have little knowledge of Utah's early history. Or you are wearing Morman blinders.
Now, don't take this wrong. I have no problem with the modern LDS Church. They are one of the most conservative and family oriented groups out there. But 19'th century Utah was not a friendly place to be if you were not Morman.
For ex: ZMCI...Zion Mercantile Co-op Inc, an organization of merchants within the Morman Church. If a non member moved into town and tried to compete, the member merchants sold their inventory at a loss until the interloper was run out of town. Their losses subsidized by the Co-op.
Mountain Meadows Massacre?
The Utah War? US Army vs Mormans May 1857- July 1858.
Many of the present day Mormans I know refuse to acknowledge that any such events ever happened. Revisionist history abounds.
Utah really began to prosper when the theocracy was subjugated and the state became an actual part of the Union.
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
Hunter/gatherers... enslaved by their environment....I certainly dont see it that way, they spent most of their time surviving, I more so think they relished in it, there were no alternate lifestyles to choose from.... no advertising telling them how their life should be. they lived day to day, sometimes they flourished, sometimes they suffered.....I doubt they filled their days with hope of a afterlife... People need hope more now than ever as there are so many things outside their control that influence their lives....
When hunting all day, they just hoped they found something to eat,
Nothing says relish quite like wading through waste deep snow, clothed only in chewed animal hides, hoping you can a bit of carrion left by a wolf, or get close enough to a rabbit to poke it with a sharp stick. Because you have a wigwam or cave full of starving kids with their teeth falling out from malnutrition.
Or trying to dig enough roots and bulbs with a sharp stick to keep a family through the winter, and then hoping they do not all rot before winter equinox.
They must have relished the life like a wild mustang relishes pawing through the deep snow in hopes of finding a tuft of grass.
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
False. Utah.
Apparently you have little knowledge of Utah's early history. Or you are wearing Morman blinders.
Now, don't take this wrong. I have no problem with the modern LDS Church. They are one of the most conservative and family oriented groups out there. But 19'th century Utah was not a friendly place to be if you were not Morman.
For ex: ZMCI...Zion Mercantile Co-op Inc, an organization of merchants within the Morman Church. If a non member moved into town and tried to compete, the member merchants sold their inventory at a loss until the interloper was run out of town. Their losses subsidized by the Co-op.
Mountain Meadows Massacre?
The Utah War? US Army vs Mormans May 1857- July 1858.
Many of the present day Mormans I know refuse to acknowledge that any such events ever happened. Revisionist history abounds.
Utah really began to prosper when the theocracy was subjugated and the state became an actual part of the Union.[/quote]
My point was to refute AS's claim by pointing out that the social health indicators of Mormons are very high, thus defeating his claim that in every case religiosity doesn't correlate with social virtue. The Mountain Meadows massacre or other such facts do not rebutt my point. Every religion and secular ideology has committed atrocities. I'm no expert on history, but didn't he Mormons also suffer a fair amount of persecution at the hands of so-called "Chrisitans"?
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
False. Utah.
Apparently you have little knowledge of Utah's early history. Or you are wearing Morman blinders.
Now, don't take this wrong. I have no problem with the modern LDS Church. They are one of the most conservative and family oriented groups out there. But 19'th century Utah was not a friendly place to be if you were not Morman.
For ex: ZMCI...Zion Mercantile Co-op Inc, an organization of merchants within the Morman Church. If a non member moved into town and tried to compete, the member merchants sold their inventory at a loss until the interloper was run out of town. Their losses subsidized by the Co-op.
Mountain Meadows Massacre?
The Utah War? US Army vs Mormans May 1857- July 1858.
Many of the present day Mormans I know refuse to acknowledge that any such events ever happened. Revisionist history abounds.
Utah really began to prosper when the theocracy was subjugated and the state became an actual part of the Union.
My point was to refute AS's claim by pointing out that the social health indicators of Mormons are very high, thus defeating his claim that in every case religiosity doesn't correlate with social virtue. The Mountain Meadows massacre or other such facts do not rebutt my point. Every religion and secular ideology has committed atrocities. I'm no expert on history, but didn't he Mormons also suffer a fair amount of persecution at the hands of so-called "Chrisitans"? [/quote]
I said against every measure, not in every instance. They are not the same thing.
Morality is relative to death, property and human relations, self defence, etc. The benefits to not killing wontonly are that you yourself and your family are safer if your society adopts this standard. The same for stealing, social manners, etc, everyone benefits. We don't need religion to tell us that.
Secular societies now are doing better than theocracies ever did.
Against any measure of well being, the less theocratic the society the greater the well being of it's people. The same plays out across American states.
False. Utah.
Apparently you have little knowledge of Utah's early history. Or you are wearing Morman blinders.
Now, don't take this wrong. I have no problem with the modern LDS Church. They are one of the most conservative and family oriented groups out there. But 19'th century Utah was not a friendly place to be if you were not Morman.
For ex: ZMCI...Zion Mercantile Co-op Inc, an organization of merchants within the Morman Church. If a non member moved into town and tried to compete, the member merchants sold their inventory at a loss until the interloper was run out of town. Their losses subsidized by the Co-op.
Mountain Meadows Massacre?
The Utah War? US Army vs Mormans May 1857- July 1858.
Many of the present day Mormans I know refuse to acknowledge that any such events ever happened. Revisionist history abounds.
Utah really began to prosper when the theocracy was subjugated and the state became an actual part of the Union.
My point was to refute AS's claim by pointing out that the social health indicators of Mormons are very high, thus defeating his claim that in every case religiosity doesn't correlate with social virtue. The Mountain Meadows massacre or other such facts do not rebutt my point. Every religion and secular ideology has committed atrocities. I'm no expert on history, but didn't he Mormons also suffer a fair amount of persecution at the hands of so-called "Chrisitans"?
I said against every measure, not in every instance. They are not the same thing.
[/quote]
I am sure you already know this, but persecution is why the Mormons have to move so much.
People are sure jumping ship and swimming away from religion at an attention getting rate nowadays. Christianity especially. But I don’t think it’s because atheism is so appealing. I think it’s more likely because religion has lost its appeal. People once thought religion offered solutions. Nowadays, it appears that many people see it as a problem. I can’t blame em’ for it. There’s sure a lotta hate spewed at em’ in the name of God. It clearly is unattractive to those who are on the receiving end of it. Grace is supposed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith...but it seems to very often be sorely lacking by many who profess to be Christians. The faith of Christianity is certainly more appealing when the message of grace is most apparent.
What’s this got to do with evolution...? Not a flippin’ thing...! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior.
That tactic is no different than saying “either you believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, or you don’t believe in any of the Bible”. It’s a dishonest tactic to try and force people to believe things that are clearly not true...such as Noah and the Ark, and Jonah and the great fish. Using such a dishonest tactic does a tremendous disservice to the faith of Christianity, and it pushes people away from Jesus. Denying scientific knowledge because it threatens one’s faith shows a real weakness in one’s faith. Some of the stuff in the Bible is clearly allegorical...some people realize that, and some don’t.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat.... .
Hunter/gatherers... enslaved by their environment....I certainly dont see it that way, they spent most of their time surviving, I more so think they relished in it, there were no alternate lifestyles to choose from....
There was agriculture to choose from, certain part of Europe like Gaul and Hispania [Greek & Roman colonization times] and in the far east Egypt, had agriculture and trade in such products , while the more easterly and northern Europeans[Germanics] adhered strongly to hunter/ Gatherer and RAIDING.
Pagans whether agricultural or hunter/gather, had their agriculture/harvest and hunting dieties... come the 4th-5th century period when Christianity got strong foothold, the Christians set about systematically denying the pagans their dieties through persecution.
Ancient Hebrew monotheism had a centralized model of control.and they went about persecuting pagans across the land who had their own liittle God's and shrines... ie: 'you will have only One god and it's the one we are forcing on you' Christians with their centralized model, did exactly the same to the pagans across Europe.
Just a bunch of control freak thug Azzholes.
Scandinavian kings saw value in Christianity simply because they could reduce the autonomy of numerous pagan Viking raiding groups, bring them under one umbrella making that king more rich and powerful, but no less ruthless.
Look at the Scandinavian background Normans and see if Christianity made them nice guys. They were savage ruthless greedy control freaks in cahoots with the christian church.... ie; they were Great church people but attrocious christians.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Believers believing that only faith can make the world a better place is all part of their brainwashing - need to start thinking and understanding for yourselves. Faith systems have caused significant misery, hated, death, arrogance, prejudice etc in the past and continue to do so. Faith is a "gateway" mindset to conspiracy.
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior.
That tactic is no different than saying “either you believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, or you don’t believe in any of the Bible”. It’s a dishonest tactic to try and force people to believe things that are clearly not true...such as Noah and the Ark, and Jonah and the great fish. Using such a dishonest tactic does a tremendous disservice to the faith of Christianity, and it pushes people away from Jesus. Denying scientific knowledge because it threatens one’s faith shows a real weakness in one’s faith. Some of the stuff in the Bible is clearly allegorical...some people realize that, and some don’t. [/quote]
You actually believe "Noah and the Ark, and Johan and the great fish" are not true? How about a virgin birth? That's not verified by any scientific study. How about Jesus rising from the dead? That's not verified by any scientific study. Do you believe Jesus actually ascended into Heaven while the disciples looked on? That's not documented by any scientific study.
Just how do you decide what to believe?
Believing Bible stories does not push anyone away from God. People decide on their own to either believe or not on their own.
Amazing how difficult simple things are. Without the Bible people could eventually figure out there are things that are evil. Science give us the idea of opposites. If there is evil, there is good. People could figure out animals dont act out of a pure evil nature, while man otherwise does.
The Bible just explained the truth about good and evil among mankind.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior.
Originally Posted by antlers
That tactic is no different than saying “either you believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, or you don’t believe in any of the Bible”. It’s a dishonest tactic to try and force people to believe things that are clearly not true...such as Noah and the Ark, and Jonah and the great fish. Using such a dishonest tactic does a tremendous disservice to the faith of Christianity, and it pushes people away from Jesus. Denying scientific knowledge because it threatens one’s faith shows a real weakness in one’s faith. Some of the stuff in the Bible is clearly allegorical...some people realize that, and some don’t.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You actually believe "Noah and the Ark, and Jonah and the great fish" are not true? How about a virgin birth? That's not verified by any scientific study. How about Jesus rising from the dead? That's not verified by any scientific study. Do you believe Jesus actually ascended into Heaven while the disciples looked on? That's not documented by any scientific study. Just how do you decide what to believe?
Originally Posted by antlers
Discernment. God gives us the power of discernment and wisdom...generously...if we ask for it. Again, some of the stuff in the Bible is clearly allegorical...some people realize that, and some don’t. One’s salvation does not depend on believing the tale of Noah and the Ark, nor does one’s salvation depend on believing the tale of Jonah and the great fish. Nor does one’s salvation depend on believing the literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation. But one’s salvation DOES depend on believing in Jesus’ Resurrection, and seizing the opportunity to have a relationship with a loving God who sent His son to reveal just how good He is, and accepting His gift of grace.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Believing Bible stories does not push anyone away from God.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, and demanding that they believe things that are clearly not true...and telling them that their salvation is null and void if they don’t...certainly DOES push people away from Jesus.
I'm guessing you never connected the dots between D controlled major cities like San Fran, Detroit, Chitcago, St Louis, Cleveland, Philly and Baltimore to being in an advanced state of decline compared to R controlled cities.
It's for certain that would be too deep and difficult for you.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
If evolution is true and the Bible is not, then there was no fall in the Garden of Eden so there is no need for Jesus the Savior.
That tactic is no different than saying “either you believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, or you don’t believe in any of the Bible”. It’s a dishonest tactic to try and force people to believe things that are clearly not true...such as Noah and the Ark, and Jonah and the great fish. Using such a dishonest tactic does a tremendous disservice to the faith of Christianity, and it pushes people away from Jesus. Denying scientific knowledge because it threatens one’s faith shows a real weakness in one’s faith. Some of the stuff in the Bible is clearly allegorical...some people realize that, and some don’t.
You actually believe "Noah and the Ark, and Johan and the great fish" are not true? How about a virgin birth? That's not verified by any scientific study. How about Jesus rising from the dead? That's not verified by any scientific study. Do you believe Jesus actually ascended into Heaven while the disciples looked on? That's not documented by any scientific study.
Just how do you decide what to believe?
Believing Bible stories does not push anyone away from God. People decide on their own to either believe or not on their own. [/quote]
If there was no literal fall there is no need for a literal redemption or a literal sacrifice: Jesus.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
I'm guessing you never connected the dots between D controlled major cities like San Fran, Detroit, Chitcago, St Louis, Cleveland, Philly and Baltimore to being in an advanced state of decline compared to R controlled cities.
It's for certain that would be too deep and difficult for you.
Ahh, I see your problem now - you think everything comes from faith or lack thereof. Arrogantly claiming all non-believers are non-moral or criminal. You really need help - the brainwashing has seriously damaged something, including ability to undertake logical consideration.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
The point being? What are the factors that took us out of the dark ages and improved the lives of so many people? If western society is in decline, what exactly is driving that decline?
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
34 pages so far. And like all the other religious threads, no one has convinced anyone on the other side.
Just havin’ a discussion. On a discussion forum. On a particular topic. Religion, in this case. Is it less credible, or wrong (in your opinion) to discuss it...as opposed to discussing Aunt Jemima Syrup, or Chick-Fil-A, or affirmative action, or Derek Chauvin, or Juneteenth, or George Floyd, or Facebook...?
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, and demanding that they believe things that are clearly not true...and telling them that their salvation is null and void if they don’t...certainly DOES push people away from Jesus.
You believe the big lie, so I'm not surprised you believe this lie.
I wish you’d fix that (above). You have your statements attributed to me, and my statements attributed to you...it’s all mixed up. What a mess.
Since you know what you posted and what I posted, how about answering the questions.
My position is clear. Crystal. I’m not threatened by what you think or believe. I’m not threatened by science...science that makes all of our lives better...every single day of our lives. The Bible is NOT the foundation of Christianity. I believe that the Gospel would still be true if every Bible and manuscript in the world were non-existent.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, and demanding that they believe things that are clearly not true...and telling them that their salvation is null and void if they don’t...certainly DOES push people away from Jesus.
You believe the big lie, so I'm not surprised you believe this lie.
I wish you’d fix that (above). You have your statements attributed to me, and my statements attributed to you...it’s all mixed up. What a mess.
Since you know what you posted and what I posted, how about answering the questions.
My position is clear. Crystal. I’m not threatened by what you think or believe. I’m not threatened by science...science that makes all of our lives better...every single day of our lives. The Bible is NOT the foundation of Christianity. I believe that the Gospel would still be true if every Bible and manuscript in the world were non-existent.
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
The Resurrection of Jesus created and launched Christianity. The Resurrection of Jesus is THE foundation of Christianity. The faith of Christianity is tethered to the event of the Resurrection rather than to the authority and inspiration or infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Bible did not birth Jesus’ Church. Our faith is anchored to the event (the Resurrection) that sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible. Christianity began on Easter morning with Jesus’ Resurrection.
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
What was the foundation of Peter’s faith...? The foundation of his faith was not something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of his faith was something that he’d seen. It was an event. Peter believed what he believed because of what he saw. He saw Jesus die, and later...he had breakfast with Him on the beach...!
What was the foundation of Peter’s faith...? The foundation of his faith was not something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of his faith was something that he’d seen. It was an event.
Only Matthew mentions Peter walking on water and Luke fails to even mention Jesus walking on water.
Why would the unknown/anonymous authors omit such events.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Do you believe Jesus actually ascended into Heaven while the disciples looked on?
Does JC need that flesh & blood body in an athereal realm heaven?
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
What was the foundation of Peter’s faith...? The foundation of his faith was not something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of his faith was something that he’d seen. It was an event. Peter believed what he believed because of what he saw. He saw Jesus die, and later...he had breakfast with Him on the beach...!
In Matthew, Jesus, after asking Peter who He was and Peter responding "thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God", said to Peter "blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Which is to say the source of Peter's knowledge of Christ's divinity was the witness of the Holy Ghost. After all John tells us "the Father would send the comforter" who "shall teach you all truth and bring all things to your remembrance". And Christ said to Peter that "upon this rock" (the rock of divine revelation which constituted the basis of Peter's knowledge of Christ's divinity) "I will build my church..."
I'm surprised the discussion has been as civil as it has. It's a pleasant surprise. Quite an improvement over other threads in the past.
I can think of one believer here who hit the fan and became abusive in previous related threads but is quite toned down this time - maybe taking some medication, or psychiatric treatment this time. I think we all know that I'm referring to Jag - the instigator of this thread. He's put me on ignore so I can say what I like about him now without offending him.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
Claiming to be religious and acting so often isn't the same thing.
Is it religious to stick pins in voodoo dolls?
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine.
As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
I never said I was religion. I dont consider putting 50 2 inch long pony tails on a nappy haired kids head to keep off the "haints" adequate to call the folks believers either.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalms 19:1
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
I watched a beautiful sunset on the back deck the other night. Thin white clouds and pale blue sky up high. Low clouds in the foreground that were dark gray underneath and bright gold on top from the setting sun. No wonder the people once believed including those who put the bible together thought that was where heaven could be found. Cloud pictures are still used today to depict “Heaven.”
“According to Genesis, they did believe that Heaven was located above the earth (in fact, in Hebrew, the same word means “Heavens” and “Skies.” Genesis 28:12 “Then [Jacob] dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."
For those who arent blind. Uh, I'm speaking in a spiritual sense here, like HE did (in many instances) and not in a literal sense.
We are in an obvious, and serious state of moral decline in the USA. Not to mention the millions of innocent babies that are slaughtered ever year here, what are some key signs of decline?
What are some common features of an empire’s culture in its declining period?
1. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of “living together” and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability. This happened among the upper class in the late Roman Republic and early Empire. The first-century writer Seneca once complained about Roman upper-class women: “They divorce in order to re-marry. They marry in order to divorce.”
The birthrate declines, and abortion and infanticide both increase as family size is deliberately limited. The historian W.H. McNeill has referred to the “biological suicide of the Roman upper classes” as one reason for Rome’s decline. Homosexuality becomes publicly acceptable and spreads, as was the case among the ancient Greeks before Rome conquered them.
2. Many foreign immigrants settle in the empire’s capital and major cities. The mixture of ethnic groups in close proximity in these cosmopolitan places inevitably produces conflicts.
Because of their prominent locations within the empire, their influence greatly exceeds their percentage of the population. Here diversity plainly leads to divisiveness. We see this today in the growing conflict in European countries such as France and the Netherlands, where large numbers of immigrants are stoking violent cultural clashes. German chancellor Angela Merkel recently made headlines when she stated that attempts to create a multicultural society had “utterly failed” and immigrants must do more to integrate into society.
3. Both irresponsible pleasure-seeking and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders. The spirit described in 1 Corinthians 15:32 spreads throughout society: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” As people cynically give up looking for solutions to the problems of life and society, they drop out of the system. They then turn to mindless entertainment, to luxuries and sexual activity, and to drugs or alcohol. The astonishingly corrupt and lavish parties of the Roman Empire’s elite are a case in point. The Emperor Nero, for instance, would spend the modern equivalent of $500,000 for just the flowers at some banquets.
4. The government provides extensive welfare for the poor. In the case of the city of Rome, which had perhaps 1.2 million people around A.D. 170, government-provided “bread and circuses” (food and entertainment) helped to keep the masses content. About one half of its non-slave population was on the dole at least part of the year. True, helping the poor shows Christian compassion (Mark 14:7). But such help also can lead to laziness and dependency (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). Such problems are especially likely when the poor believe state-provided charity is a permanent right or entitlement.
Seven days of creation and how they prophetically parallel each Millennium of human history • 1st day of creation light separated from darkness – 1st 1000 years Adam sinned and was separated from the light of God • 2nd day of creation waters were separated from land – 2nd 1000 years water was used to cover earth in Noah’s flood and then separated again • 3rd day of creation plants with seeds were created to fill the earth with plant life – 3rd 1000 years God promised Abraham that thru his seed all the world would be blessed • 4th day of creation the lights in heaven were created – in the 4th 1000 years the prophets were given of God and Jesus came to be the light in the world 5th day of creation living creatures – in the 5th 1000 years Jesus came to give new life so that man could inherent eternal life • 6th day of creation man was created and told to fill the earth and subdue it – in the 6th 1000 years man has filled the earth and subdued it • 7th day God rested in the 7th 1000 years will be restored and mankind will rest while Christ rules it - Revelation 20:1-6
The next major event will be the rapture then after 7 years tribulation the 1000 year millennial reign begins • Satan is bound for 1000 years, thrown in the dungeon in chains with his minions, and Christ reigns on earth • After which Satan is released for a period after this time to test the humans that are living in the millennium, and stupid humans follow him again. Then, Armageddon and Hell.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalms 19:1
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Religion, especially the hope of a paradise waiting after death was a powerful thing to a slave population.
Until very recent times, even those people not in chains were enslaved by their environment. They spent most every waking moment tending their flocks, gathering herbs and roots, or hunting meat. As soon as they could walk at their Mother's side, they began helping in the gathering of food. Or the little ones took their dogs and tended flocks and chased away predators.
Religion and the thought of Heaven gave them hope of some reward after their unending suffering with labor, hunger, pestilence and early death.
Today, in developed nations, there is much less need for such. It is a natural progression, just as is the move toward smaller families.
I watched a beautiful sunset on the back deck the other night. Thin white clouds and pale blue sky up high. Low clouds in the foreground that were dark gray underneath and bright gold on top from the setting sun. No wonder the people once believed including those who put the bible together thought that was where heaven could be found. Cloud pictures are still used today to depict “Heaven.”
“According to Genesis, they did believe that Heaven was located above the earth (in fact, in Hebrew, the same word means “Heavens” and “Skies.” Genesis 28:12 “Then [Jacob] dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."
For those who arent blind. Uh, I'm speaking in a spiritual sense here, like HE did (in many instances) and not in a literal sense.
Until we finally got a good look and found out otherwise;most were pretty sure that Heaven was just up there on top of the clouds. Just as they thought Hell was deep in the Earth.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, and demanding that they believe things that are clearly not true...and telling them that their salvation is null and void if they don’t...certainly DOES push people away from Jesus.
You believe the big lie, so I'm not surprised you believe this lie.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has a long history. No lie, it pushed me away.
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
The Resurrection of Jesus created and launched Christianity. The Resurrection of Jesus is THE foundation of Christianity. The faith of Christianity is tethered to the event of the Resurrection rather than to the authority and inspiration or infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Bible did not birth Jesus’ Church. Our faith is anchored to the event (the Resurrection) that sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible. Christianity began on Easter morning with Jesus’ Resurrection.
Yep, the New Testament didn't even exist for many years while there was a thriving Christian Church.
Until we finally got a good look and found out otherwise;most were pretty sure that Heaven was just up there on top of the clouds. Just as they thought Hell was deep in the Earth.
“The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth! Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH."”
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Assuming you meant "a sense of hopelessness". And where might a sense of hopelessness come from? Perhaps the thought that you are nothing more than an ape who has come down out of the trees? I'd have a sense of hopelessness if I believed that, too.
If you really meant hoplessness, then I completely understand the majority of liberals; their lack of hops means they'll never make dime playing basketball, so they drag down society instead.
Until we finally got a good look and found out otherwise;most were pretty sure that Heaven was just up there on top of the clouds. Just as they thought Hell was deep in the Earth.
“The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth! Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH."”
If we will have Heaven on earth, will there be animals?
I wish you’d fix that (above). You have your statements attributed to me, and my statements attributed to you...it’s all mixed up. What a mess.
Since you know what you posted and what I posted, how about answering the questions.
My position is clear. Crystal. I’m not threatened by what you think or believe. I’m not threatened by science...science that makes all of our lives better...every single day of our lives. The Bible is NOT the foundation of Christianity. I believe that the Gospel would still be true if every Bible and manuscript in the world were non-existent.
The Gospel surely would still be true. But how would we know about it if it wasn't written down? Passing it down solely by word of mouth would surely have distorted it beyond recognition by now. The distortions by liberal churches are bad enough as it is, that would just add to the problem. There has to be a benchmark for people to refer back to in a similar way that we have laws that are written down. Suppose the Constitution had not been written down? I'm sure glad the second amendment is written down; even if liberals try to distort it, the original words are there for us to point back to and make a stand on.
The Bible says what it says and that doesn't change. You can believe some, all, or none of it. I don't believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian, but once you start picking and choosing you are on a slippery slope.
I take a break from the computer at night, so excuse me if I'm being repetitive here.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has a long history. No lie, it pushed me away.
I am sorry that has been the case for you. Faith can't and shouldn't be demanded or coerced, it has to come from the heart. I agree that many churches and many individual Christians have done great harm by being overly dogmatic. Persuasion, not coercion, is the better approach. Christians sometimes allow their zeal to get the best of them.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
Claiming to be religious and acting so often isn't the same thing.
Is it religious to stick pins in voodoo dolls?
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine.
As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
I never said I was religion. I dont consider putting 50 2 inch long pony tails on a nappy haired kids head to keep off the "haints" adequate to call the folks believers either.
Doc,
This is just another example of what I mean when saying I really think you should spend more time looking in the mirror.
Do you not claim to be a Christian? Were you not taught that all people were created in God's image, and thus deserve equal dignity? But you continue to fill your writings with racist overtones, or blatant racism.
I'm not a believer, but evidenced by your actions on this forum, I treat people in a way more "Christian" manner than you do.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has a long history. No lie, it pushed me away.
I am sorry that has been the case for you. Faith can't and shouldn't be demanded or coerced, it has to come from the heart. I agree that many churches and many individual Christians have done great harm by being overly dogmatic. Persuasion, not coercion, is the better approach. Christians sometimes allow their zeal to get the best of them.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
Nobody claims that, more of your twisting things to fit your paradigm.
Darn, TYG, you said that?
I have opined that our society's decline has followed the decline in Christianity. But I never said that Christianity would solve all of our problems in society. Christians are sinners just like anyone else and are subject to the same temptations. But I do think that society's problems would be lessened if everyone were Christian. To be clear, I am not advocating a theocracy or any form of coercion. Just saying that if more people's hearts turned to Christ, a lot (not all) of our problems would disappear.
The Gospel surely would still be true. But how would we know about it if it wasn't written down?
That it was written down is not an issue.
We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book more important than the history itself. Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
I don't believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian, but once you start picking and choosing you are on a slippery slope.
To you...what is the difference between you saying “I don’t believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian”, and you saying “but once you start picking and choosing you are on a slippery slope”...?
If you don’t believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian, then isn’t that being on the slippery slope of picking and choosing that you referred to...?
I’ve stated my position on this earlier, when Ringman asked me about it. Just curious what your position on it is, since you made the quoted statement above.
I don't believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian, but once you start picking and choosing you are on a slippery slope.
To you...what is the difference between you saying “I don’t believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian”, and you saying “but once you start picking and choosing you are on a slippery slope”...?
If you don’t believe that you have to believe all of it to be a Christian, then isn’t that being on the slippery slope of picking and choosing that you referred to...?
It would be, if I didn't believe it all. (Just because I believe it all doesn't mean I understand it all). I'm simply saying that if you believe, for instance, in evolution, I am not going to challenge you if you claim to be a Christian. Some parts of the slope are steeper than others, and not all parts are as slippery as the others. Who Jesus is, what He did, and why He did it are what is paramount, as best as I can understand things.
My very first post on this thread contained words to the effect that it is unfortunate that so many people allow evolution to stand between themselves and Jesus.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has a long history. No lie, it pushed me away.
I am sorry that has been the case for you. Faith can't and shouldn't be demanded or coerced, it has to come from the heart. I agree that many churches and many individual Christians have done great harm by being overly dogmatic. Persuasion, not coercion, is the better approach. Christians sometimes allow their zeal to get the best of them.
In all fairness, so do the Marxist.....
If you are saying that anyone can be guilty of being overzealous, then yes; that's certainly true.
My very first post on this thread contained words to the effect that it is unfortunate that so many people allow evolution to stand between themselves and Jesus.
It’s even more unfortunate that so many people allow some ‘Christians’ to stand between themselves and Jesus.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
I am really busy today but I'll give you a quick answer and more later. Jesus also called Yeshua and John the Baptist taught salvation through repentance which is the theme attached to salvation from front to back Genesis to Revelation. Read it and you cannot escape that Paul contradicted Jesus. Yes he did. The Roman version of Christianity attached all kinds of Paganism to their church and most protestants retained it. Start with Easter, Christmas, infant baptism, and I could go on and on. Just read Jesus' message that survived the editing and you will understand that most Christianity does not follow him and in fact would probably kill him again if he were to come back and tell them the truth as he did to the Jewish leaders of his day. The only place for an honest man is a grave in most places in this world.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
I am really busy today but I'll give you a quick answer and more later. Jesus also called Yeshua and John the Baptist taught salvation through repentance which is the theme attached to salvation from front to back Genesis to Revelation. Read it and you cannot escape that Paul contradicted Jesus. Yes he did. The Roman version of Christianity attached all kinds of Paganism to their church and most protestants retained it. Start with Easter, Christmas, infant baptism, and I could go on and on. Just read Jesus' message that survived the editing and you will understand that most Christianity does not follow him and in fact would probably kill him again if he were to come back and tell them the truth as he did to the Jewish leaders of his day. The only place for an honest man is a grave in most places in this world.
My very first post on this thread contained words to the effect that it is unfortunate that so many people allow evolution to stand between themselves and Jesus.
It’s even more unfortunate that so many people allow some Christians’ to stand between themselves and Jesus.
Please help me out here. Seriously. What is the foundation of Christianity? I'm sure I'm not the only one in the dark.
The Resurrection of Jesus created and launched Christianity. The Resurrection of Jesus is THE foundation of Christianity. The faith of Christianity is tethered to the event of the Resurrection rather than to the authority and inspiration or infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Bible did not birth Jesus’ Church. Our faith is anchored to the event (the Resurrection) that sparked the movement (the Church) that brought us the Bible. Christianity began on Easter morning with Jesus’ Resurrection.
No one for almost 2,000 years was a witness of the resurrection. Without the Bible, what documentation do you have for Jesus or His resurrection?
No one for almost 2,000 years was a witness of the resurrection. Without the Bible, what documentation do you have for Jesus or His resurrection?
That it was written down is not an issue.
We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book as important as the history itself. And it doesn’t make the book the foundation of that history. Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
I am really busy today but I'll give you a quick answer and more later. Jesus also called Yeshua and John the Baptist taught salvation through repentance which is the theme attached to salvation from front to back Genesis to Revelation. Read it and you cannot escape that Paul contradicted Jesus. Yes he did. The Roman version of Christianity attached all kinds of Paganism to their church and most protestants retained it. Start with Easter, Christmas, infant baptism, and I could go on and on. Just read Jesus' message that survived the editing and you will understand that most Christianity does not follow him and in fact would probably kill him again if he were to come back and tell them the truth as he did to the Jewish leaders of his day. The only place for an honest man is a grave in most places in this world.
For sure. They'd kill HIM for saying to keep the heathens out of your country and away from your kids.
Or to only feed those who CAN not feed themselves and let the others starve. Or for saying not to call mortal men Father.
Or for having church elders kill murderers. Or for saying HE was the son of GOD. Or....
No one for almost 2,000 years was a witness of the resurrection. Without the Bible, what documentation do you have for Jesus or His resurrection?
That it was written down is not an issue.
We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book more important than the history itself. Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Really? I don't think I have ever run into anyone who elevated the Bible over Jesus. Sure, on any given day someone might talk about the Bible to the exclusion of anything else; but my experience has been that Jesus was still preeminent in their minds.
We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book as important as the history itself. And it doesn’t make the book the foundation of that history. Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Really? I don't think I have ever run into anyone who elevated the Bible over Jesus. Sure, on any given day someone might talk about the Bible to the exclusion of anything else; but my experience has been that Jesus was still preeminent in their minds.
A better choice of words on my part may have conveyed my point better...
‘We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book as important as the history itself.’ And it doesn’t make the book the foundation of that history.
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!”
That we can learn about historical events that happened thousands of years ago from documentation, doesn’t mean that those events exist ‘because of’ the documentation. Those events still happened, regardless of the existence or not of the documentation.
I don’t worship the Bible. If others choose to, so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to worship the Bible.
Matt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass til all these things be fulfilled.
The first "thing" was the establishment of Israel as a nation in 1948. That start the generational time clock.
Psalms 90:10 The days of our years are three score years and ten (70 years); and if by reason of strength they be four score years (80 years), yet is their strength labor and sorrow; For it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
Psalms 90:4 For 1,000 years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
So, 70-80 years after the inception of literal Israel I expect there is a good chance for the rapture.
A better choice of words on my part may have conveyed my point better...
‘We can learn about history from a history book, but that doesn’t make the book as important as the history itself.’ And it doesn’t make the book the foundation of that history.
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!”
That we can learn about historical events that happened thousands of years ago from documentation, doesn’t mean that those events exist ‘because of’ the documentation. Those events still happened, regardless of the existence or not of the documentation.
I don’t worship the Bible. If others choose to, so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to worship the Bible.
You create a strawman to defend you lack of faith in God protecting His Word.
What seems to be missed by humanists, is that in-depth knowledge of the bible, memorization of the scriptures or belief in literal vs interpretive aspects aren’t required by God. It’s so easy that it’s hard for critical thinkers. You only have to confess that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, He died for our sins and God wants us to take care of each other. That’s it. It is walking by faith. Not by sight. You have to be like a child. As a matter of fact, evidence of God or Jesus would actually take away from it, since it is based on faith.
Science is the study that requires evidence and being proven or disproven. The irony is humanists commonly believe that only they reserve the right of using baseless faith when their thesis is hanging in limbo. What commonly happens, as has happened here, is a secular “Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations” approach using scientific metrics to measure christian faith development.
Case and point: The OP’s topic derailed pages ago because ape to man evolution is not a proven theory and they aren’t anywhere near having it proven. However, christianity, the behavior of christians, the bible, religion, Jesus, Paul and God are now all the topics being judged....in between insults.
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Since you said "Some people..." in our first sentence, I guess there's no way to dispute that as being the reality. But when you say those few people "often castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshiping the Bible", I have to think that you are mistaking their belief in the inerrancy of scripture for worship of the scripture. But you're the one who seems to run into these folks a lot, so who am I to say?
Elite-class roman citizen women changing husbands, and the dirt-poor citizen (of Rome city) getting a Subsistence grain/bread allowance caused the whole Empire to fall...???.. 😂
How much have you virgin birth twits actually studied on the Republic and Empire?
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by antlers
........
Yep, the New Testament didn't even exist for many years while there was a thriving Christian Church.
If not for Pagan hellenistic Greeks organizing for the N.T. to be written up, to add to their library in Alexandria, you'd not have such.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
.. there was a thriving Christian Church.
Considering the weird variety of competing factions, How many real-deal christians were there prior to the N.T. coming into existence?
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Since you said "Some people..." in our first sentence, I guess there's no way to dispute that as being the reality. But when you say those few people "often castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshiping the Bible", I have to think that you are mistaking their belief in the inerrancy of scripture for worship of the scripture. But you're the one who seems to run into these folks a lot, so who am I to say?
Either way, the Jesus I know isn’t bound by the covers of a book. And my belief in Him doesn’t require an inerrant Bible, nor does my belief in Him require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
If others choose to see it differently for themselves, then so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires an inerrant Bible, nor are my beliefs threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
What seems to be missed by humanists, is that in-depth knowledge of the bible, memorization of the scriptures or belief in literal vs interpretive aspects aren’t required by God. It’s so easy that it’s hard for critical thinkers. You only have to confess that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, He died for our sins and God wants us to take care of each other. That’s it. It is walking by faith. Not by sight. You have to be like a child. As a matter of fact, evidence of God or Jesus would actually take away from it, since it is based on faith.
Science is the study that requires evidence and being proven or disproven. The irony is humanists commonly believe that only they reserve the right of using baseless faith when their thesis is hanging in limbo. What commonly happens, as has happened here, is a secular “Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations” approach using scientific metrics to measure christian faith development.
Case and point: The OP’s topic derailed pages ago because ape to man evolution is not a proven theory and they aren’t anywhere near having it proven. However, christianity, the behavior of christians, the bible, religion, Jesus, Paul and God are now all the topics being judged....in between insults.
Well done, science guys. Well done.
It is called DNA... Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's ... humanorigins.si.edu › education ›
How are humans and monkeys related? Humans and monkeys are both primates. But humans are not descended from monkeys or any other primate living today. We do share a common ape ancestor with [bleep]. It lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. But humans and [bleep] evolved differently from that same ancestor. All apes and monkeys share a more distant relative, which lived about 25 million years ago.
Isn’t evolution controversial among scientists? Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on Earth. As in all fields of science, knowledge about evolution continues to increase through research and serious debate. For example, scientists continue to investigate the details of how evolution occurred and to refine exactly what happened at different times.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Assuming you meant "a sense of hopelessness". And where might a sense of hopelessness come from? Perhaps the thought that you are nothing more than an ape who has come down out of the trees? I'd have a sense of hopelessness if I believed that, too.
If you really meant hopelessness then I completely understand the majority of liberals; their lack of hops means they'll never make dime playing basketball, so they drag down society instead.
Why would I say 'a sense of hopelessness' If I had not meant to say it? I also listed possible reasons for the sense of hopelessness that some feel, struggling to make ends meet, low income, meaningless work day in day out without respite....may be causes for the breakdown of society, turning to drugs, crime, etc.
These issues are more economic and existential than religious. A society does well when it's members feel they have opportunities to get ahead, to thrive....rather than believing in this or that version of God.
Jesus told a man to give away all his material wealth and follow Jesus.. How many 'Christians' have invested that much faith in their God?
They like to bring up "no atheists in a foxhole" when war shows Christians will be crowded in the safer concrete bunker along with agnostics and athiests.
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Since you said "Some people..." in our first sentence, I guess there's no way to dispute that as being the reality. But when you say those few people "often castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshiping the Bible", I have to think that you are mistaking their belief in the inerrancy of scripture for worship of the scripture. But you're the one who seems to run into these folks a lot, so who am I to say?
Either way, the Jesus I know isn’t bound by the covers of a book. And my belief in Him doesn’t require an inerrant Bible, nor does my belief in Him require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
If others choose to see it differently for themselves, then so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires an inerrant Bible, nor are my beliefs threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25) So, yep, Jesus is not bound by the cover of a book, for sure.
Demanding that people believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible has a long history. No lie, it pushed me away.
I am sorry that has been the case for you. Faith can't and shouldn't be demanded or coerced, it has to come from the heart. I agree that many churches and many individual Christians have done great harm by being overly dogmatic. Persuasion, not coercion, is the better approach. Christians sometimes allow their zeal to get the best of them.
My problem with the Bible is that the Old Testament is way too bloodthirsty for me. I could double this page count with examples. Some of it spills over into the New Testament, but the revolutionary teachings of Jesus are a long, long ways from the Old. That is why the writings in the Bible reflect the cruel and unenlightened world and times when they were written.
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"(Psalm 137:8–9 NRSV)
"See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)
"And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus 26:27–29 King James Version)
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
What seems to be missed by humanists, is that in-depth knowledge of the bible, memorization of the scriptures or belief in literal vs interpretive aspects aren’t required by God. It’s so easy that it’s hard for critical thinkers. You only have to confess that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, He died for our sins and God wants us to take care of each other. That’s it. It is walking by faith. Not by sight. You have to be like a child. As a matter of fact, evidence of God or Jesus would actually take away from it, since it is based on faith.
Science is the study that requires evidence and being proven or disproven. The irony is humanists commonly believe that only they reserve the right of using baseless faith when their thesis is hanging in limbo. What commonly happens, as has happened here, is a secular “Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations” approach using scientific metrics to measure christian faith development.
Case and point: The OP’s topic derailed pages ago because ape to man evolution is not a proven theory and they aren’t anywhere near having it proven. However, christianity, the behavior of christians, the bible, religion, Jesus, Paul and God are now all the topics being judged....in between insults.
Well done, science guys. Well done.
Ray,
Do you really thing atheist are not familiar with the wide range of Christian claims regarding what may or may not be necessary for admittance into heaven?
For how many centuries have Christians been debating Faith vs. works, or the new de'jour that Faith leads to works?
Additionally, as I've previously explained, atheism addresses a single question, do you accept any theistic claims, or not. That's it. Being atheist does not require the acceptance of Humanism. Atheist are free to accept any philosophical and moral system they chose so long as it does not theistic, because then they would no longer be a-theistic.
And none of the above, from you or I, negates the reality that “Some people worship the Bible, and some people worship Jesus. And often, the people who worship the Bible castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshipping the Bible...!
Since you said "Some people..." in our first sentence, I guess there's no way to dispute that as being the reality. But when you say those few people "often castigate the people who worship Jesus for not worshiping the Bible", I have to think that you are mistaking their belief in the inerrancy of scripture for worship of the scripture. But you're the one who seems to run into these folks a lot, so who am I to say?
Either way, the Jesus I know isn’t bound by the covers of a book. And my belief in Him doesn’t require an inerrant Bible, nor does my belief in Him require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
If others choose to see it differently for themselves, then so be it.
My beliefs are not threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires an inerrant Bible, nor are my beliefs threatened by those who choose to believe that faith in Jesus requires a literal interpretation of the entire Bible.
Guess I lean a little toward being agnostic in the sense that I admit I just dont know.
But that's actually a really interesting position and perspective, antlers. Really interesting.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
Well, you served that up well....
Anyway, the key question is not what Bart Ehrman or Hitchens thinks about Jesus, the key issue is what you think about Jesus.
I see many “appeals to popularity” arguments made here. At the end of the day, it boils down to you and God.
The issue is pertinent to the individual, not the herd.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
Correct.
There are different view points. And no this was not a "hasty search", I also have his book, and have read it. Mainly I was posting that video for the purpose I stated, his review of earlier religions with similar elements from which the writers of Christianity borrowed.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
If you read and watch Ehrman carefully, his evidence for the historicity of Jesus is actually very flimsy and what he believes in is not what any Christian would recognize as their "Jesus".
Yes it is. It is not a proven theory and debating the use of adverbs only suggests that you can’t contend with a fact you refuse to accept. That’s not a very scientific approach. I‘m sure this will invoke an elaborate response that provides more of the same. Perhaps some more deflection and insults will make it less of a fact?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Did you ever get that GED like Ringman?
LOL. Wow. We didn’t even have to wait for a response to get the insult.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Do you really thing atheist are not familiar with the wide range of Christian claims regarding what may or may not be necessary for admittance into heaven?
I understand this is rhetorical (albeit irrelevant to proving we came from apes), but I’ll oblige by answering......”no”?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
For how many centuries have Christians been debating Faith vs. works, or the new de'jour that Faith leads to works?
Good question. What are we discussing again?
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Additionally, as I've previously explained, atheism addresses a single question, do you accept any theistic claims, or not. That's it. Being atheist does not require the acceptance of Humanism. Atheist are free to accept any philosophical and moral system they chose so long as it does not theistic, because then they would no longer be a-theistic.
A lot of big words for my tiny brain. I accept that you believe that philosophy, but philosophy isn’t any closer to science than religion. You sure do go a long way to avoid admitting you can’t prove we came from apes. While you seem unable to simply say “There is no proven theory, but I believe it so,” I honestly (without sarcasm) do admire your commitment to debate.
Paul allegedly heard a voice and saw a bright light, so nothing like the claims of others seeing a resurrected flesh and blood Jesus. And nothing shows that Paul met and heard Jesus in his three years of public ministry.
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them to kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
Crazy isn’t it? Yet these are outliers of christianity. The ridiculously fringe radical stories that are recycled over and over again. It makes a great distractor for those looking to make certain, so-called scientific ideas look more realistic.
For instance, how many books explain humans coming from apes as a fact without mentioning any other possibility? Millions? How many teachers instruct an unproven theory in a manner that suggests it’s proven? It’s certainly the position of self-proclaimed intellectuals here.
As far as amazement goes, I’d be a little more concerned with what’s passed as “science” to the masses. It’s clear that that the standard is no longer an open-minded and objective practice of scientific method.
Your cut & pasted post is a hypothesis. Not a proven theory, as its highly disputed....and not just by christians.
Again, it runs out of evidence and relies on faith....the same stuff that humanists criticize when christians use it to explain the existence of God.
You could not possibly be more wrong. No shortage of evidence. Frequently Asked Question s | The Smithsonian Institution's ... humanorigins.si.edu › education ›
Isn’t evolution controversial among scientists? Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. There is no scientific controversy about whether evolution occurred or whether it explains the history of life on Earth. As in all fields of science, knowledge about evolution continues to increase through research and serious debate. For example, scientists continue to investigate the details of how evolution occurred and to refine exactly what happened at different times. How do scientists know the age of fossils? Scientists have developed more than a dozen methods for determining the age of fossils, human artifacts, and the sediments in which such evidence is found. These methods can date objects millions of years old. What’s more, the methods can be tested against one another to provide a highly reliable record of the past.
What has been discovered about evolution since Darwin? A lot! Since Darwin died in 1882, findings from many fields have confirmed and greatly expanded on his ideas. We’ve learned that Earth is old enough for all known species to have evolved. We’ve discovered DNA, which confirms that all organisms are related to one another. And we’ve uncovered millions of fossils that provide evidence of how one life form evolved into another over time. What about the gaps in knowledge about human evolution? In science, gaps in knowledge are the driving force behind the ongoing study of the natural world and how it arose. The science of human origins is a vibrant field in which new discoveries continually add to our understanding of how we became human.
People have claimed that Jesus has spoken to them compelling them kill family members because they are evil...some even claim to see the face of Jesus in the melted cheese of their pizza.
Just amazing how convinced some can be of the ways they think their God is communicating with them.
Crazy isn’t it? Yet these are outliers of Christianity. The ridiculously fringe radical(s)...
Wow. That's a good description of Young Earth Creationist.
Like it or not evolution is a reality. The question of how the Universe came about, if it did (cyclic or part of a greater system) is a work in progress.
Live with the mystery folks, the Universe may be not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.....
Like it or not evolution is a reality. The question of how the Universe came about, if it did (cyclic or part of a greater system) is a work in progress.
Live with the mystery folks, the Universe may be not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.....
Did Apostle Paul see Jesus within the forty days prior to His ascension like Peter did?
Seriously...?
Originally Posted by Ringman
Did Apostle Paul see Jesus.....?
Paul did both see and hear the risen Jesus.
I believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. I believe Paul was something on the order of at least borderline paranoid schizophrenic. Remember his trip to third heaven, or his three different versions of meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Not to mention his contradictory writings if they in fact are his.
Hitchens was pretty smart. He was prolly about as smart as a guy who could make the universe and everything in it, huh?
Jag,
Hitch certainly had a wit about him. The kind of orator that, whether we agreed with him or not, left us entertained if nothing else. I regret his passing.
To answer your question though, I have to say that I honestly do not know.
I've struggled smithing my words recently and dont mean to give the wrong impression and thus be misunderstood. I guess you could say that I'm neither a believer nor an atheist, and that I'm more of a seeker, Perhaps I'd be labeled an agnostic, if defined as "one who simply does not know."
I cant say that there isnt a god, not can I say that there is...
I do know that some have penned that jesus is the "Truth" and that the holy spirit is the "Revealer." I'm a human with an open mind who simply doesnt doesn't know, perhaps the three of us will meet, perhaps not...
I hope I have helped you understand where I am with all this.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Meh, just another hasty search then cut and paste.
As I recall, Bart Ehrman does not doubt the historicity of Jesus.
If I understand him correctly, I believe Bart believes that there is a "probability" of a historical jesus.
Hitchens on the other hand......
If you read and watch Ehrman carefully, his evidence for the historicity of Jesus is actually very flimsy and what he believes in is not what any Christian would recognize as their "Jesus".
T,
You are correct. Ehrman would not make for a very good apologist in light of Christian doctrine.
Hitchens was pretty smart. He was prolly about as smart as a guy who could make the universe and everything in it, huh?
Jag,
Hitch certainly had a wit about him. The kind of orator that, whether we agreed with him or not, left us entertained if nothing else. I regret his passing.
To answer your question though, I have to say that I honestly do not know.
I've struggled smithing my words recently and dont mean to give the wrong impression and thus be misunderstood. I guess you could say that I'm neither a believer nor an atheist, and that I'm more of a seeker, Perhaps I'd be labeled an agnostic, if defined as "one who simply does not know."
I cant say that there isnt a god, not can I say that there is...
I do know that some have penned that jesus is the "Truth" and that the holy spirit is the "Revealer." I'm a human with an open mind who simply doesnt doesn't know, perhaps the three of us will meet, perhaps not...
I hope I have helped you understand where I am with all this.
I'm so glad to hear that. Praise the Lord. Thanks for that. I would ask you to pray and ask HIM to come into your heart and save and give you faith if HE is true.
Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Until we finally got a good look and found out otherwise;most were pretty sure that Heaven was just up there on top of the clouds. Just as they thought Hell was deep in the Earth.
“The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth! Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH."”
As per usual, you share what you think and why. This is to your credit. I appreciate that.
Anyway, there has been a bit of past discussion in these threads about the the Big Bang, origins of the universe and what not. There has been mention of the concepts regarding “multiverses.” The simplistic explanation that these exist in parallel with ours and may have or even likely have “different physics.” This has always seemed possible to.... at least in my opinion.
The Bible and Jesus both refer to,what I would call the “spirit” world. The abode of God before the creation of,this world.
Clearly the physics of the spirit world is not like our world.
Satan, a spirit being, was “cast down” ..... seemingly to earth. He is referred to as the “prince” of this world.
I can see that yes, there is Hades, Gehenna.... what have you, in the spirit world .....and it may indeed be in the earth.
I have found that when trying to understand the Bible, I see what appears to be contradictions or different teachings on what appears to the the same subject. When faced with this issue, I often start by wondering how “both can be true?”
Hell in the earth? Yep, could be. More questions than answers sometimes.
Another example is Jesus’ teaching on the law. It seems not square with other NT writings regarding the law.
But, Jesus’ teachings on the “law” were .... before.... the Crucifiction.... note that His sacrifice changed how believers, members of the Body of Christ.... are seen....how they are free from the law, based on the blood.
I appreciate where your heart is with that Jag. I really do.
A little nugget of insight that I think only fair for you to know is - that not only do I know the gospel message but I've also preached it to thousands in countless countries around the globe.
If love is the evidence, than I can say with gratitude that I have recieved it beyond measure from certain professing christians far more than I have deserved. Yet I too have also experienced similar from non believers as well. Go figure.
That said, I and others, have also seen and experienced hate from professing christians and non believers alike at equal measure. Again go figure.
But I am a realist and know it would be nothing less than foolishness to attempt to build a foundation upon the basis of anothers behavior, fickle as the human heart is.
So, this comes down to a spiritual matter of revelation, of which, were I to reach into my own pocket in an attempt to use such as evidence I admittedly would come out empty handed.
What is in my pocket though, is the ability to celebrate with those who do believe, and understanding for those who dont.
I do appreciate your heart Jag, and the passion you so boldly emanate.
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Ok, I’ll play...... care to name these so-called predecessor religions and explain why you think that way?
It would be best if you would use your own words in explanation.....that way we can avoid a cut and paste war that is will only prove to be boring.
You may want to start with Mithra. I see that mentioned quite a bit. Let’s compare dates as well as the completeness of writings and while we are at it, let’s see if it turns out that the Roman Mithra teachings were in fact influenced by Jewish writings.
Over to you.....
But, family bbq this afternoon, so my responses will be delayed.....
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Seems to that “philosophy” was advanced long before science. These writers from 2000 years ago were not just ignorant sheep herders.
Further,,,, what about Plato, Socrates..... .... were they examples of the “ bawling and fearful infancy”:of our species?
Hitchens sounds like a petulant child, angry that the pablum he serves up is not gobbled up by all.
Look at what he actually says.... look at how he tries to characterize people of the past, No, they were not stupid and intellectually dense.
This Hitchens quote is a pure miss on many levels.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
Because there were many similiar predecessor religions to Christianity. Here Richard Carrier details several, and also some that are claimed but are not actually do not feature a dying and rising god like Christianity:
Ok, I’ll play...... care to name these so-called predecessor religions and explain why you think that way?
It would be best if you would use your own words in explanation.....that way we can avoid a cut and paste war that is will only prove to be boring.
You may want to start with Mithra. I see that mentioned quite a bit. Let’s compare dates as well as the completeness of writings and while we are at it, let’s see if it turns out that the Roman Mithra teachings were in fact influenced by Jewish writings.
Over to you.....
But, family bbq this afternoon, so my responses will be delayed.....
Have a great BBQ and day, TF and thanks for your time, knowledge and insight on this subject.
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
As if HE didnt already know.
Funny how many worship man and his minds interpretation of the Earths elements and perceived events, trying to be gods rather than worship and believe THE GOD that made them and the universe HE created for them.
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” ― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
Seems to that “philosophy” was advanced long before science. These writers from 2000 years ago were not just ignorant sheep herders.
Further,,,, what about Plato, Socrates..... .... were they examples of the “ bawling and fearful infancy”:of our species?
Hitchens sounds like a petulant child, angry that the pablum he serves up is not gobbled up by all.
Look at what he actually says.... look at how he tries to characterize people of the past, No, they were not stupid and intellectually dense.
This Hitchens quote is a pure miss on many levels.
Religion is part of the human make-up. It's also part of our cultural and intellectual history. Religion was our first attempt at literature, the texts, our first attempt at cosmology, making sense of where we are in the universe, our first attempt at health care, believing in faith healing, our first attempt at philosophy. Christopher Hitchens
Religion is part of the human make-up. It's also part of our cultural and intellectual history. Religion was our first attempt at literature, the texts, our first attempt at cosmology, making sense of where we are in the universe, our first attempt at health care, believing in faith healing, our first attempt at philosophy. - Christopher Hitchens.
For some time people were content with earthly Elemental dieties , then they put them beyond earth and embodied-personified them in the cosmos, Then some decided that their diety was beyond the 3D universe... some believe if you worship any or all of the above they can do you favors.
The archetypal Judeo Christian arbitrary justice grey-bearded diety has much in common with archetypal pagan dieties.
Judeo Christianity believes their diety punishes mortals through the (4) natural elements... even using primitive flame to burn wicked spiritual entities. THE Talmud provides an actual numerical value temp. for the flames.
The christian 'devil' borrows its horns from pagan Dionysus, Pitchfork from Neptune, and goat body from Pan. The O.T. Hebrews do not have such a character.
#####
Pharisees [who ran the Synagogues] believed in a Messiah, the elite status Sadducees [who ran the Temples] did not share such messianic views.
Sadducees did Not believe in an immortal soul or resurrection/afterlife, or fiery hell, they were more of the O.T. Job view of ones fate at death, of going to a boring know nothingness state in ' Sheol'.
Sadducees were of such belief because the Torah does not support the concept of a fiery place of judgment/condemnation. 'Gehinnom' was not originally viewed as such.....rather it was in the second temple period that such prophetical appolcyptic writings developed [in post- exile Jewish culture] and became popular among early Christians.
Later century writers of the Talmud , like later century Christians, embellished- spiced up the idea of demons, and an inferno of punishment...
Like it or not evolution is a reality. The question of how the Universe came about, if it did (cyclic or part of a greater system) is a work in progress.
Live with the mystery folks, the Universe may be not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine.....
And the Creator of it also.
We have evidence for the existence of a Universe but not a Creator.
A Creator is assumed and used as an explanation for the existence of a Universe by some because we have no idea how such a Marvelous thing as a Universe could exist.
Working out how is a work in progress. But you can't begin with an assumption because that would skew the work in favour of the assumption.
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
St Paul copied from Greek philosophy during his stay in Greece, some of his words are taken nearly word for word from Greek philosophy.
And you have no evidence of how it was created. I thought that's one of the things we were discussing.
We have evidence of us, also.
I said that understanding how the Universe came about, if it did have a beginning and not a cycle, is a work in progress, and that it's a mistake to start with a conclusion.
You can't learn if you assume you have the answers before you even begin.
As it stands, we don't know. I don't know.
Some like to feel that they do know, which is understandable.
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
“I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.”
If you want to start a cult and build your numbers, it's going to be slow going by requiring folks to be strict Jewish Torah compliant as prerequisite to becoming a Christian.. so Paul relaxed the rules.
Such demanding 0.T. observances were deemed an inconvenient hindrance to scooping up the Hellenistic/ Greek Torah folks (gentiles).
If you want to start a cult and build your numbers, it's going to be slow going by requiring folks to be strict Jewish Torah compliant as prerequisite to becoming a Christian.. so Paul relaxed the rules. Such demanding 0.T. observances were deemed an inconvenient hindrance to scooping up the Greek Torah folks (gentiles).
Right. He left Jesus, John the Baptist and the whole Hebrew bible in the dust as he sped away from Jesus doctrine of salvation through repentance evidenced by good works. After the Roman church and then the later protestant churches got through with Jesus he was thoroughly obscured. All that was left was His name.
St Paul copied from Greek philosophy during his stay in Greece, some of his words are taken nearly word for word from Greek philosophy.
So why is that quote out there anyway? Is it meant to say deny rationality? Or don't be fooled by its misapplication?
What do you mean? If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
What do you mean? If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
“And for rejecting such a medium, we have the authority of those the oldest and most celebrated philosophers of Greece and Phoenicia, who made a vacuum, and atoms, and the gravity of atoms, the first principles of their philosophy; tacitly attributing gravity to some other cause than dense matter. Later philosophers banish the consideration of such a cause out of natural philosophy, feigning Hypotheses for explaining all things mechanically, and referring other causes to Metaphysics.”
“I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.”
What do you mean? If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
“And for rejecting such a medium, we have the authority of those the oldest and most celebrated philosophers of Greece and Phoenicia, who made a vacuum, and atoms, and the gravity of atoms, the first principles of their philosophy; tacitly attributing gravity to some other cause than dense matter. Later philosophers banish the consideration of such a cause out of natural philosophy, feigning Hypotheses for explaining all things mechanically, and referring other causes to Metaphysics.”
-Isaac Newton
I'm not sure how that is relevant to the issue of St Paul copying from Greek philosophy.
If you want to start a cult and build your numbers, it's going to be slow going by requiring folks to be strict Jewish Torah compliant as prerequisite to becoming a Christian.. so Paul relaxed the rules.
Such demanding 0.T. observances were deemed an inconvenient hindrance to scooping up the Hellenistic/ Greek Torah folks (gentiles).
Paul was the marketing genius that grew the revenues.
If one questions whether a person can believe in evolution and still be a follower of Jesus, you might consider reading this book, ‘The Language of God’, by Francis Collins. He is one of the world’s leading physician-geneticists, and is well known for heading the Human Genome Project...and bringing it to a successful completion ahead of schedule and under budget. He is currently the director of the US National Institutes of Health. He sees it as a misconception that faith and science are incompatible. Just a suggestion for those who might be interested.
Paul was the marketing genius that grew the revenues.
Archeological digs of pagan sites of worship show folks left money, gold and other precious valuables to their dieties,.. the church brainwashed its followers into giving such to the church.
If one questions whether a person can believe in evolution and still be a follower of Jesus, you might consider reading this book, ‘The Language of God’, by Francis Collins. He is one of the world’s leading physician-geneticists, and is well known for heading the Human Genome Project...and bringing it to a successful completion ahead of schedule and under budget. He is currently the director of the US National Institutes of Health. He sees it as a misconception that faith and science are incompatible. Just a suggestion for those who might be interested.
He was also a friend of Christopher Hitchen's and offered to try and find a treatment for Christopher's cancer tailored to his DNA.
If one questions whether a person can believe in evolution and still be a follower of Jesus, you might consider reading this book, ‘The Language of God’, by Francis Collins. He is one of the world’s leading physician-geneticists, and is well known for heading the Human Genome Project...and bringing it to a successful completion ahead of schedule and under budget. He is currently the director of the US National Institutes of Health. He sees it as a misconception that faith and science are incompatible. Just a suggestion for those who might be interested.
He was also a friend of Christopher Hitchen's and offered to try and find a treatment for Christopher's cancer tailored to his DNA.
Yep. Christopher Hitchens thought highly of him.He mentions that Collins was sequencing the genome of the cancer that would ultimately claim Hitchens's life.
Jesus says we should watch out when men speak well of us.
He actually said “Woe unto you when ‘ALL MEN’ speak well of you.” The implication being such ‘universal’ applause is not to be gained without some bad compliances.
Regardless...Is your statement in regard to a dying Christopher Hitchens speaking highly of Francis Collins...? Do you have a point...? If so, what is it...?
What do you mean? If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
“And for rejecting such a medium, we have the authority of those the oldest and most celebrated philosophers of Greece and Phoenicia, who made a vacuum, and atoms, and the gravity of atoms, the first principles of their philosophy; tacitly attributing gravity to some other cause than dense matter. Later philosophers banish the consideration of such a cause out of natural philosophy, feigning Hypotheses for explaining all things mechanically, and referring other causes to Metaphysics.”
-Isaac Newton
Man, you're pretty smart, Ray. You sure you live in Pa.?
There are as many scientists who thought they under The mystery of physics and were wrong, as there are men who thought they understood everything God was trying to tell them and are wrong.
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
St Paul copied from Greek philosophy during his stay in Greece, some of his words are taken nearly word for word from Greek philosophy.
Well, don’t leave us hanging. Pls post where Paul quoted from Greek sources. BUT, would you pls show the context? Tell us what this borrowed “philosophy” was.
I am afraid some reader might think that Paul got some of his Christian philosophy Greek writers.
Clearly, he did not, and it would be good of you to show that.
There are as many scientists who thought they under The mystery of physics and were wrong, as there are men who thought they understood everything God was trying to tell them and are wrong.
And that my friend is the majority of people...
I dont think I ever knew anyone who even thought they knew everything GOD told them about directly and indirectly in the Bible.
There was a guy here, curdog4570, and he used to say that when he didn’t understand something about God...something that his salvation didn’t depend upon but was still intriguing to him...that he was reminded of Jesus saying "…what is that to you? ...follow Me."
There was a guy here, curdog4570, and he used to say that when he didn’t understand something about God...something that his salvation didn’t depend upon but was still intriguing to him...that he was reminded of Jesus saying "…what is that to you? ...follow Me."
There was a guy here, curdog4570, and he used to say that when he didn’t understand something about God...something that his salvation didn’t depend upon but was still intriguing to him...that he was reminded of Jesus saying "…what is that to you? ...follow Me."
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
St Paul copied from Greek philosophy during his stay in Greece, some of his words are taken nearly word for word from Greek philosophy.
Well, don’t leave us hanging. Pls post where Paul quoted from Greek sources. BUT, would you pls show the context? Tell us what this borrowed “philosophy” was.
I am afraid some reader might think that Paul got some of his Christian philosophy Greek writers.
Clearly, he did not, and it would be good of you to show that.
I've posted it before. It's typically dismissed or ignored. Yet it is undeniable;
Quote: ''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''
The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:
#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
This verse actually contains two quotations. The first quotation comes from The Kretika by the Greek poet and mystic Epimenides of Knossos. The second quotation comes from line five of the didactic poem Phainomena by the Stoic philosopher Aratos of Soloi.
#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.
#4. 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”
This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides. The apostle Paul seems to have enjoyed, or at least had extensive knowledge of, classical drama, judging by the fact that he quotes from at least two different classical playwrights.
#5. Titus 1:12: “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
This quote comes from the Kretan poet Epimenides of Knossos. This quote, like the one found in Acts 17:28, comes from The Kretika. In fact, it seems to come from the exact same passage. Epimenides is not mentioned by name in either of the places where he is quoted and The Kretika has, sadly, not survived. The only reason we know that these passages are quoted from him is because ancient commentators who had access to Epimenides’s writings made note of this fact.
Based on these two quotations, we can reconstruct the passage as a refutation of the widely held Kretan belief that Zeus was a mortal king of Krete and that he died there and was buried. This belief is also referenced by the early mythographer Euhemeros (whom you may remember from my previous article “The Original Myth-Busters”).
The authors of the New Testament must have either really admired Epimenides or at least seen him as a useful figure to establish good relations with the pagans because he is quoted, not once, but twice in the New Testament, and in different books no less, making him the most quoted non-Jewish writer in the entire Bible. It is also interesting that this passage directly refers to Epimenides as a “prophet,” which makes him one of a small handful of non-Jewish persons to be explicitly referred to as a prophet.
In addition to these five direct quotes, there are also passages, particularly in Paul’s letters, where Christian teachings are explained using concepts from Greek philosophy. For instance, Paul’s famous description of the body having many parts with different functions in 1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Platon’s Protagoras 349c, in which Sokrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole.''
So again, If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
Apart from Paul the pharisee quoting from the Hellenistic influenced Koine Greek O.T. (Septuagint) Paul employed all means necessary to maximize his audience... He made himself all things to all people... To Jews he appealed as a Jew, to Greeks as a greek, to the weak as weak, to those with or without the law, he came across as one with or without the law respectively.
For the N.T. Paul takes from Plato, Socrates, Menander, Epimenides, Aratus, Aristotle, Seneca.
SOME suggest Jesus would not have cared for it, desiring that Jews return to the Law in a way that abandonned the routine of ritual and the erroneous interpretations of Hellenistic influenced teachers. #####
Early Church fathers including Basil, Clement, Origen, Augustine, Gregory (the Great) , Gregory (of Nyssa) etc., were versed in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Aristotelianism. They employed their philosophical training to refine the theology of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, and the Orthodox formulation of the Nicene Creed which became std. for East and West church for centuries.
Augustine mentioned above, is credited for reading Bible via Hellenistic philosophy, and Augustinian theology has become foundational for much of Western culture and Christianity.
Colossians 2:8: "Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ."
St Paul copied from Greek philosophy during his stay in Greece, some of his words are taken nearly word for word from Greek philosophy.
Well, don’t leave us hanging. Pls post where Paul quoted from Greek sources. BUT, would you pls show the context? Tell us what this borrowed “philosophy” was.
I am afraid some reader might think that Paul got some of his Christian philosophy Greek writers.
Clearly, he did not, and it would be good of you to show that.
I've posted it before. It's typically dismissed or ignored. Yet it is undeniable;
Quote: ''One thing that many people do not know about the New Testament is that it actually contains several direct quotes from certain ancient Greek writers. In fact, there are a total of at least five quotes from four different Greek writers found throughout the pages of the New Testament. The following is a list of all of all the known quotations.''
The verses are given in full with the quotations written in bold:
#1 and #2. Acts 17:27-28: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.“
This verse actually contains two quotations. The first quotation comes from The Kretika by the Greek poet and mystic Epimenides of Knossos. The second quotation comes from line five of the didactic poem Phainomena by the Stoic philosopher Aratos of Soloi.
#3. Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
This unusual phrase is a direct quote from line 1624 of the Greek tragedy Agamemnon by Aischylos.
#4. 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.”
This saying is directly quoted from the comedy Thais by the Athenian comic playwright Menandros. Menandros, however, seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides. The apostle Paul seems to have enjoyed, or at least had extensive knowledge of, classical drama, judging by the fact that he quotes from at least two different classical playwrights.
#5. Titus 1:12: “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
This quote comes from the Kretan poet Epimenides of Knossos. This quote, like the one found in Acts 17:28, comes from The Kretika. In fact, it seems to come from the exact same passage. Epimenides is not mentioned by name in either of the places where he is quoted and The Kretika has, sadly, not survived. The only reason we know that these passages are quoted from him is because ancient commentators who had access to Epimenides’s writings made note of this fact.
Based on these two quotations, we can reconstruct the passage as a refutation of the widely held Kretan belief that Zeus was a mortal king of Krete and that he died there and was buried. This belief is also referenced by the early mythographer Euhemeros (whom you may remember from my previous article “The Original Myth-Busters”).
The authors of the New Testament must have either really admired Epimenides or at least seen him as a useful figure to establish good relations with the pagans because he is quoted, not once, but twice in the New Testament, and in different books no less, making him the most quoted non-Jewish writer in the entire Bible. It is also interesting that this passage directly refers to Epimenides as a “prophet,” which makes him one of a small handful of non-Jewish persons to be explicitly referred to as a prophet.
In addition to these five direct quotes, there are also passages, particularly in Paul’s letters, where Christian teachings are explained using concepts from Greek philosophy. For instance, Paul’s famous description of the body having many parts with different functions in 1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Platon’s Protagoras 349c, in which Sokrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole.''
So again, If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning, or being inspired by God, he was copying other people's work, the work of Greek Philosophers.
Ok, this will end up long and boring but some may trudge through it.
The applicable term I’ve seen used for this is issue is “riffing on the audience.” Preachers today use it quite a bit. A pastor may start a sermon by trying to establish a connection with an audience or pique interest by quoting current day football coach about what he said is required to win or build a strong team. He might then launch into how the the coach’s words could be useful in a personal life or church setting.
For,example, Corinth was a trading center with a great variety of peoples and many backgrounds. Many might read the letter would immediately recognize the quotes from the Greek writers. As a modern day preacher might do, Paul was likely trying to “grab the reader’s attention” for the purpose of presenting a follow on point.
The article you so artfully cut and pasted avoids this explanation.
In fact, the article finishes by falsely claiming ....”if St. Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning....,he was copying other people’s work.” This is a dishonest and misleading conclusion. Lousy research and biased literary analysis.
I will post this and then later, after church come home and beat this to death.
Paul was “riffing” to make a point of connection with audience and clearly did not “borrow” to make NT philosophy.
Btw....use the idea of “riffing” to grab someone’s attention is very common.
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
Who is the false teacher here?
Titus wasn't written by Paul, but you already know that.
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
Who is the false teacher here?
Titus wasn't written by Paul, but you already know that.
Well, this is interesting. One atheist claims Paul, in his writings, borrowed from Greek philosophy and another atheist claims that Paul didn’t write Titus.
Figures.....
Later today, I will finish up on the letter to Titus for DBT.
Perhaps in the meantime, you can tell us why Paul was not the author of Titus?
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
Who is the false teacher here?
Titus wasn't written by Paul, but you already know that.
Well, this is interesting. One atheist claims Paul, in his writings, borrowed from Greek philosophy and another atheist claims that Paul didn’t write Titus.
Figures.....
Later today, I will finish up on the letter to Titus for DBT.
Perhaps in the meantime, you can tell us why Paul was not the author of Titus?
My point was in relation to the claim that the bible, the new testament, etc, is the inspired word of God, yet here we have Paul not being inspired by God, not putting his own thoughts to parchment, but copying the work of Pagans, Greek Philosophers.
Can you not see the implications of this for the bible?
They are chasing arguments in details while the whole premise of their belief is flawed, as historic details are revealing. Optimistic at the very least.
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
Who is the false teacher here?
Titus wasn't written by Paul, but you already know that.
Well, this is interesting. One atheist claims Paul, in his writings, borrowed from Greek philosophy and another atheist claims that Paul didn’t write Titus.
Figures.....
Later today, I will finish up on the letter to Titus for DBT.
Perhaps in the meantime, you can tell us why Paul was not the author of Titus?
My point was in relation to the claim that the bible, the new testament, etc, is the inspired word of God, yet here we have Paul not being inspired by God, not putting his own thoughts to parchment, but copying the work of Pagans, Greek Philosophers.
Can you not see the implications of this for the bible?
Yes, I can see it and you are totally wrong. Paul's use of some reference to the culture of the day is entirely appropriate and does not negate the inspiration of what he says.....
DBT and his comment: “So again. If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning or being inspired by God, he was copying other people’s work, the work of Greek Philosophers.”
Note that Titus is in Crete and Paul is advising him on how to deal with rebellious dissenters and ….. deceivers there in Crete as he is tasked with building up the church. There are problems in Crete and Paul is advising. Paul is providing Titus with material to use and insight.
However, your point is that if he copied …. or quoted from other sources, he was not using his own thoughts? Right….. and since it was not his own “reasoning” it could not be inspired by God.
Your point might have a tiny bit of merit if he was using the quotes to add doctrine and introduce a new teaching. He is of course NOT doing that at all. That would be like saying it is God’s word that “….Cretans are always liars, evil beasts , slow bellies….”
Note that no one has ever said that this was Paul’s point. In fact, he does indeed attribute the comment to an earlier poet from Crete. He did this to help make a point…. perhaps some “riffing” …. perhaps to put in a line call attention of the Cretans to that saying. This is not doctrine that he is teaching. Any implication that Paul used Greek philosophy and massaged it into Christian doctrine is simple deceit, fabricated to undermine Paul’s teachings.
Consider this.... let's suppose God wanted to make a point to someone and while doing so, explained to them about what FDR may have said in 1941. Would that communication be invalidated because of God's reference what FDR said?
No, it would not be invalidated.
btw.... Jesus often used figures of speech. If someone did not understand this he might misunderstand when Jesus said He was the "gate for the sheep."
The point is this...…not understanding is not reason to toss out all that you do not understand. I have literally heard people object to Jesus as He could not possible be "bread."
The article you quote from says this: “….. there are also passages….. where Christian teachings are explained using concepts from Greek philosophy….” This is for the purpose of explaining and transmitting understanding to people of differing languages and cultures. The use of “Greek philosophy” is simply a tool to assist in conveying a Christian teaching. Nothing else.
It would be best if you would use your own words in explanation.....that way we can avoid a cut and paste war that is will only prove to be boring. ....
Dont quote/cut and paste like Paul did.. OK?... 😂
Originally Posted by TF49
Consider this.... let's suppose God wanted to make a point to someone and while doing so, explained to them about what FDR may have said in 1941. Would that communication be invalidated because of God's reference what FDR said?
Why would God need to quote FDR? when he has the magical power to make any person understand God's own words?
For DBT......One clear example of this is indeed Titus1:12....
Paul is talking about correcting false teachers...
Here is what Paul says...”As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretan are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Paul goes on to confirm the idea that false teachers should be rebuked..... by the way, he mentions “dishonorable gain”. Whoever wrote your point #5 was deliberately incomplete in the description and I am pretty sure had slander as a motive.
Whoever wrote the comment on your point #5 fails.... on purpose, to present the context.
Who is the false teacher here?
Titus wasn't written by Paul, but you already know that.
Well, this is interesting. One atheist claims Paul, in his writings, borrowed from Greek philosophy and another atheist claims that Paul didn’t write Titus.
Figures.....
Later today, I will finish up on the letter to Titus for DBT.
Perhaps in the meantime, you can tell us why Paul was not the author of Titus?
My point was in relation to the claim that the bible, the new testament, etc, is the inspired word of God, yet here we have Paul not being inspired by God, not putting his own thoughts to parchment, but copying the work of Pagans, Greek Philosophers.
Can you not see the implications of this for the bible?
Yes, I can see it and you are totally wrong. Paul's use of some reference to the culture of the day is entirely appropriate and does not negate the inspiration of what he says.....
DBT and his comment: “So again. If St Paul copied from Greek philosophy, he was not using his own thoughts or reasoning or being inspired by God, he was copying other people’s work, the work of Greek Philosophers.”
Note that Titus is in Crete and Paul is advising him on how to deal with rebellious dissenters and ….. deceivers there in Crete as he is tasked with building up the church. There are problems in Crete and Paul is advising. Paul is providing Titus with material to use and insight.
However, your point is that if he copied …. or quoted from other sources, he was not using his own thoughts? Right….. and since it was not his own “reasoning” it could not be inspired by God.
Your point might have a tiny bit of merit if he was using the quotes to add doctrine and introduce a new teaching. He is of course NOT doing that at all. That would be like saying it is God’s word that “….Cretans are always liars, evil beasts , slow bellies….”
Note that no one has ever said that this was Paul’s point. In fact, he does indeed attribute the comment to an earlier poet from Crete. He did this to help make a point…. perhaps some “riffing” …. perhaps to put in a line call attention of the Cretans to that saying. This is not doctrine that he is teaching. Any implication that Paul used Greek philosophy and massaged it into Christian doctrine is simple deceit, fabricated to undermine Paul’s teachings.
Consider this.... let's suppose God wanted to make a point to someone and while doing so, explained to them about what FDR may have said in 1941. Would that communication be invalidated because of God's reference what FDR said?
No, it would not be invalidated.
btw.... Jesus often used figures of speech. If someone did not understand this he might misunderstand when Jesus said He was the "gate for the sheep."
The point is this...…not understanding is not reason to toss out all that you do not understand. I have literally heard people object to Jesus as He could not possible be "bread."
The article you quote from says this: “….. there are also passages….. where Christian teachings are explained using concepts from Greek philosophy….” This is for the purpose of explaining and transmitting understanding to people of differing languages and cultures. The use of “Greek philosophy” is simply a tool to assist in conveying a Christian teaching. Nothing else.
For my point to stand, it doesn't matter who wrote it.
It doesn't matter if it was Paul or a bunch of anonymous scribes who wrote that which was undeniably copied from Greek philosophy.
Authorship of the new testament, the gospels and some of the works ascribed to Paul is questionable in any case. That is beside the point.
It makes no difference because we clearly have copying from Greek philosophy rather than divine revelation at work.
It's there for anyone to see.
It has nothing to do with me, or me being wrong.
There it is, anyone can see it: Greek philosophy. Does divine revelation need to copy from Greek philosophers in order to teach the word of God?
Does divine revelation need to copy from Greek philosophers in order to teach the word of God?
Paul was up against some stiff competition, that being James the brother of Jesus, who was was already a dominant leader in Jerusalem, when Paul was new on the scene.
James was about adhering to the old observances, for both Jew and gentile, so Paul needed a plan to outdo him... Pull out every trick in the book. Paul may well have felt inadequate, so he employed pretences.
PRETENCE = A way of behaving that does not honestly express your authentic feelings, thoughts, or intentions
his apparent outward conformity would alter depending which of the [particular] widely varied people he was trying to appeal to at any one time and place. ... It was all a put on.
a chameleon who made himself look like part of the decor of the different minds he was attempting to sway.
Of the 5 or 6 theories postulated by the modern unbelieving scientists and presented on the initial thread video and pushed by modern science which they all profess to ascribe, no unbeliever has claimed one.
Makes me wonder if they even watched the presentation by the guy a lot of their so called expert scientists wont even debate.
I reckon they know it all or dont want their ideas shaken.
Only in the minds of those wanting it to be there.
Much like the narrative of Paul's death.
Christians tell us he died as a martyr, but scripture does not detail the death of Paul, people merely speculate that he became victim of emperor Neros persecution of christians after the fire of Rome, they further speculate his manner of death was by beheading.
They assume beheading because they assume Paul was a Roman citizen, and it was extremely rare for such to be crucified.
Paul was born in Tarsus 5 AD, a "free city" under Roman imperial rule... But simply being born in a free city did not automatically make Paul a Roman citizen..Such non-Roman cities were permitted A certain level of autonmous/self- governing powers, thus deemed free.
When Paul says he was "born free", it could mean he was born in a free city durastiction.
Under the Roman system, there was a range of categories that sat between a full Roman citizen will full Roman rights and the mere slave with none. and one's rights and privileges varied accordingly. Same goes for urban settlement areas,.. there were Roman colony cities established and settled by Rome with Roman citizens with everything Roman. Then you had places granted 'Latin Rights' ~ius latii ~ which allowed limited Roman rights and privileges.
Even then, Latin Rights might only be granted to the officials of the town/city, or to all the occupants, or even to a whole population... It was all up to the personal discretion of the Emperor... Typically it was granted like a gift from the emperor.
###########
Paul was put to trial by the Jews in Jerusalem, and there was a lynch mob that wanted to kill him. Some claim the Romans thus took custody of Paul, because he was a Roman citizen.. but if he wasn't an actual Roman citizen, the Romans would have grabbed him to prevent the Lynch mob killing him, since [ like in the case of Jesus], the Jews had no authority to implement capitol punishment to anyone, either through their Rabbi council or by lynch mob.
The Roman commander who took custody of Paul, heard he was a Roman citizen, (how he could be sure I dont know),.. but logic says that If he allowed a mob of angry Jews to kill someone who turns out to be a Roman citizen, it wouldn't work wonders for his military career... so the commander protected his own ass by giving Paul benefit of the doubt.
... passing it to the hands of Antonius Felix, Roman Procurator.
Paul was an educated nut case who managed a huge con job. Jesus explicitly warned about him. A majority of Christianity ended up hijacked and taken away from Jesus. You can follow Jesus or you can follow Paul but you can't do both.
''Both fish and tetrapods are types of vertebrates. Fish were the first vertebrates to appear in the fossil record, more than 500 million years ago. Because tetrapods appeared in the fossil record later, about 365 million years ago, scientists have hypothesized that tetrapods evolved from fish. This hypothesis is supported by transitional forms, which have features of both fish and tetrapods, that appeared in the fossil record between 390 million and 360 million years ago.''
How many times did God come to this planet and seed it with life?
Because we can easily see the various dominant life forms in the era before each of five extinction level events. Each era with totally different life forms than the era before or after. The remains are there for any to see in the various layers of sediment.
The most recent and best understood extinction event being the Chicxulub meteor strike 66 million years ago. We can see the crater. We can see the debris field scattered from the 12 mile deep and 93 mile diameter crater. We can see the reptile fossils (dinosaurs) below that debris field. (But absolutely no great dinosaurs above the debris field.) We can see the succeeding mammalian fossils beginning above that debris field. We can see the nature and the size of those mammals change through the millennia in the various layers of sediment. We find early felines, and canines, and ursus, and equus, and bovines, and hominids. etc, etc scattered through the layers over 66 million years until we reach modern day and modern animals.
So, did God come to Earth and seed the Earth with the reptiles at the beginning of their time. And did God then revisit the Earth 66 million years ago and seed it with mammals? And where was Man, during the first 60 million years of "the age of mammals"?
“I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.”
Fred Hoyle
Some believe while others question.
And some question to gain understanding leading to belief.
BTW, what's wrong with Greek philosophy? Awful ideas such as Logic and belief in being as an individual.
“I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.”
Fred Hoyle
Some believe while others question.
And some question to gain understanding leading to belief.
BTW, what's wrong with Greek philosophy? Awful ideas such as Logic and belief in being as an individual.
I didn't say that there was anything wrong with Greek philosophy.
I said that Paul was inspired, not by God but by Greek philosophy, inspired to the point where he was presenting the work of Greek Philosophers as his own, no citations given.
If Paul was inspired by God, why did he need to do that?
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Pleas define evolution and offer specific proof that it is, indeed, fact?
Paul was an educated nut case who managed a huge con job. Jesus explicitly warned about him. A majority of Christianity ended up hijacked and taken away from Jesus.
.....
Life wasn't easy in those times, Paul was a tent maker by trade, if you wanted to move up in the world, you had to make your own luck... 😂
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Care to offer some proof of evolution?
It's been posted numerous times and typically rejected out of hand because it is inconvenient for a belief in special creation. Why would it be different this time?
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Pleas define evolution and offer specific proof that it is, indeed, fact?
We’ve discussed beliefs on this thread a lot. The juice goes out of Christianity though, when it becomes too based on beliefs rather than on living like Jesus, or seeing the world as Jesus saw it. The juice goes out of it when it’s all about what a person believes as opposed to what a person does.
We’ve discussed beliefs on this thread a lot. The juice goes out of Christianity though, when it becomes too based on beliefs rather than on living like Jesus, or seeing the world as Jesus saw it. The juice goes out of it when it’s all about what a person believes as opposed to what a person does.
I think I may be agreeing with you. Will go back and see what else you have to say in other posts.
There are more than enough transitional fossils to prove evolution.
Ah. But this is where individuals touting science muddy the waters. You claim micro evolutional traits in other species as “proof” of macroevolution in man. That’s not science. That’s using science to justify your faith.
Originally Posted by DBT
It's been posted numerous times and typically rejected out of hand because it is inconvenient for a belief in special creation. Why would it be different this time?
LOL. No. It’s been posted many times as a convenient example for people believing that men came from apes but having no way to prove it through their method: The scientific method.
They insult the opinions of others, saying faith in a God is made up because the presence of God can’t be “proven” and suggest christianity is based on nothing but faith. Then, the same people use the same measure of “faith” to suggest men’s descending from apes is “proven”. I find it interesting that I received scathing insult for not using scientific terms in their most absolute definition, yet no one championing evolution has commented on your use of hypothesis and proven. Inconvenient, indeed.
Faith is a religious unit of measure and all that is needed in christianity. I’ve never seen the word “faith” used in the scientific method. The closest thing is a thesis or hypothesis and a true scientific mind would never treat a hypothesis like a proven theory. A true scientific mind wouldn’t even treat an unproven theory like a proven one. Yet, here we are.....without a missing link.....pointing at other species and suggesting it is good science to apply that evolutionary occurrence to that of man. That, sir, is faith.......not science. I believe in science, but the manipulation of the scientific method seen here is the same as any radical religious belief encountered. Those that demand and passionately argue that man descended from apes instead of suggesting it is a possibility are religious zealots of another form.
We’ve discussed beliefs on this thread a lot. The juice goes out of Christianity though, when it becomes too based on beliefs rather than on living like Jesus, or seeing the world as Jesus saw it. The juice goes out of it when it’s all about what a person believes as opposed to what a person does.
I think I may be agreeing with you. Will go back and see what else you have to say in other posts.
The Bible stories were written for a reason. That was for GODs people to know the truth of the history of Christ.
Of course, it tells us to not deceive ourselves by only knowing the world and to live the way HE was. HE demonstrated the examples for us to strive to live by.
How many times did God come to this planet and seed it with life?
Because we can easily see the various dominant life forms in the era before each of five extinction level events. Each era with totally different life forms than the era before or after. The remains are there for any to see in the various layers of sediment.
The most recent and best understood extinction event being the Chicxulub meteor strike 66 million years ago. We can see the crater. We can see the debris field scattered from the 12 mile deep and 93 mile diameter crater. We can see the reptile fossils (dinosaurs) below that debris field. (But absolutely no great dinosaurs above the debris field.) We can see the succeeding mammalian fossils beginning above that debris field. We can see the nature and the size of those mammals change through the millennia in the various layers of sediment. We find early felines, and canines, and ursus, and equus, and bovines, and hominids. etc, etc scattered through the layers over 66 million years until we reach modern day and modern animals.
So, did God come to Earth and seed the Earth with the reptiles at the beginning of their time. And did God then revisit the Earth 66 million years ago and seed it with mammals? And where was Man, during the first 60 million years of "the age of mammals"?
Who said HE had to come to earth to create those animals? HE told of the behemoths roaming the hills long ago.
I dont hold to a day being exactly a thousand years. I think it is to illustrate that to HIM, time is nothing. After all, HE made it.
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Pleas define evolution and offer specific proof that it is, indeed, fact?
"Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
They know this, Mickey. That’s why the only responses are insults, misappropriation of science, application of philosophy or deflections to loosely related religious topics (like Paul).
Jesus referred to His dedicated followers as “disciples”. The term ‘Christian’ is oftentimes all about what a person believes...and the term ‘disciple’ is more about what a person does.
Jesus told us the defining characteristic of what it was to be one of His disciples.
Jesus referred to His dedicated followers as “disciples”. The term ‘Christian’ is oftentimes all about what a person believes...and the term ‘disciple’ is more about what a person does.
Jesus told us the defining characteristic of what it was to be one of His disciples.
Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
They know this, Mickey. That’s why the only responses are insults, misappropriation of science, application of philosophy or deflections to loosely related religious topics (like Paul).
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
They know this, Mickey. That’s why the only responses are insults, misappropriation of science, application of philosophy or deflections to loosely related religious topics (like Paul).
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
What about TONS of evidence actually PROVING (macro) evolution, not just supporting a flawed, unproven theory. See my earlier post concerning the elements needed for proving fact. Until ALL those elements are met, it's far from a done deal. Proof requires testing. Testing that yields identical results assumptions don't matter. Anything less than that and all you have is theory.
That's what the left, unbelievers, are saying about Hydroxychloroquine.
Unlike many, if I get C-19, I will gladly take it
From all that I've read, taking it as early as possible after exposure can make huge difference in the results.
My dr bud who has treated many and lost none says it's almost a sure thing. He has successfully treated even several of 65 and one lady was in bad health with diabetes iirc and two kinds of cancer she was taking chemo for and she had been I'll and in bed a week before TX was started.
Proof requires testing. Testing that yields identical results assumptions don't matter. Anything less than that and all you have is theory.
By that criterion you can't prove that anything in the Bible actually happened.
Some of the Hebrew history part did, however, happen. We have corroboration from other sources.
It's fairly easy to prove, though, that much it simply didn't happen. The whole book of Genesis is one example.
If you accept that proof requires testing, then all that you can "prove" is that no one else has been able to create the world as described in Genesis. But neither can you "prove" evolution. Both require acceptance of something that is humanly unprovable, which I believe is by design. So, once again, it comes back to which premise you are going to start with. That is a choice we each have. Choose well.
Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
They know this, Mickey. That’s why the only responses are insults, misappropriation of science, application of philosophy or deflections to loosely related religious topics (like Paul).
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
What about TONS of evidence actually PROVING (macro) evolution, not just supporting a flawed, unproven theory. See my earlier post concerning the elements needed for proving fact. Until ALL those elements are met, it's far from a done deal. Proof requires testing. Testing that yields identical results assumptions don't matter. Anything less than that and all you have is theory.
Evolution IS a Theory. It is not proven Fact. THAT is why it is still a Theory... It is one of the most substantiated theory I can think of. Pick up a fossil, any fossil... LIKE I SAID: “TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.” The gaps in any theory is what makes them so interesting to study. Pick up a wagon load of fossils...
Biblical Creation is not supported by evidence. In fact, it does not stand up to anything close to proof.
AND LIKE HE SAID: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Unbelievers dont understand why believers dont seek scientific proof as they want.
It's a tenant of Faith, the hingepin of belief and would defy GODS instruction.
Also, if there were proof of Heaven and God, unbelievers would believe and there would be no need for the lake of fire. No unbelievers thrown in the lake of fire would make God a liar.
HE gave us free will to choose. If there was proof, people would believe by evidence and not the free will to choose.
It would be as if HE had coerced them.
Who wants to be in Heaven with those who were coerced or forced to be there.
It would be like the US where those born here get the benefits that essentially are a coercive force to be here. Not good.
Depends on how you interpret the evidence, I would think.
Lots of evidence on Evolution to interpret...study with open eyes and a critical mind.
Not so much on Creation. Closed minds reading an open book.
Hmmm. So, even if you start from the premise that God was able to create the world, he couldn't have created it in a way that appeared to have evolved? I choose not to underestimate Him.
Depends on how you interpret the evidence, I would think.
Lots of evidence on Evolution to interpret...study with open eyes and a critical mind.
Not so much on Creation. Closed minds reading an open book.
Hmmm. So, even if you start from the premise that God was able to create the world, he couldn't have created it in a way that appeared to have evolved? I choose not to underestimate Him.
More likely Evolution is how humans understand how God created this world we live in.
“The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that ‘if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me’.” ― Christopher Hitchens
"More likely" doesn't prove a thing. Given the documentary evidence in the totality of the Bible, I'm going with God. I know you have problem with the Old Testament, but I think we do well when we trust God to be God and don't expect his ways to be our ways.
This whole argument is complicated further when I read about Christopher Hitchens life. Very convoluted story. Bisexual left wing intellectual,who on his death his brother, an intellectual himself who believed in the existence of God read a passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians which Christopher had read at their father's funeral.
This whole argument is complicated further when I read about Christopher Hitchens life. Very convoluted story. Bisexual left wing intellectual,who on his death his brother, an intellectual himself who believed in the existence of God read a passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians which Christopher had read at their father's funeral.
This whole argument is complicated further when I read about Christopher Hitchens life. Very convoluted story. Bisexual left wing intellectual,who on his death his brother, an intellectual himself who believed in the existence of God read a passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians which Christopher had read at their father's funeral.
“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Depends on how you interpret the evidence, I would think.
Lots of evidence on Evolution to interpret...study with open eyes and a critical mind.
Not so much on Creation. Closed minds reading an open book.
Hmmm. So, even if you start from the premise that God was able to create the world, he couldn't have created it in a way that appeared to have evolved? I choose not to underestimate Him.
Evolution IS a Theory. It is not proven Fact. THAT is why it is still a Theory...it is one of the most substantiated theory I can think of. Pick up a fossil, any fossil... LIKE I SAID: “TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.”
Like I said, this is a misappropriation of science. A theory is either proven, disproven or rejected. Two out of the three means it‘s not a “done deal”. Not by the scientific method, anyway. Evidence can support a disproved or rejected theory. Where are the scientific term enforcers when one of their own is using contradicting terms? My, how the standards are different.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Biblical Creation is not supported by evidence. In fact, it does not stand up to anything close to proof.
Correct. No argument there. Good thing it doesn’t claim authenticity by the scientific method.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
AND LIKE HE SAID: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Philosophy is not scientific, nor christianity. Emotional rant. Relevance? None.
This whole argument is complicated further when I read about Christopher Hitchens life. Very convoluted story. Bisexual left wing intellectual,who on his death his brother, an intellectual himself who believed in the existence of God read a passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians which Christopher had read at their father's funeral.
“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” ― Christopher Hitchens
No. He is a father, who loves his children. Much like we are. Do we teach out children calculus when they’re 2 years old? Do we explain the elemental charts at 4? No, because they’re not ready.
Do we thwart their desire to explore by fetching all they may be interested in and place it in their immediate grasp? No.
Do we capitulate to our children when they demand they’re correct? When they think you don’t understand? How about when they have their teenage delusions? No.
Despite all of the knowledge and experience you’ve gained, have you passed it all on to them so they are at your current stage when they’re 18? No.
He is a father and although he is perfect, he didn’t create us as such. Why? I don’t know. I don’t claim to know.
Now, can you produce the missing link between ape and man?
He's a meany because HE gives HIS created in HIS image free will, uh, kinda like most of us do with OUR OWN KIDS.
DUH!
These geniuses are so smart they can figure out all creation but not that we have free will? So they throw up the straw man, "Why does GOD let us screw things up" Flimsy. Disingenuous. Geniuses who believe in their own selves and yet cant remember what they've been told over and over before.
Sheesh. But yet they are smart enough to tell believers how wrong we are? YGBKM.
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
Evolution IS a Theory. It is not proven Fact. THAT is why it is still a Theory...it is one of the most substantiated theory I can think of. Pick up a fossil, any fossil... LIKE I SAID: “TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.”
Like I said, this is a misappropriation of science. A theory is either proven, disproven or rejected. Two out of the three means it‘s not a “done deal”. Not by the scientific method, anyway. Evidence can support a disproved or rejected theory. Where are the scientific term enforcers when one of their own is using contradicting terms? My, how the standards are different.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Biblical Creation is not supported by evidence. In fact, it does not stand up to anything close to proof.
Correct. No argument there. Good thing it doesn’t claim authenticity by the scientific method.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
AND LIKE HE SAID: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Philosophy is not scientific, nor christianity. Emotional rant. Relevance? None.
Where did you ever get the idea that a theory has to be proven or disproved and rejected? Many have been around a very long time. The theory of evolution has evolved as we learn more and more about the world/cosmos. It is a done deal because it is the theory that science can work with. There is no other path that come close. Darwin’s Theory has stood since 1859.
Evolution IS a Theory. It is not proven Fact. THAT is why it is still a Theory...it is one of the most substantiated theory I can think of. Pick up a fossil, any fossil... LIKE I SAID: “TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.”
Like I said, this is a misappropriation of science. A theory is either proven, disproven or rejected. Two out of the three means it‘s not a “done deal”. Not by the scientific method, anyway. Evidence can support a disproved or rejected theory. Where are the scientific term enforcers when one of their own is using contradicting terms? My, how the standards are different.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
Biblical Creation is not supported by evidence. In fact, it does not stand up to anything close to proof.
Correct. No argument there. Good thing it doesn’t claim authenticity by the scientific method.
Originally Posted by BOWSINGER
AND LIKE HE SAID: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Philosophy is not scientific, nor christianity. Emotional rant. Relevance? None.
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Unbelievers dont understand why believers dont seek scientific proof as they want.
It's a tenant of Faith, the hingepin of belief and would defy GODS instruction.
Also, if there were proof of Heaven and God, unbelievers would believe and there would be no need for the lake of fire. No unbelievers thrown in the lake of fire would make God a liar.
HE gave us free will to choose. If there was proof, people would believe by evidence and not the free will to choose.
It would be as if HE had coerced them.
Who wants to be in Heaven with those who were coerced or forced to be there.
It would be like the US where those born here get the benefits that essentially are a coercive force to be here. Not good.
B.S argument. According to mainline Christians Beliefs Lucifer knew with absolute certainty that God and Heaven were real, but still exercised his free will against God.
And God sure didn't care about Pharaoh's free will, intentionally hardening his heart to create an excuse for Gods murder of innocent children.
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
You are wrong again. I have never mentioned “hypothesis” in this thread. Because evolution theory is supported by all that evidence that has been beat to death on these pages. I suppose it could be said that Darwin started out with a hypotheses on how everything evolved before he set sail to gather his data...
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
You are wrong again. I have never mentioned “hypothesis” in this thread. Because evolution theory is supported by all that evidence that has been beat to death on these pages. I suppose it could be said that Darwin started out with a hypotheses on how everything evolved before he set sail to gather his data...
Not you.
I know you understand the difference.
Ray either doesn't know the difference, or, is dishonestly conflating theory with hypothesis.
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
I'm out until tomorrow. Have good evening, gents.
I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of the god you claim, nor do I worship it. If you wish to claim he's my god as well, first you need to present sufficient evidence for his existence.
Additionally, of course your portrail of your alleged god is that of a trickster, one who makes the world appear billions of years old, when you claim it's only a few thousand for the sole purpose of tricking people into not believing he's real so he can send them to Hell where they will burn forever, and infinite punishment for the finite crime of following evidence to it's logical conclusion.
No. He is a father, who loves his children. Much like we are. Do we teach out children calculus when they’re 2 years old? Do we explain the elemental charts at 4? No, because they’re not ready.
Do we thwart their desire to explore by fetching all they may be interested in and place it in their immediate grasp? No.
Do we capitulate to our children when they demand they’re correct? When they think you don’t understand? How about when they have their teenage delusions? No.
Despite all of the knowledge and experience you’ve gained, have you passed it all on to them so they are at your current stage when they’re 18? No.
He is a father and although he is perfect, he didn’t create us as such. Why? I don’t know. I don’t claim to know.
Now, can you produce the missing link between ape and man?
Are you too dense to understand the concept of a common ancestor?
Do you intentionally mislead your children about the nature of the world? If you claim your god made the universe young but made it to look old by putting dinosaur bones in the ground, misleading radiometric readings, and light that appears to have traveled 13 billion years in a 4k year old Universe that's exactly what he'd doing. Not telling your children everything is not the same as lying to them, or intentionally misleading them so you can torture them FOREVER.
Speaking of which, have you built a torture chamber in your basement and do you use it to torture your children when they misbehave? When's the last time you tricked your children into misbehaving so you could take them down stairs and burn them?
Do we capitulate to our children when they demand they’re correct? When they think you don’t understand? How about when they have their teenage delusions? No.
How about adult age Christian belief delusions.. should anyone capitulate to them?
The stuff christians believe, ranks with kids believing there's a Santa who has flying Reindeer and slay and that he reads every kids letter.
When it comes to evolution, Kent Hovind has zero credibility. Evolution is an established fact....any contraversy or need to modify is related to the mechanisms of evolution, not the fact of it.
Pleas define evolution and offer specific proof that it is, indeed, fact?
"Nothing you've posted is testable proof. It's all theory. Universal common decent is a general descriptive THEORY....." Proof requires direct, tangible, demonstrable, testable EVIDENCE that yields identical results, not conjecture. Macro evolution is not provable without all of the above. Without that, it is ONLY theory and theory is nothing more than an idea or thoughts that have yet to be proven.
Did you read the article before you came to that conclusion?
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”
Scientists don't agree. Evolution has withstood testing for over a hundred and fifty years. Theory lies in explaining how it works, not that it does work, which is proven.
How many times did God come to this planet and seed it with life?
Because we can easily see the various dominant life forms in the era before each of five extinction level events. Each era with totally different life forms than the era before or after. The remains are there for any to see in the various layers of sediment.
The most recent and best understood extinction event being the Chicxulub meteor strike 66 million years ago. We can see the crater. We can see the debris field scattered from the 12 mile deep and 93 mile diameter crater. We can see the reptile fossils (dinosaurs) below that debris field. (But absolutely no great dinosaurs above the debris field.) We can see the succeeding mammalian fossils beginning above that debris field. We can see the nature and the size of those mammals change through the millennia in the various layers of sediment. We find early felines, and canines, and ursus, and equus, and bovines, and hominids. etc, etc scattered through the layers over 66 million years until we reach modern day and modern animals.
So, did God come to Earth and seed the Earth with the reptiles at the beginning of their time. And did God then revisit the Earth 66 million years ago and seed it with mammals? And where was Man, during the first 60 million years of "the age of mammals"?
Or you can believe the facts. There was one creation event. The almost 2,000 years later there was a World Wide Flood which produced the fossils and the single ice age. Same evidence different interpretation.
... It doesn’t matter. You have no proven theory in a practice that requires one. I have faith in a practice in which that is all that’s required.
....
Finally a believer who admits to lack of evidence and proof of the documentation of their faith - thank you. Other believers have foolishly argued otherwise, and failed dismally.
(You're still completely wrong about your view of evolution theory by the way.)
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Perhaps.
And perhaps you maintain that approach in an attempt to distract from the fact that your opinion about human evolution is purely subjective.
It doesn’t matter. You have no proven theory in a practice that requires one. I have faith in a practice in which that is all that’s required.
Game. Set. Match.
You have "Faith", which is not evidence. If you had evidence you would present it instead of making a faith based claim, and you claim I don't have a theory when you don't even know the meaning of the word and it's application in Science.
Heck, you can't even find the court, let alone win a game.
Let me help you out a bit, as described in the following article, you are stuck in Elementary School:
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
How many times did God come to this planet and seed it with life?
Because we can easily see the various dominant life forms in the era before each of five extinction level events. Each era with totally different life forms than the era before or after. The remains are there for any to see in the various layers of sediment.
The most recent and best understood extinction event being the Chicxulub meteor strike 66 million years ago. We can see the crater. We can see the debris field scattered from the 12 mile deep and 93 mile diameter crater. We can see the reptile fossils (dinosaurs) below that debris field. (But absolutely no great dinosaurs above the debris field.) We can see the succeeding mammalian fossils beginning above that debris field. We can see the nature and the size of those mammals change through the millennia in the various layers of sediment. We find early felines, and canines, and ursus, and equus, and bovines, and hominids. etc, etc scattered through the layers over 66 million years until we reach modern day and modern animals.
So, did God come to Earth and seed the Earth with the reptiles at the beginning of their time. And did God then revisit the Earth 66 million years ago and seed it with mammals? And where was Man, during the first 60 million years of "the age of mammals"?
Or you can believe the facts. There was one creation event. The almost 2,000 years later there was a World Wide Flood which produced the fossils and the single ice age. Same evidence different interpretation.
The evidence does not support a recent creation event or a worldwide deluge as described in the bible, quite the opposite.
Speaking of which, have you built a torture chamber in your basement and do you use it to torture your children when they misbehave? When's the last time you tricked your children into misbehaving so you could take them down stairs and burn them?
'Tough love'..?
Adam and Eve had to fail, God could not accept another outcome, for it was pre-ordained that JC was to be sacrificed.
If Adam's choice was true free will, God would be gambling that Adam will make the choice that aligns with God's plan.
Speaking of which, have you built a torture chamber in your basement and do you use it to torture your children when they misbehave? When's the last time you tricked your children into misbehaving so you could take them down stairs and burn them?
'Tough love'..?
Adam and Eve had to fail, God could not accept another outcome, for it was pre-ordained that JC was to be sacrificed.
The "All Mighty" creator of the Universe who required blood magic and a human sacrifice to cast his spell of forgiveness, for a sin he arranged to be committed by two people how at the time did not know the difference between good and evil.
So, according to Christian beliefs, God literally set up two of his children to fail so he would have an excuse to torture and kill another....
Let me help you out a bit, as described in the following article, you are stuck in Elementary School:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.“
-Socrates
You've demonstrated time and time again how you don't understand the proper scientific usage of term and provided a link describing your usage as an elementary school level of understanding. If you wish to demon state that you understand and can use these in the modern scientific sense, that would would be beneficial to the conversation. While you're at it, how about you demonstrate your understanding of the null hypothesis and the burden of proof.
Let me help you out a bit, as described in the following article, you are stuck in Elementary School:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.“
-Socrates
You've demonstrated time and time again how you don't understand the proper scientific usage of term and provided a link describing your usage as an elementary school level of understanding. If you wish to demon state that you understand and can use these in the modern scientific sense, that would would be beneficial to the conversation. While you're at it, how about you demonstrate your understanding of the null hypothesis and the burden of proof.
Uh-huh. Soooooooo.....you don’t have an LCA and don’t need one. Got it. Science ain’t what it used to be.
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
You are wrong again. I have never mentioned “hypothesis” in this thread. Because evolution theory is supported by all that evidence that has been beat to death on these pages. I suppose it could be said that Darwin started out with a hypotheses on how everything evolved before he set sail to gather his data...
Not you.
I know you understand the difference.
Ray either doesn't know the difference, or, is dishonestly conflating theory with hypothesis.
OK, I will try to find something else to bitch about...
Why do unbelievers continually and FAITHFULLY push their unbelief and harass believers of God? Some of you seem downright angry that we (believers) believe in, worship, and agape love our almighty living God. Unbelievers/atheists can’t seem to accept that believers believe in a holy, supreme, almighty, sovereign, living God by FAItH.
Why does that irk some of you? What exactly is your mission in trying to discredit our faith and belief in our God? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Did satan assign you this mission?
It takes an act of FAITH to believe God doesn’t exist, and it takes ballsy, smug arrogance to mock and belittle believers about their love of and belief in God. Some of you are FAITHFUL in your unrelenting satanic assaults.
Unbelievers and atheists lack a faith in our God but have FAITH in their belief that there is no God. Give it up. Some of us love Jesus, and Jesus is our everything.
It’s better to trust and have confidence in the Lord rather than in mere man. Psalms 118:8
Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which art in Heaven. Matt 10:33
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Praise the Lord !!!!
It's amazing how evidence is ignored, claiming that science is based on faith, implying that faith is a poor tool with which to determine truth....yet when it comes to the 'correct' religion, faith becomes a virtue, a beacon of truth.
A double standard, it appears. Not that evolution is based on faith.
Why do unbelievers continually and FAITHFULLY push their unbelief and harass believers of God? Some of you seem downright angry that we (believers) believe in, worship, and agape love our almighty living God. Unbelievers/atheists can’t seem to accept that believers believe in a holy, supreme, almighty, sovereign, living God by FAItH.
Why does that irk some of you? What exactly is your mission in trying to discredit our faith and belief in our God? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Did satan assign you this mission?
It takes an act of FAITH to believe God doesn’t exist, and it takes ballsy, smug arrogance to mock and belittle believers about their love of and belief in God. Some of you are FAITHFUL in your unrelenting satanic assaults.
Unbelievers and atheists lack a faith in our God but have FAITH in their belief that there is no God. Give it up. Some of us love Jesus, and Jesus is our everything.
It’s better to trust and have confidence in the Lord rather than in mere man. Psalms 118:8
Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which art in Heaven. Matt 10:33
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Praise the Lord !!!!
It's a discussion. A question of sorting out what may be true or what may be false. False as in misconceptions, errors or myths. Is the sacrifice of truth a fair price for the comfort of faith?
Gotta say I love the "where's your evidence" arguments. Any decent natural historu museum has it out the wazoo. Try walking through the Smithsonian some time. You may not like it, but there it is.
And by definition theories cannot be proven, only disproven. If generally accepted they may be called "laws" but not proven. Einstein's Special Theory is still routinely tested as new experiments evolve. His predictions have been right so far but it has not been proven.
It's a discussion. A question of sorting out what may be true or what may be false. False as in misconceptions, errors or myths. Is the sacrifice of truth a fair price for the comfort of faith?
Christians can be life long God botherers, but object to scrutinity of their parroted blatherings.
It's amazing how evidence is ignored, claiming that science is based on faith, implying that faith is a poor tool with which to determine truth....yet when it comes to the 'correct' religion, faith becomes a virtue, a beacon of truth.
A double standard, it appears. Not that evolution is based on faith.
I missed the practice of science in which blind faith is an accepted means. Could you point it out, please?
A scientific theory has two components, the world as it is, how it works and functions, the objective world...and our study of 'how it works' - which we call "theory."
It's amazing how evidence is ignored, claiming that science is based on faith, implying that faith is a poor tool with which to determine truth....yet when it comes to the 'correct' religion, faith becomes a virtue, a beacon of truth.
A double standard, it appears. Not that evolution is based on faith.
I missed the practice of science in which blind faith is an accepted means. Could you point it out, please?
Science doesn't rest on faith. Observation, evidence and testing is the foundation of science.
Why do unbelievers continually and FAITHFULLY push their unbelief and harass believers of God? Some of you seem downright angry that we (believers) believe in, worship, and agape love our almighty living God. Unbelievers/atheists can’t seem to accept that believers believe in a holy, supreme, almighty, sovereign, living God by FAItH.
Why does that irk some of you? What exactly is your mission in trying to discredit our faith and belief in our God? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Did satan assign you this mission?
It takes an act of FAITH to believe God doesn’t exist, and it takes ballsy, smug arrogance to mock and belittle believers about their love of and belief in God. Some of you are FAITHFUL in your unrelenting satanic assaults.
Unbelievers and atheists lack a faith in our God but have FAITH in their belief that there is no God. Give it up. Some of us love Jesus, and Jesus is our everything.
It’s better to trust and have confidence in the Lord rather than in mere man. Psalms 118:8
Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which art in Heaven. Matt 10:33
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Praise the Lord !!!!
One should actually look at the title of this thread. Then consider who wrote the OP and reason therefor.
It appears the entire reason for the post was to invite criticism upon his faith. Some have obliged.
Well, I am going to say that I believe there is a supernatural power that is unknowable. It is beyond me to understand how something like our well ordered, synchronized, rhythmic universe could come from nothing. Now as to earth and our existence. Anyone who believes the earth is only a few thousand years old is deluded. Anyone that rejects the idea that living things evolve is wrong and they need to realize a lot can change in a few million years. Anyone who believes the bible is to be taken literally must not have read the whole thing. As to the flood, I believe as the last ice age ended the ocean poured over into the Black Sea and wreaked havoc that is dimly remembered by various societies. As to the Jews, they are a remarkable people and I do believe their survival as a separate entity is a miracle and there is no other explanation for their return to Israel. I believe Jesus is who he claimed to be and brought mankind a message from the creator. I also believe there may be such a thing as reincarnation and Jesus himself even hinted at it. That might explain a lot of the misery in the world. I mostly will say there is a lot I'm not sure of but I'm sure that many of the folks that are so sure of their interpretation of God's will are full of it.
You're ruling out science as faith (which it isn't) yet choose your faith. Pretty simple to understand I thought.
I don’t rule anything out. As DBT (and you) have pointed out, the champions of science rule out faith as a practice in science. .
That’s not a double standard. That’s a contrast (please feel free to correct this term if you don’t consider it correctly used and it distracts you to the point of not getting my meaning).
The point is, as a Christian, I understand faith doesn’t apply to science, yet it seems like the science fans take a leap of faith in human evolution. Yes, there’s evidence. Yes, there’s a theory. But it’s not a proven theory...or a law. This is where it gets sticky because our term enforcers start to speak in absolutes. We’ve jumped from an unproven theory to its a done deal. That is a leap of faith.
Why do unbelievers continually and FAITHFULLY push their unbelief and harass believers of God? Some of you seem downright angry that we (believers) believe in, worship, and agape love our almighty living God. Unbelievers/atheists can’t seem to accept that believers believe in a holy, supreme, almighty, sovereign, living God by FAItH.
Why does that irk some of you? What exactly is your mission in trying to discredit our faith and belief in our God? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Did satan assign you this mission?
It takes an act of FAITH to believe God doesn’t exist, and it takes ballsy, smug arrogance to mock and belittle believers about their love of and belief in God. Some of you are FAITHFUL in your unrelenting satanic assaults.
Unbelievers and atheists lack a faith in our God but have FAITH in their belief that there is no God. Give it up. Some of us love Jesus, and Jesus is our everything.
It’s better to trust and have confidence in the Lord rather than in mere man. Psalms 118:8
Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which art in Heaven. Matt 10:33
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Praise the Lord !!!!
One should actually look at the title of this thread. Then consider who wrote the OP and reason therefor.
It appears the entire reason for the post was to invite criticism upon his faith. Some have obliged.
Have you watched the video? Or, do you prefer to attack the believers it represents?
Didn't you implicitly disparage faith when you applied it to science, yet extol its virtue in Christianity?
I no more “disparaged” faith in science than you did in your previous post. Did you disparage faith in science?
And extol? LOL. You seem to exaggerate what I’ve clearly pointed out (several times), which is, simply, faith is a core requirement of being a christian. Do you dispute this?
Remember, you’re speaking with an 8th grade, backwoods educated feller. Try to use smaller words. They tend to create less confusion for us simple folk.
It's amazing how evidence is ignored, claiming that science is based on faith, implying that faith is a poor tool with which to determine truth....yet when it comes to the 'correct' religion, faith becomes a virtue, a beacon of truth.
A double standard, it appears. Not that evolution is based on faith.
I missed the practice of science in which blind faith is an accepted means. Could you point it out, please?
Science doesn't rest on faith. Observation, evidence and testing is the foundation of science.
Yes, it does. For starters, presupposing one's own identity, indeed one's own rationality is an act of faith.
It's amazing how evidence is ignored, claiming that science is based on faith, implying that faith is a poor tool with which to determine truth....yet when it comes to the 'correct' religion, faith becomes a virtue, a beacon of truth.
A double standard, it appears. Not that evolution is based on faith.
I missed the practice of science in which blind faith is an accepted means. Could you point it out, please?
Science doesn't rest on faith. Observation, evidence and testing is the foundation of science.
Yes, it does. For starters, presupposing one's own identity, indeed one's own rationality is an act of faith.
Only if you are equivocating with the word 'faith' - which is a fallacy.
We have different words, trust, confidence, etc, because there are distinctions to be made between trust and faith, confidence and trust.
Trust can be built or destroyed through direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence.... while to have faith just means that you believe. You believe what is written, what you are told or hope for without verification, without the support of evidence.
Didn't you implicitly disparage faith when you applied it to science, yet extol its virtue in Christianity?
I no more “disparaged” faith in science than you did in your previous post. Did you disparage faith in science?
And extol? LOL. You seem to exaggerate what I’ve clearly pointed out (several times), which is, simply, faith is a core requirement of being a christian. Do you dispute this?
Remember, you’re speaking with an 8th grade, backwoods educated feller. Try to use smaller words. They tend to create less confusion for us simple folk.
I seem to remember you making remarks along the lines of 'science is based on faith' which implies that science has an unsound foundation.
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”
Scientists don't agree. Evolution has withstood testing for over a hundred and fifty years. Theory lies in explaining how it works, not that it does work, which is proven.
Then why are so many high-level intellects abandoning it? Why do scientists like Michael Denton call it a "theory in crisis"? Given that the odds of protein folding are impossible how can fully naturalistic processes account for this essential step in neo-Darwinian evolution?
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”
Scientists don't agree. Evolution has withstood testing for over a hundred and fifty years. Theory lies in explaining how it works, not that it does work, which is proven.
Then why are so many high-level intellects abandoning it? Why do scientists like Michael Denton call it a "theory in crisis"? Given that the odds of protein folding are impossible how can fully naturalistic processes account for this essential step in neo-Darwinian evolution?
A theory in crisis? I'm not aware of that. A very small percentage may be making that claim for their own reasons, but that's not a crisis.
Trust can be built or destroyed through direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence.... while to have faith just means that you believe. You believe what is written, what you are told or hope for without verification, without the support of evidence.
And when experience shows faith invested in countless prayers go unanswered?
Does stronger faith/belief make prayers more effective?
Some claim they have evidence that prayers do work... some even claim to have conclusive proof.
Trust can be built or destroyed through direct experience with someone or something, which is evidence.... while to have faith just means that you believe. You believe what is written, what you are told or hope for without verification, without the support of evidence.
And when experience shows faith invested in countless prayers go unanswered?
Does stronger faith/belief make prayers more effective?
Some claim they have evidence that prayers do work.
The desired result may have happened regardless of prayer. Some may pray for a result that doesn't eventuate, the worst happens. Those who pray but do not have their prayers answered feel that what they hoped for ''was not Gods Will.'' We tend to remember the good and forget the bad.
So when folks heard about the Titanic sinking, they prayed that people they know onboard were OK, when in fact they were already well and truly stone cold dead in the North Atlantic.
Some probably got in early and prayed for a safe passage when boarding the ship, which didn't work out for many... were the survivors the ones favored by God, or just the lucky ones?
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”
Scientists don't agree. Evolution has withstood testing for over a hundred and fifty years. Theory lies in explaining how it works, not that it does work, which is proven.
Then why are so many high-level intellects abandoning it? Why do scientists like Michael Denton call it a "theory in crisis"? Given that the odds of protein folding are impossible how can fully naturalistic processes account for this essential step in neo-Darwinian evolution?
A theory in crisis? I'm not aware of that. A very small percentage may be making that claim for their own reasons, but that's not a crisis.
The theory is indeed in crisis if the arguments of its critics cannot be met.
TONS of strong evidence has been posted on here supporting Evolution. It is a done deal and because it is science it will continually be reinforced.
Misappropriation of science. “Evidence” is a suggestion that is not conclusive, therefore, it is not a “...done deal.”
Scientists don't agree. Evolution has withstood testing for over a hundred and fifty years. Theory lies in explaining how it works, not that it does work, which is proven.
Then why are so many high-level intellects abandoning it? Why do scientists like Michael Denton call it a "theory in crisis"? Given that the odds of protein folding are impossible how can fully naturalistic processes account for this essential step in neo-Darwinian evolution?
A theory in crisis? I'm not aware of that. A very small percentage may be making that claim for their own reasons, but that's not a crisis.
The theory is indeed in crisis if the arguments of its critics cannot be met.
Have they really not been met...or is it just being claimed that they have not been met?
Is there an example that puts the reality of evolution into question?
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
I'm out until tomorrow. Have good evening, gents.
I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of the god you claim, nor do I worship it. If you wish to claim he's my god as well, first you need to present sufficient evidence for his existence.
Additionally, of course your portrail of your alleged god is that of a trickster, one who makes the world appear billions of years old, when you claim it's only a few thousand for the sole purpose of tricking people into not believing he's real so he can send them to Hell where they will burn forever, and infinite punishment for the finite crime of following evidence to it's logical conclusion.
Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, which goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning: There is never going to be sufficient evidence (i.e. proof) one way or another. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity. I freely admit that I can't prove my belief, but you in your intellectual arrogance cannot admit that you can't prove anything you believe either. But you sure as heck can demand that other folks prove stuff to you.
Secondly, I did not portray God as a trickster, that is merely how you characterized him. I only offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence that you see in only one way. It is the only way I can see to reconcile the evidence that science has produced with the documentary evidence in the Bible as a whole. If there is another way to reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
Third, I did not claim God did anything for the sole purpose of tricking people so he can send them to Hell. This is a blatant lie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what the other person says. I knew this going in, don't know why I bothered to try (again) with you.
I do appreciate your response on the thread about pocket handgun carry, however.
I seem to remember you making remarks along the lines of 'science is based on faith' which implies that science has an unsound foundation.
May I suggest you revisit my posts about which you write and reread it/them?
My position has always been: The consensus among christians and evolutionists is that science is not based on faith. Despite this widespread acceptance, human evolutionists depart from this in their final conclusion. That’s not to say science isn’t involved. They just choose to abandon the purist form of the scientific method and surreptitiously insert subjective results. By doing so, they depart the practice of true science and enter the realm of philosophy and/or religion. The irony being: True science is based on being proven and denounces faith-based jumps to conclusion, regardless of size.
Subjectivity may be required in certain aspects of science, but using it to draw a final conclusion disputed inside its own secular practice not science. It’s as if the largely-touted open mind of science is traded for that of a religious zealot. A true scientific mind would say human evolution is probable, but not definite.
From that point, it turns into the quagmire of slander and subjectivity akin to a Jerry Springer show. Instead of being able to prove the point in the purist scientific form, deflection, entrapment and the “cherry-picking” of evidence are used to discredit anyone or anything not in full agreement.
BBC: The idea that species gradually change over many generations is the cornerstone of biology. This is how we know it's true By Chris Baraniuk 30 July 2015 “Evolution is one of the greatest theories in all of science. It sets out to explain life: specifically, how the first simple life gave rise to all the huge diversity we see today, from bacteria to oak trees to blue whales. For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying. Not that you would know that from the media in some countries, where evolution is ferociously argued about – put down as "just a theory" or dismissed as a flat-out lie. Why are biologists so certain about this? What is the evidence? The short answer is that there is so much it's hard to know where to start. But here is a very cursory summary of the evidence that life has, indeed, evolved.” *** “Fossils are the remains of long-dead organisms, preserved in rock. Because rocks are laid down in layers, one on top of the other, the fossil record is generally set out in date order: the oldest fossils are at the bottom. Running through the fossil record makes it clear that life has changed over time. The oldest fossils of all are the remains of single-celled organisms like bacteria, with more complicated things like animals and plants only appearing much later. Among the animal fossils, fish appear much earlier than amphibians, birds or mammals. Our closest relatives the apes are only found in the shallowest – youngest – rocks.” "I always think that the most convincing case for evolution is in the fossil record," says Jones. "It's noticeable that one page in every six in the Origin of Species is to do with the fossil record. [Darwin] knew that that was an irrefutable case that evolution had taken place." *** "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment. Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples. The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them. "It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."
AS sees no evidence. His mantra. The extent of his masters battle. The trap satan sets for fools who fall therein. And in their misery and loneliness, call for others to come in and join them.
.. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity.
The Gospels show Jesus was not concerned with all humanity... Rather he was relentlessly focused on Torah Jews - even explicitly instructing his disciples not to preach to outsider gentiles.
sounds like you subscribe to renegade Pauline Christianity, who took it apon himself to convert the broader Greco-Roman people, and then others who think they need to convert the whole world.
Hence why you imagine your diety to be everybodies diety.
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
I'm out until tomorrow. Have good evening, gents.
I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of the god you claim, nor do I worship it. If you wish to claim he's my god as well, first you need to present sufficient evidence for his existence.
Additionally, of course your portrail of your alleged god is that of a trickster, one who makes the world appear billions of years old, when you claim it's only a few thousand for the sole purpose of tricking people into not believing he's real so he can send them to Hell where they will burn forever, and infinite punishment for the finite crime of following evidence to it's logical conclusion.
Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, which goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning: There is never going to be sufficient evidence (i.e. proof) one way or another. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity. I freely admit that I can't prove my belief, but you in your intellectual arrogance cannot admit that you can't prove anything you believe either. But you sure as heck can demand that other folks prove stuff to you.
Secondly, I did not portray God as a trickster, that is merely how you characterized him. I only offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence that you see in only one way. It is the only way I can see to reconcile the evidence that science has produced with the documentary evidence in the Bible as a whole. If there is another way to reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
Third, I did not claim God did anything for the sole purpose of tricking people so he can send them to Hell. This is a blatant lie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what the other person says. I knew this going in, don't know why I bothered to try (again) with you.
I do appreciate your response on the thread about pocket handgun carry, however.
I did not state "your god is fictitious". Read my post again, but this time, do so carefully.
Two whacked out christians with totally diff views... One says his God is everybodies God, the other says otherwise...anybody rushing to be a member of their hotch-botch 'church' ?
Its a strange drug they are on, when it can send one's mind in any random haphazard direction.
Thats what happens when people become addicted to sub-standard generic brands of Jesus.
Two whacked out christians with totally diff views... One says his God is everybodies God, the other says otherwise...anybody rushing to be a member of their 'church' ?
Its a strange drug they are on, when it can send one's mind in any random haphazard direction.
Thats what happens when people become addicted to sub-standard generic brands of Jesus.
I think, ironically, that this shows the believers have more of a "monkey" brain than others.
Two whacked out christians with totally diff views... One says his God is everybodies God, the other says otherwise...anybody rushing to be a member of their hotch-botch 'church' ?
Its a strange drug they are on, when it can send one's mind in any random haphazard direction.
ROMANS 14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Two whacked out christians with totally diff views... One says his God is everybodies God, the other says otherwise...anybody rushing to be a member of their hotch-botch 'church' ?
Its a strange drug they are on, when it can send one's mind in any random haphazard direction.
ROMANS 14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Two whacked out christians with totally diff views... One says his God is everybodies God, the other says otherwise...anybody rushing to be a member of their hotch-botch 'church' ?
Its a strange drug they are on, when it can send one's mind in any random haphazard direction.
ROMANS 14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Oh, I love it when they lie and obfuscate and bear false witness.
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
I'm out until tomorrow. Have good evening, gents.
I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of the god you claim, nor do I worship it. If you wish to claim he's my god as well, first you need to present sufficient evidence for his existence.
Additionally, of course your portrail of your alleged god is that of a trickster, one who makes the world appear billions of years old, when you claim it's only a few thousand for the sole purpose of tricking people into not believing he's real so he can send them to Hell where they will burn forever, and infinite punishment for the finite crime of following evidence to it's logical conclusion.
Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, which goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning: There is never going to be sufficient evidence (i.e. proof) one way or another. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity. I freely admit that I can't prove my belief, but you in your intellectual arrogance cannot admit that you can't prove anything you believe either. But you sure as heck can demand that other folks prove stuff to you.
Secondly, I did not portray God as a trickster, that is merely how you characterized him. I only offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence that you see in only one way. It is the only way I can see to reconcile the evidence that science has produced with the documentary evidence in the Bible as a whole. If there is another way to reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
Third, I did not claim God did anything for the sole purpose of tricking people so he can send them to Hell. This is a blatant lie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what the other person says. I knew this going in, don't know why I bothered to try (again) with you.
I do appreciate your response on the thread about pocket handgun carry, however.
I did not state "your god is fictitious". Read my post again, but this time, do so carefully.
AS, the reason I asked is because I thought you had said you were an atheist, but I may be incorrect on that.
May I ask if you think, referring to your above threads, think our GOD is fictitious? I'm just not understanding some of your, seemingly to me, tricky posts above.
Island people have never needed webbed toes for swimming.
Except for some of the people in the British Isles. Mostly south of Scotland.
I'm just wondering why if animals swam in the waters and wanted food on land, why they didnt grow feet and still keep some fins and gills for going swimming.
It seems to me it could have served them well when trying to get away from sabretoothed critters or even pterodactyls.
For that matter, I can see where birds wanted hands and arms, but why didnt they just grow them and keep their wings for flying, especially when they were young and lithe rather than old and fat.
I think I've seen pics of horses with wings. I guess that was the link between birds and horses. I wonder why they didnt use and lost their wings? They should have come in handy dodging sabetooths and prairie fires.
I guess it was just the smart birds which started trying to build nests with their wings which morphed into hands. I never see chickens trying to build chiett with their wings.
No, those dumb clucks sure missed out.
They could have built traps and bows and arrows and guns and - had chicken for dinner.
First of all, he is your god too, whether you realize it or not. That being said,no he is not a trickster. But he does give every man a choice as to what to believe and do, starting in the Garden of Eden. Without choice there can be no faith and if there is one thing that the Bible makes clear, it's that God wants us to have faith in Him; and more importantly to have faith in Jesus. Absolute proof requires no faith at all; neither does coercion for that matter. So evidence of evolution is certainly out there, but it is far from conclusive and that again is, I think, by design. It's your choice to make. I've made mine. I am no bible scholar, but these are the conclusions I have come to after much consideration.
I'm out until tomorrow. Have good evening, gents.
I see no good evidence to believe in the existence of the god you claim, nor do I worship it. If you wish to claim he's my god as well, first you need to present sufficient evidence for his existence.
Additionally, of course your portrail of your alleged god is that of a trickster, one who makes the world appear billions of years old, when you claim it's only a few thousand for the sole purpose of tricking people into not believing he's real so he can send them to Hell where they will burn forever, and infinite punishment for the finite crime of following evidence to it's logical conclusion.
Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, which goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning: There is never going to be sufficient evidence (i.e. proof) one way or another. My statement reflected my belief that He is God of all humanity. I freely admit that I can't prove my belief, but you in your intellectual arrogance cannot admit that you can't prove anything you believe either. But you sure as heck can demand that other folks prove stuff to you.
Secondly, I did not portray God as a trickster, that is merely how you characterized him. I only offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence that you see in only one way. It is the only way I can see to reconcile the evidence that science has produced with the documentary evidence in the Bible as a whole. If there is another way to reconcile the two, I'm all ears.
Third, I did not claim God did anything for the sole purpose of tricking people so he can send them to Hell. This is a blatant lie.
It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who constantly misrepresents what the other person says. I knew this going in, don't know why I bothered to try (again) with you.
I do appreciate your response on the thread about pocket handgun carry, however.
I did not state "your god is fictitious". Read my post again, but this time, do so carefully.
AS, the reason I asked is because I thought you had said you were an atheist, but I may be incorrect on that.
May I ask if you think, referring to your above threads, think our GOD is fictitious? I'm just not understanding some of your, seemingly to me, tricky posts above.
Jax,
I've been very clear about my position over several years and dozens of these threads. An Atheist is someone who doesn't accept any theistic claims, because non-have met their burden of proof. That is different from, what in modern parlance is called an anti-theist who actively asserts "There are no gods". It's the difference between saying a defendant is "not guilty" and "innocent". Just because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, it doesn't mean the person is also "innocent".
There are certain definitions of certain gods that I will say do not exist. This is pretty straight forward when god definitions are contradictory, or nonsensical. On of the challenges with the Christian god, is there is no single definition of what constitutes "The Christian God". Heck Christian's can't agree on the basics, works vs. faith, and as evidenced in this thread if it even requires a belief in a young earth, or literalalist interpertation of the Bible, of if the Christian God is "beyond the covers of any book". As a result, it makes it very difficult to take an anti-theist position when you don't even know the bounds of what you are arguing against. As I've mentioned, and demonstrated in previous threads, Christians are famous for "moving the goal posts" and redefining their god when the definition is use is conclusively disproven.
I seem to remember you making remarks along the lines of 'science is based on faith' which implies that science has an unsound foundation.
May I suggest you revisit my posts about which you write and reread it/them?
My position has always been: The consensus among christians and evolutionists is that science is not based on faith. Despite this widespread acceptance, human evolutionists depart from this in their final conclusion. That’s not to say science isn’t involved. They just choose to abandon the purist form of the scientific method and surreptitiously insert subjective results. By doing so, they depart the practice of true science and enter the realm of philosophy and/or religion. The irony being: True science is based on being proven and denounces faith-based jumps to conclusion, regardless of size.
Subjectivity may be required in certain aspects of science, but using it to draw a final conclusion disputed inside its own secular practice not science. It’s as if the largely-touted open mind of science is traded for that of a religious zealot. A true scientific mind would say human evolution is probable, but not definite.
From that point, it turns into the quagmire of slander and subjectivity akin to a Jerry Springer show. Instead of being able to prove the point in the purist scientific form, deflection, entrapment and the “cherry-picking” of evidence are used to discredit anyone or anything not in full agreement.
As for faith in science, maybe I got you mixed up with another poster, it's hard to keep track.
But then you are claiming that evolutionists depart from science, into faith.
Which is essentially saying that evolution is not science, that it is faith.
Given the overwhelming that supports evidence, it is a false claim. Evolution is not faith based.
It has stood a hundred and fifty years of testing, and just because a small percentage of young earth creationists seek to question it doesn't mean that the reality of evolution is questionable.
AS sees no evidence. His mantra. The extent of his masters battle. The trap satan sets for fools who fall therein. And in their misery and loneliness, call for others to come in and join them.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Jag, that's not necessarily true. As an example, if I claim there's a quarter on the table in front of you, and you can see and feel the entire surface of the table, and it's completely devoid of all object, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Conversely we can eliminate definitions of gods that require specific conditions contrary to what we are able to observe. We know Zeus does not live at the top of Mount Olympus, because we've been to the top of it. Likewise, we know there is no hard firmament surrounding earth because we've been to the moon and sent probes even further into space.
Not related to the genesis description of a literal six days of creation, mornings and evenings, etc, or natural evolution as recorded in the fossil record, strata, genetics, natural selection, common descent and so on....
Absence of evidence is evidence where and when evidence should be found. If something is claimed to exist, it should leave some trace of its existence.
There's a schitt load of stuff that exists in people's minds and not shown to exist Anywhere else.
¶ Christians imagined that Jews were the cause of the black plague. ¶ Christians imagined that pagan Viking raids were God punishing them for their transgressions. ¶ Christians believe earthquakes, floods, fires and hurricanes are God dispensing his vegeance/justice. ¶ Christians believe those who question their personal beliefs are working for their christian narrative devil. ¶ Christians believe those who don't accept their God are going to burn in hell.
They take ALL the above subjective beliefs as being objective fact.
Island people have never needed webbed toes for swimming.
Except for some of the people in the British Isles. Mostly south of Scotland.
I'm just wondering why if animals swam in the waters and wanted food on land, why they didnt grow feet and still keep some fins and gills for going swimming.
It seems to me it could have served them well when trying to get away from sabretoothed critters or even pterodactyls.
For that matter, I can see where birds wanted hands and arms, but why didnt they just grow them and keep their wings for flying, especially when they were young and lithe rather than old and fat.
I think I've seen pics of horses with wings. I guess that was the link between birds and horses. I wonder why they didnt use and lost their wings? They should have come in handy dodging sabetooths and prairie fires.
I guess it was just the smart birds which started trying to build nests with their wings which morphed into hands. I never see chickens trying to build chiett with their wings.
No, those dumb clucks sure missed out.
They could have built traps and bows and arrows and guns and - had chicken for dinner.
I hope you don't plan to see any patience for at least the rest of this week.
Island people have never needed webbed toes for swimming.
Except for some of the people in the British Isles. Mostly south of Scotland.
I'm just wondering why if animals swam in the waters and wanted food on land, why they didnt grow feet and still keep some fins and gills for going swimming.
It seems to me it could have served them well when trying to get away from sabretoothed critters or even pterodactyls.
For that matter, I can see where birds wanted hands and arms, but why didnt they just grow them and keep their wings for flying, especially when they were young and lithe rather than old and fat.
I think I've seen pics of horses with wings. I guess that was the link between birds and horses. I wonder why they didnt use and lost their wings? They should have come in handy dodging sabetooths and prairie fires.
I guess it was just the smart birds which started trying to build nests with their wings which morphed into hands. I never see chickens trying to build chiett with their wings.
No, those dumb clucks sure missed out.
They could have built traps and bows and arrows and guns and - had chicken for dinner.
I hope you'e trying to be facetious and aren't just dumb.
One can't evolve features just because they might be useful. The basic tetrapod form--four limbs plus a tail, limbs ending in digits--has remained unchanged since long before the dinosaurs. So it is that some animals have four legs, in others the legs have evolved into hands, and into wings in still others. In some cases (snakes, whales, ostriches) the limbs have atrophied if no longer needed, but can still be traced anatomically. Same goes for tails in humans.
It doesn't make sense that humans were created in their final (current) form instead of evolving. One example is wisdom teeth. They cause all kinds of trouble and we shouldn't have them. But originally our jaws were much longer, like the apes. As we developed the ability to make fire and cook food, chewing was not needed so much and a shorter face was a good adaptation. The teeth just haven't caught up yet. Or look at all our back problems. Our backbones haven't totally caught up with bipedalism yet.
If God created us in his own image, he was pretty stupid to retain his wisdom teeth, crummy backbone, appendix, and some other things. I don't believe God is stupid. That's another thing the Bible got wrong.
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
So what happened to snakes, millipedes, caterpillars, worms, centipedes, octopuses.....
Snakes only have 2 angled scales supposedly where 2 legs used to be.
Can't you read?
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
One can't evolve features just because they might be useful. The basic tetrapod form--four limbs plus a tail, limbs ending in digits--has remained unchanged since long before the dinosaurs. So it is that some animals have four legs, in others the legs have evolved into hands, and into wings in still others. In some cases (snakes, whales, ostriches) the limbs have atrophied if no longer needed, but can still be traced anatomically. Same goes for tails in humans.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
So what happened to snakes, millipedes, caterpillars, worms, centipedes, octopuses.....
Snakes only have 2 angled scales supposedly where 2 legs used to be.
I was referring to animals with backbones (chordata). Others split from chordata (or vice versa) long before the basic tetrapod form evolved. Snakes are chordata and have vestigial legs. They are not really related to millipedes etc.
Incidentally, why did your God give himself wisdom teeth? Does your God enjoy toothaches? Mine doesn't.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
TYG,
You are making the positive claim relating to the existence to your specific version of your specific God, so you have the burden of proof. If you want to play the "everything exists until proven otherwise" game, well, you have 10,000 other gods to disprove before you can claim yours in the One True God. This goes back to what I alluded to earlier with Ray and the use of a Null Hypothesis and why it's the negative that's presumed true until a hypothesis has sufficient evidence. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection's withstood 150 years of scrutiny, and is the corner stone of modern biology. The only people who don't see this are those with primitive religious view that prevent them from acknowledging the mountain of evidence supporting it. Additionally, the Modern Flat Earth Movement is 100% religious driven, primarily, if not exclusively Christian.
I'm still not sure I understand how only part of the sharks morphed into salamanders. I can only surmise it was the smart ones. And the smart cats morphed into wolves, which wanted to eat cats, but not the dumb ones.
I'm still not sure I understand how only part of the sharks morphed into salamanders. I can only surmise it was the smart ones. And the smart cats morphed into wolves, which wanted to eat cats, but not the dumb ones.
There's a mountain of good sources on all this, if your curiosity is authentic. Just study up.
Oh I passed Comparative Anatomy. It never revealed if some of the sharks gill arches became part of the middle ears hammer, anvil and stirrup at the same time the shark coincidently developed salamander legs to advance itself enough to travel on or in land. I would think being able to swim and eat stuff in the ocean would be preferable.
Iirc, didnt a couple of shark gill arches become mans jaw bone or mandible? Where the hell did the sharks jaw bone go?
I'm still not sure I understand how only part of the sharks morphed into salamanders. I can only surmise it was the smart ones. And the smart cats morphed into wolves, which wanted to eat cats, but not the dumb ones.
Sharks did not morph into salamanders and cats did not morph into wolves. Go read something like AS recommended.
Oh I passed Comparative Anatomy. It never revealed if some of the sharks gill arches became part of the middle ears hammer, anvil and stirrup at the same time the shark coincidently developed salamander legs to advance itself enough to travel on or in land. I would think being able to swim and eat stuff in the ocean would be preferable.
Iirc, didnt a couple of shark gill arches become mans jaw bone or mandible? Where the hell did the sharks jaw bone go?
Wow! Sorry man, but you are thoroughly confused on this subject. You've clearly never actually studied biology, or any of the related fields. This stuff is all available for anyone who's authentically curious.
For starters, watch the series I provided on this thread.
In other threads, I have said why I have chosen my specific God. To reiterate it now will just prolong the agony of this so-called conversation; anyway, it did not satisfy you then and it won't now.
But there you go again, demanding that I only must meet a burden of proof. You are also making a positive claim, about evolution, so you still have a burden of truth as much as I do. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been scrutinized for 150 years, true, but that doesn't mean it has withstood all scrutiny. Here I am, neither a biblical scholar or a scientist, and I came up with an idea that renders it inconclusive, and all you can do is blather on about a "trickster god." And talk about moving the goal posts, introducing the Flat earth Movement into this is typical of your disingenuousness.
Now your counter is likely to be that my interpretation requires a God you do not accept as being real, you gotta prove it, blah, blah, blah. And back and forth we go, over and over and over again. I'm out.
In other threads, I have said why I have chosen my specific God. To reiterate it now will just prolong the agony of this so-called conversation; anyway, it did not satisfy you then and it won't now.
But there you go again, demanding that I only must meet a burden of proof. You are also making a positive claim, about evolution, so you still have a burden of truth as much as I do. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been scrutinized for 150 years, true, but that doesn't mean it has withstood all scrutiny. Here I am, neither a biblical scholar or a scientist, and I came up with an idea that renders it inconclusive, and all you can do is blather on about a "trickster god." And talk about moving the goal posts, introducing the Flat earth Movement into this is typical of your disingenuousness.
Now your counter is likely to be that my interpretation requires a God you do not accept as being real, you gotta prove it, blah, blah, blah. And back and forth we go, over and over and over again. I'm out.
Well, DUH!!
You are claiming your God created the Universe Young to appear old. The time to believe that is when there's sufficient evidence for it. Just because you have an idea that's unsupported by evidence, that does not wipe away all the existing evidence for evolution. You presented an alternative idea. The Null Hypothesis is that the Universe was not created young to appear old by your God. If you wish to over come the Null, then by all means, present away!!!!
Oh I passed Comparative Anatomy. It never revealed if some of the sharks gill arches became part of the middle ears hammer, anvil and stirrup at the same time the shark coincidently developed salamander legs to advance itself enough to travel on or in land. I would think being able to swim and eat stuff in the ocean would be preferable.
Iirc, didnt a couple of shark gill arches become mans jaw bone or mandible? Where the hell did the sharks jaw bone go?
Where to begin?
Sharks are not ancestral to salamanders. Salamanders evolved from lobe finned fishes, not sharks, and we have many many missing links between the two.
BTW: You evolved from lobe finned fishes too.
And sharks don't have jaw bones. They have cartilage. Duh!! So much for any anatomy you may have tried to study.
What a loon!
PS: Why does your god have wisdom teeth? Do they have dentists in heaven?
... If you want to play the "everything exists until proven otherwise" game, well, you have 10,000 other gods to disprove before you can claim yours is the One True God. .
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them. .
Scholars, pastors and even versions of Bible differ as to whether 3:16 is attributed to Jesus vs John. Some take 3:16 as Jesus speaking in the 3rd person, indicating it is simply commentary by the author of John about Jesus.
is there verse where learned Christians undisputedly agree that Jesus himself directly said he wanted his disciples to preach to all of humanity?
to my knowledge, James and Peter did not agree with Paul or anyone taking the preaching to those not compliant to Hebrew O.T. law observances. >>Why would James and Peter take such a stance if JC instructed them otherwise?
John is also unique in that its not considered among the Synoptic Gospels [ie:] it does not present a common view like Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
The evidence, fossil, strata, genetic, molecular, common descent, etc, if considered objectively and understood, leaves no doubt about the reality of natural evolution.
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
The old daddy Hebrew O.T. hell ("sheol") is not a firey place like the later christian and Talmud jew fabrication.
Sunday school Kooks mistake (and Bible babbling con artists misrepresent) hell as the Lake of Fire🔥
The orig. O.T. word of God has sheol being a restful temporary place, where captive souls know of nothing.
Now to the science; There will be a mass release of all souls for the final judgement, which would greatly reduce the pressure and heat in a Hypothetical burning hell model... involving rapid and extraordinary heat transfer from hell to atmosphere.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
The evidence, fossil, strata, genetic, molecular, common descent, etc, if considered objectively and understood, leaves no doubt about the reality of natural evolution.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
IDK, debating believers had bore much fruit for me. Many are very good, like minded men who just happen to disagree with me on a single proposition. Despite this disagreement, we often come to the same solutions for the real problems facing us today. Ultimately, that's what these discussion are about. What matters regarding the real problems of today.
At a practical level, I have way more in common with you than any Marxist how also happens to be an atheist.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
IDK, debating believers had bore much fruit for me. Many are very good, like minded men who just happen to disagree with me on a single proposition. Despite this disagreement, we often come to the same solutions for the real problems facing us today. Ultimately, that's what these discussion are about. What matters regarding the real problems of today. At a practical level, I have way more in common with you than any Marxist who also happens to be an atheist.
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-spermia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
”I will NEVER, no never, reject one of them who comes to Me.” - Jesus
Evolutionary Theists (VS) Young earth creationists could argue night and day,. - Did the lizard gradually develop traits that allow such, OR were they gifted at creation on the 6th day..? 🤔
.. is Tarq. a Young earth creationist or heretical Old earth creationist?
Every believer in evolution is a "creationist" in the meaningful sense that he believes in a process that either creates life from inanimate matter or changes one life form into another. So, it is analytically silly to speak of "creationism" as a point of demarcation since every person who believes in either a life-creating process or a life-creating intelligence is a "creationist", properly understood. As for me, I think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion. Satisfied?
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
The Bronze Snake 4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea,[a] to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!”
6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.
8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.
.. I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
Bingo Ringo.
but how many think they are a shoo-in for the VIP short list coz Jesus put a little gold star on all their foreheads .. "no losers here - everyones a winner!..
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
Tarq,
The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman.
As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life.
Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on.
So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents.
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
Its all very scientific, I doubt you would grasp it.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
Tarq,
The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman.
As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life.
Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on.
So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents.
Your response is erroneous in every respect, but I don't have time to respond in detail tonight As far as strawmen, the strawman is your false claim that I asserted that the possibility of a multi-verse had anything to do with protein folding. I never asserted any such thing and you well now it, so stop lying. Really, you are shameless. What I asserted is that the theory of a multi-verse is an example of the kinds of devices (fantastical theories) materialists have had to invent to try to tame the very long odds against evolution being true.
Personally I mix Creation and Evolution. Dunno how long one of God's days was. If a few million years, it seems to blend rather well.
It removes one argument, and tends to shut most people up (win win) There are some young earthers that get rather rabid though.
They also seem to have other issues.
This is the way I've believed for the last 50+ years. My science teacher in High School was also a C of C Preacher and he taught us that yes God created it all but how he chose to do it and how long it took him we'll never know so evolution very well could be a process created by God.
My take in it is......Man/woman were the last creatures he created so must have practiced with all the animals first. Unfortunately humans are probably the worst of all creation and He's probably saying "WTF" right now.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
The odds of the appearance by natural selection of a functional protein is so small as to be impossible. The protein folding problem is insurmountable and you cannot have life without proteins. In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them, But of course the idea of a "multi-verse" has literally zero empirical support and in fact can't even be tested. How convenient! But its another in a long line of examples of evolutionists tacitly admitting to the impossible odds by conjuring ever-more silly scenarios to try to tame them----very much along the lines of Francis Crick positing "pan-permia" in a tacit recognition life could not possibly have evolved on earth under the evolutionary constraints extant here as we know them.
Except, a rudimentary understanding of the biochemistry and odds calculations renders your argument null and void.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
AS, you're just spouting nonsense. I'm going off memory, but if we turned every sub-atomic and atomic particle in the known universe into a computational device, each spitting out trials at the rate of a million per second for the last 4.5 billion years we still would not have tamed the odds necessary for the formation of one simple protein, let alone the hundreds needed to originate life. As far as evolution not being based on chance, all the leading thinkers in the history of evolution say otherwise. In fact, the nascent claim that evolution is somehow "directed" is closely allied with the idea of "theistic evolution". It is telling that the long odds have forced you to admit the possibility of God into your evolutionary creation story.
Here is what I was looking for:
Anthony Flew explains his thinking in his book ‘There is a God’. He argues on pp75-8 as follows:
‘I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life of following the argument no matter where it leads.
I was particularly impressed with Gerry Schroeders's point-by-point refutation of what I call the "monkey theorem." This idea, which has been presented in a number of forms and variations, defends the possibility of life arising by chance using the analogy of a multitude of monkeys banging away on computer keyboards and eventually ending up writing a Shakesparearean sonnet.
Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages - but no a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the shortest work in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the 26 letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-letter world is 30 x 30 x 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance of 27,000
Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked, He continued....
•All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I campare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10,10 to the 690th.
•Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th.
•If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time.
After hearing Schroeder's presentation, I told him that he had very satisfactorily and decisively established that the 'monkey theorem' was a load of rubbish, and that it was particularly good to do it with just a sonnet; the theorem is sometimes proposed using the works of Shakespeare or a single play, such as Hamlet. If the theorem won't work for a single sonnet, then of course it's simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.’
Tarq,
The arguments for the possibility of a multiverse have nothing to do with protein folding. Nice strawman.
As for Flew's argument, I'm aware of it, and it's wrong beginning with the 4 points I mentioned above. In order for the example to be valid, there would be no restriction to English, or any other known language for that matter, but also potential languages not yet imagined. As mentioned above, current life as it exists in not the only potential form or nature of life.
Additionally, withing evolution, useful variations can build upon one another. To use your analogy, Within 30 key strokes you could expect a space to be selected. If the next result is not an "a", you don't return to the beginning, but select again. Within another 30 key strokes you would have your "a", and so on.
So when properly envisioned, the opportunity is much greater then what Flu represents.
Your response is erroneous in every respect, but I don't have time to respond in detail tonight As far as strawmen, the strawman is your false claim that I asserted that the possibility of a multi-verse had anything to do with protein folding. I never asserted any such thing and you well now it, so stop lying. Really, you are shameless. What I asserted is that the theory of a multi-verse is an example of the kinds of devices (fantastical theories) materialists have had to invent to try to tame the very long odds against evolution being true.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
...In fact, the odds are so long that neo-darwinists are forced to posit a "multi-verse" to try to tame them...
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
The whole passage from Matthew 7:21-23 wasn’t posted. But Jesus was addressing the ‘religious’ people in the crowd, those who assumed that they had a golden ticket into Heaven because they gave lip service to God, those who thought their works (especially in front of other’s) would get em’ in. Those who boasted about their holiness, and their works, and called attention to it. There’s no exclusivity to any of this. Following Jesus is open and available to ALL. Some modern day Pharisees would have you think differently though. When Jesus said “I will NEVER, no never, reject one of them who comes to Me”, I’m convinced that He meant it. When Jesus said “Come to me, ALL who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”, I’m convinced that He meant it. Some self-professed ‘Christians’ would have you think otherwise though.
My take in it is......Man/woman were the last creatures he created so must have practiced with all the animals first..
Why would a perfect intelligent design God require practice?
Some christians believe fossils are only designs that God hand doodled and considered, but never put into actual creative production.
Originally Posted by AZmark
Unfortunately humans are probably the worst of all creation and He's probably saying "WTF" right now...
The kranky old grey bearded man had already planned to have his son killed before he created the world and Mankind. That tells you that humans being all screwed up is God's will.- He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
The whole passage from Matthew 7:21-23 wasn’t posted. But Jesus was addressing the ‘religious’ people in the crowd, those who assumed that they had a golden ticket into Heaven.......
Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved.
Luke 23 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Why? Because God sees the intention in your heart.
Samuel 16 7 ......For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.
There are plenty of Christians that aren’t on the narrow road. Attending church, tithing, taking part in formal ceremonies doesn’t bless a hardened heart. When a person truly repents, however, they are forgiven. He doesn’t even see a person’s sins when they accept that He sacrificed his Son for their sins and change their ways accordingly.
Isaiah 43 25 I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins.
So for those bent on seeing contradiction, you can twist the words of the bible into it. If you soften your heart, however, you’ll see there may be some irony injected by human behavior, but there’s not contradiction.
Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved.
That’s a great example. Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked to death on a Roman galley. That thief would never study the Bible, never attend a church, and never make amends to those he had wronged. He simply said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus promised him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” It’s a reminder that grace does not depend on what we have done for God, but rather on what God has done for us.
Attending church, tithing, taking part in formal ceremonies doesn’t bless a hardened heart.
There’s certainly no saving power in any of it. A little child singing, “Yes, Jesus loves me" is closer to the REAL gospel message than any of those things.
Yep....and in contrary to the “religious” people in the crowd, the criminal hanging on the cross next to him was saved.
That’s a great example. Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross, knowing full well the thief had converted out of plain fear. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked to death on a Roman galley. That thief would never study the Bible, never attend a church, and never make amends to those he had wronged. He simply said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus promised him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” It’s a reminder that grace does not depend on what we have done for God, but rather what God has done for us.
Now you gone and done did it....mentioned the Criminal on the Cross. That's sure to start some kind of an interdenominational feud.
The bible doesn't describe long periods of evolution, genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings, evenings of each day.....which cannot mean epochs.
Jesus forgave a thief dangling on a cross,.. .. His life was deemed so worthless that it wasn’t even seen as being fit to be worked to death on a Roman galley.
Unless you were Roman, life was very cheap. and we don't know the names or background status of the 'thieves' .. if slaves, they had no rights and were easily dispensible even at the whim of their Roman owners without the need of going before a high official like Pilate.
Chances are those two earn their punishment and were no better than insurrector Barabbas, who should have been there with them.
λῃσταὶ (from orig. Greek Matthew 27:44) Seems to imply An unscrupulous violent plunderer-pillager, marauder/ bandit.... and under Roman law enough to earn the worst punishment the Romans could dish out.
Different versions of Bible also describe the two using various terms... rebels, revolutionaries, malefactors, and just plain undescriptive criminals. All worthy of crucifixion under Roman law.
so the two thieves could have been plundering while being party to violent insurrection.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
The bible doesn't describe long periods of evolution, genesis describes special creation in six literal days, mornings, evenings of each day.....which cannot mean epochs.
Well then the Bible is simply wrong. I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis and probably Revelation, with it's ten headed beasts with seven horns (?) as well. After all, the books that were accepted as "true" were determined by a bunch of medieval superstitious churchmen, not by God, and even then the Catholics and Protestants differ about what words are actually included.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
The problem isn't crawling on its belly. The problem is snakes don't have vocal chords, a Broca's organ to frame speech, or a cerebellum to think with. The story is a fairy tale. I don't think God believes in fairy tales nor wants us to.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
The problem isn't crawling on its belly. The problem is snakes don't have vocal chords, a Broca's organ to frame speech, or a cerebellum to think with. The story is a fairy tale. I don't think God believes in fairy tales nor wants us to.
It's a creation myth. But If it wasn't intended to explain the world in terms of a Creator, create a religion and identity for the tribe of Israel, it had no real purpose. Perhaps entertainment?
The thing is, it was taken literally by believers up until modern times.
People believed in a literal God, a literal Eden, a literal six days of creation, a literal serpent in the garden, a literal fall, therefore a literal need for redemption in the sacrifice of Jesus.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
The problem isn't crawling on its belly. The problem is snakes don't have vocal chords, a Broca's organ to frame speech, or a cerebellum to think with. The story is a fairy tale. I don't think God believes in fairy tales nor wants us to.
It's a creation myth. But If it wasn't intended to explain the world in terms of a Creator, create a religion and identity for the tribe of Israel, it had no real purpose. Perhaps entertainment?
The thing is, it was taken literally by believers up until modern times.
People believed in a literal God, a literal Eden, a literal six days of creation, a literal serpent in the garden, a literal fall, therefore a literal need for redemption in the sacrifice of Jesus.
Believed??
We have several members here who STILL believe in a literal interpretation, including the 6 day creation 6k to 10k years ago......
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
The problem isn't crawling on its belly. The problem is snakes don't have vocal chords, a Broca's organ to frame speech, or a cerebellum to think with. The story is a fairy tale. I don't think God believes in fairy tales nor wants us to.
It's a creation myth. But If it wasn't intended to explain the world in terms of a Creator, create a religion and identity for the tribe of Israel, it had no real purpose. Perhaps entertainment?
The thing is, it was taken literally by believers up until modern times.
People believed in a literal God, a literal Eden, a literal six days of creation, a literal serpent in the garden, a literal fall, therefore a literal need for redemption in the sacrifice of Jesus.
Believed??
We have several members here who STILL believe in a literal interpretation, including the 6 day creation 6k to 10k years ago......
Does Ringman ring a well?
I know. It's astonishing, but I just didn't mention it when I wrote my post.
Some do push for allegory, metaphor, poetic language, but given the nature of the narrative, the fall and the need for redemption, a redeemer, a sacrifice, allegory doesn't work. It has to be taken literally.
He set it all up that Adam must fall. He did this by Placing the craftiest creature known to God to trick humans (that he ensured would be naive enough to take the bait.)
Pretty ignorant to think that snakes are crafty. They don't have the cerebellum to think that way, just a reptilian cortex.
It's described as the most subtle/cunning beast in the Garden. It's only after playing its role in the downfall of A&E that it was made to crawl on the ground as a snake.
The problem isn't crawling on its belly. The problem is snakes don't have vocal chords, a Broca's organ to frame speech, or a cerebellum to think with. The story is a fairy tale. I don't think God believes in fairy tales nor wants us to.
It's a creation myth. But If it wasn't intended to explain the world in terms of a Creator, create a religion and identity for the tribe of Israel, it had no real purpose. Perhaps entertainment?
The thing is, it was taken literally by believers up until modern times.
People believed in a literal God, a literal Eden, a literal six days of creation, a literal serpent in the garden, a literal fall, therefore a literal need for redemption in the sacrifice of Jesus.
Believed??
We have several members here who STILL believe in a literal interpretation, including the 6 day creation 6k to 10k years ago......
Does Ringman ring a well?
I know. It's astonishing, but I just didn't mention it when I wrote my post.
Some do push for allegory, metaphor, poetic language, but given the nature of the narrative, the fall and the need for redemption, a redeemer, a sacrifice, allegory doesn't work. It has to be taken literally.
Yet taken literally it makes no sense.
Yep.
For some, no Garden, no fall. No fall no Resurrection. No Resurrection no happy forever after.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
Or maybe the snake evolved into the brainless reptile it is today.............It could happen, look at what happened to the democrats in such a short period of time...........
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
If The Fall is just allegory, why not Jesus as allegory?
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
If The Fall is just allegory, why not Jesus as allegory?
If The Fall is just allegory, why not Jesus as allegory?
A literal interpretation of ‘the fall’ doesn’t really matter. The belief that we are separated from our Creator because of sin (as Jesus Himself taught) is what really matters. A literal interpretation of the life and death, and *especially* of the resurrection of Jesus does matter though...big time...because that, *the resurrection*, is the very foundation of the faith. That is what makes possible our once again having a personal relationship with our Creator.
If The Fall is just allegory, why not Jesus as allegory?
A literal interpretation of ‘the fall’ doesn’t really matter. The belief that we are separated from our Creator because of sin (as Jesus Himself taught) is what really matters. A literal interpretation of the life and death, and *especially* of the resurrection of Jesus does matter though...big time...because that, *the resurrection*, is the very foundation of the faith. That is what makes possible our once again having a personal relationship with our Creator.
So, if there was no literal resurrection, does your entire religion crumble?
Allegories (like Jesus’ parables) can be morally true, while not being factual. These stories never happened, but were used by Jesus to illustrate points that are true. As to distinguishing in the Bible what is figurative and what is literal... To me, it depends on the context. For example, if I read in the paper “Trump Criticized Over Coronavirus Response”, it’s a fair bet they’re being literal. But if I read in the sports section “Panthers Maul Bears”, they’re most likely being figurative regarding a football game rather than referencing a true incident with animals. Some Christians are divided on certain passages and whether they are figurative or literal. The Biblical creation story for example...is each “day” mentioned a literal 24 hour period, or a figurative period lasting millions of years or more...? I don’t think it really matters, as neither interpretation effects the Gospel. I feel the same regarding Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the great fish, and the Biblical fall story.
Hypothetically, tonight, you conclusively determine the resurrection did not happen. Tomorrow morning, after you put on your pants, how does that change the way you live the rest of your day? How does it change your behavior for the rest of your days?
I would miss, very much, the relationship that I have with my Creator (and all that that entails). I feel differently about these things than nearly everyone else does. I don’t think Jesus’ teachings were ever meant to be a religion. I think they were meant to be a way of life. And the opportunity is there, if one chooses, to have a relationship with Him. He said He’d never reject anyone who came to Him. His words resonated with me. He said “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” I took that to heart.
Hypothetically, tonight, you conclusively determine the resurrection did not happen. Tomorrow morning, after you put on your pants, how does that change the way you live the rest of your day? How does it change your behavior for the rest of your days?
I would miss, very much, the relationship that I have with my Creator (and all that that entails). I feel differently about these things than nearly everyone else does. I don’t think Jesus’ teachings were ever meant to be a religion. I think they were meant to be a way of life. And the opportunity is there, if one chooses, to have a relationship with Him. He said He’d never reject anyone who came to Him. His words resonated with me. He said “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” I took that to heart.
Being that for you it's a way of life, I suspect that means very little, if anything would actually change as it applies to your daily actions?
Being that for you it's a way of life, I suspect that means very little, if anything would actually change as it applies to your daily actions?
Oh I disagree. Bigly. And there’s more to livin’ than just our “daily actions”. It’s not just a way of life...it’s also a relationship...even more so than a way of life. Again, I would miss, very much, the relationship that I have with my Creator (and all that that entails). Whom do you love most in the world AS...? Your wife and /or your kids...? Your life likely revolves around whom you love the most. If whom you love the most were all of a sudden gone...would it not profoundly affect practically every aspect of your life...?
Jesus says, "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord,...And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me...'"
When Jesus said “Come to me, ALL who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”, I’m convinced that He meant it.
What veracity do the Synoptic Gospels have regarding anything A Jesus may have said, considering they are not biographies, but oral tradition stories passed down and (eventually) written down by anonymous authors who did not personally witness a Jesus say any such things.
History provides scant direct evidence about such events, but does suggest that early Christians engaged in a most basic human activity known as story-telling.... probabiility there is that people were already prone to defining Jesus in a way to suit themselves.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by DBT
....
, including the 6 day creation 6k to 10k years ago......
Does Ringman ring a bell?
Ringos fastidious research indicates the oldest supernova is still less than 7000 yrs.
History provides scant direct evidence about such events, but does suggest that early Christians engaged in a most basic human activity known as story-telling.... probabiility there is that people were already prone to defining Jesus in a way to suit themselves.
Thank goodness we got all those eyewitness accounts of evolution to help us know with certainty that creation is a lie. Nothing like a guy with a telescope telling you how the earth was created.
So fossils were fabricated and put in place by God only to test your faith in creation, and comparative Genome studies are devised by that other trickster the devil.
History provides scant direct evidence about such events, but does suggest that early Christians engaged in a most basic human activity known as story-telling.... probabiility there is that people were already prone to defining Jesus in a way to suit themselves.
Thank goodness we got all those eyewitness accounts of evolution to help us know with certainty that creation is a lie. Nothing like a guy with a telescope telling you how the earth was created.
Geological strata is evidence for the age of the Earth. The fossil record proclaims the evolution of life on the planet. Three billion years of microbes before multicellular life emerged, five major extinction events, etc, etc. The evidence is there.
History provides scant direct evidence about such events, but does suggest that early Christians engaged in a most basic human activity known as story-telling.... probabiility there is that people were already prone to defining Jesus in a way to suit themselves.
Thank goodness we got all those eyewitness accounts of evolution to help us know with certainty that creation is a lie. Nothing like a guy with a telescope telling you how the earth was created.
Geological strata is evidence for the age of the Earth. The fossil record proclaims the evolution of life on the planet. Three billion years of microbes before multicellular life emerged, five major extinction events, etc, etc. The evidence is there.
History provides scant direct evidence about such events, but does suggest that early Christians engaged in a most basic human activity known as story-telling.... probabiility there is that people were already prone to defining Jesus in a way to suit themselves.
Thank goodness we got all those eyewitness accounts of evolution to help us know with certainty that creation is a lie. Nothing like a guy with a telescope telling you how the earth was created.
Geological strata is evidence for the age of the Earth. The fossil record proclaims the evolution of life on Earth. Three billion years of microbes before multicellular life emerged, five major extinction events, etc, etc. The evidence is there.
Evidence convicted more than one innocent man.
Lack of adequate evidence might have. Fabricated evidence may have. Eyewitness reports can be notoriously unreliable.
Evolution has more than sufficient evidence to prove its reality.
Evolution has been put on trial and passed with flying colours.
The fossil record, genetics, common decent, geology, etc, cannot lie or be mistaken. It is there for anyone to examine.
Evolution has been tested for 150 years and withstood every test.
So fossils were fabricated and put in place by God only to test your faith in creation, and comparative Genome studies are devised by that other trickster the devil.
Apparently, fossils only count when they work in the favor of evolution as the so-called science-minded pretend they exist to support the theory of human evolution.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
Evolution being true doesn't negate a first man into whom God breathed a soul, then forming Eve from his rib. At some point, our mere animal ancestors became homo sapien sapien. God plucked Adam from amongst them (formed Adam from the muck of the earth), and made him the first man into which he breathed a soul, then Eve from him. Adam's ancestor species then died out by God's provenance.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
If The Fall is just allegory, why not Jesus as allegory?
That's quite obviously unreasonable, but you are free to believe it.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
Evolution being true doesn't negate a first man into whom God breathed a soul, then forming Eve from his rib. At some point, our mere animal ancestors became homo sapien sapien. God plucked Adam from amongst them (formed Adam from the muck of the earth), and made him the first man into which he breathed a soul, then Eve from him. Adam's ancestor species then died out by God's provenance.
That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
It is all around you and can't be seen by people like you, yet you cling to no proof of evolution, and continue to claim the high ground. This battle won't be solved on earth or in a classroom, it will just be a big disappointment to all you non believers immediately upon death. I won't say I told you so, but then again I just might.
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
It is all around you and can't be seen by people like you, yet you cling to no proof of evolution, and continue to claim the high ground. This battle won't be solved on earth or in a classroom, it will just be a big disappointment to all you non believers immediately upon death. I won't say I told you so, but then again I just might.
Well you're seeing things that don't exist.
There's proof of evolution.
I'm not claiming any sort of moral or intellectual high ground - just a basis of facts.
This perceived "battle" (some might call it debate) ends when we die, because when we die, that's it, we're dead, lights out, no more, nothing afterwards, no after life. After death reprisals are just a threat invented by believers to try and achieve compliance to their propaganda - if it weren't sullied by a track record of abuse, prejudice and violence, it might actually be considered admirable if the declared virtues and values were sincerely meant and acted upon. The good sheep are happy though I suppose.
I think the Christian religion would attract more people if they just threw out the entire book of Genesis...
Or at least address the many instances of allegory that it contains. Even Jesus used parables in His teachings, and they are clear examples of allegory.
If there was no fall, what need of Jesus the redeemer?
Evolution being true doesn't negate a first man into whom God breathed a soul, then forming Eve from his rib. At some point, our mere animal ancestors became homo sapien sapien. God plucked Adam from amongst them (formed Adam from the muck of the earth), and made him the first man into which he breathed a soul, then Eve from him. Adam's ancestor species then died out by God's provenance.
Genesis describes special creation, not evolution. Adam is said to have been created not evolved. Special creation contradicts the natural order of things, that life evolved, common decent, natural selection, environment pressures, etc.
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
Nope. It's a matter of faith that God set things rolling, and in such a way that he knew the end result from the beginning.
This is quite distinct, by the way, from the proposition called intelligent design, however, which is overwhelmingly disproved by science. Although God knows end results from the beginning, this doesn't require any guidance on his part as to process and course of development.
Genesis describes special creation, not evolution. Adam is said to have been created not evolved. Special creation contradicts the natural order of things, that life evolved, common decent, natural selection, environment pressures, etc.
The sense in which Adam is said to have been created must be taken in context, which is that Genesis clarifies that there is an equivalency between 1) God having created something and 2) nature having brought it forth in response to his command. God forming Adam from the slime of the earth must be interpreted in light of "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ..." That would include Adam, who is certainly a moving creature who hath life. This informs us that "The Lord formed man from the slime of the earth" is figurative, not literal.
Genesis describes special creation, not evolution. Adam is said to have been created not evolved. Special creation contradicts the natural order of things, that life evolved, common decent, natural selection, environment pressures, etc.
The sense in which Adam is said to have been created must be taken in context, which is that Genesis clarifies that there is an equivalency between 1) God having created something and 2) nature having brought it forth in response to his command. God forming Adam from the slime of the earth must be interpreted in light of "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life ..." That would include Adam, who is certainly a moving creature who hath life. This informs us that "The Lord formed man from the slime of the earth" is figurative, not literal.
But the time frame of six literal days of creation is given and described. If Adam/humankind evolved just as the evidence tells us, there is no need to invoke special creation or intelligent design...which is not supported by the evidence, fossil record, multiple extinction events, etc.
But the time frame of six literal days of creation is given and described. If Adam/humankind evolved just as the evidence tells us, there is no need to invoke special creation or intelligent design...which is not supported by the evidence, fossil record, multiple extinction events, etc.
The time frame is allegorical.
God can command X,Y, and Z, and see that it is good, then move on to command A,B, and C, both billions of years before any of it actually takes place. Time duration and sequence is a thing for us, not for God. He doesn't live within the confines of such concepts.
There are many transitional fossils. Anyone can check.
That clearly avoids answering a direct question....and since the answer of “No. No human missing link has been found” doesn’t support the theory of evolution, it’s safe to assume that “no” is, indeed, the answer.
Well, there are some real smart guys on the Fire, for sure. Seems to me the smartest are believers, though they may disagree on the mechanics and timelines.
It's been an educational and enlightening thread.
Thanks and GOD bless all those who didnt act as trolls and who revealed their own selves, GODs greatest masterpiece, and destiny through their own observations, revelations, investigations and contemplations.
But the time frame of six literal days of creation is given and described. If Adam/humankind evolved just as the evidence tells us, there is no need to invoke special creation or intelligent design...which is not supported by the evidence, fossil record, multiple extinction events, etc.
The time frame is allegorical.
God can command X,Y, and Z, and see that it is good, then move on to command A,B, and C, both billions of years before any of it actually takes place. Time duration and sequence is a thing for us, not for God. He doesn't live within the confines of such concepts.
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
Then maybe you would inform us how DNA came to be.
But the time frame of six literal days of creation is given and described. If Adam/humankind evolved just as the evidence tells us, there is no need to invoke special creation or intelligent design...which is not supported by the evidence, fossil record, multiple extinction events, etc.
The time frame is allegorical.
God can command X,Y, and Z, and see that it is good, then move on to command A,B, and C, both billions of years before any of it actually takes place. Time duration and sequence is a thing for us, not for God. He doesn't live within the confines of such concepts.
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Believe what you like. I wont tell you how to interpret the Bible. Those who are already within the fold believe rightly when they read it, at least those portions necessary for salvation. If you're not within the fold, you will understand very little if any of it correctly, try as you might.
.....That's kind of a kid's "T" ball look at it. This way we all win. Make sure that the truth is not found in evolution , as hard as the evolutionary backers believe, they still can't disprove Creation.
You have the argument wrong way around - the burden is in providing proof. There is no proof of creation.
Then maybe you would inform us how DNA came to be.
Watch the series I recommended on systematic classifications of life, by Aron Ra. He explains it nicely.
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Believe what you like. I wont tell you how to interpret the Bible. Those who are already within the fold believe rightly when they read it, at least those portions necessary for salvation. If you're not within the fold, you will understand very little if any of it correctly, try as you might.
LOL.
He didn't ask to interpret Bible for him, he asked you how You interpret Bible.
Ie; where does the allegory end in your interpretation.
and please lay off the 'special fold' approach. to many dime a dozen types like that already.
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Believe what you like. I wont tell you how to interpret the Bible. Those who are already within the fold believe rightly when they read it, at least those portions necessary for salvation. If you're not within the fold, you will understand very little if any of it correctly, try as you might.
LOL.
That's pretty basic Christian doctrine, and Biblically based.
"But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead'." - Luke 16:31
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Believe what you like. I wont tell you how to interpret the Bible. Those who are already within the fold believe rightly when they read it, at least those portions necessary for salvation. If you're not within the fold, you will understand very little if any of it correctly, try as you might.
LOL.
That's pretty basic Christian doctrine, and Biblically based.
Just because it's doctrine, that doesn't make it so.
Where does the allegory end then? God is allegorical?
Believe what you like. I wont tell you how to interpret the Bible. Those who are already within the fold believe rightly when they read it, at least those portions necessary for salvation. If you're not within the fold, you will understand very little if any of it correctly, try as you might.
LOL.
He didn't ask to interpret Bible for him, he asked you how You interpret Bible.
Ie; where does the allegory end in your interpretation.
Seems there are 3 main lines of thought/belief on the origin and development of human beings...
(1) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
(2) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; and
(3) God created human beings pretty much in their current form in the last 6,000 years or so.
Good points.
It's easy to prove that (3) didn't happen. The final result between (1) and (2) is impossible to discern so either could have occurred and it's probably impossible to tell which it was.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown IT to them. Romans 1:19
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, EVEN the eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God and neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
Processing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Romans 1:23
Everything is about the sovereign, almighty, living God and for His glory. That is the way He created it and intended it to be.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown IT to them. Romans 1:19
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, EVEN the eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God and neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
Processing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Romans 1:23
Everything is about the sovereign, almighty, living God and for His glory. That is the way He created it and intended it to be.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown IT to them. Romans 1:19
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, EVEN the eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God and neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
Processing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Romans 1:23
Everything is about the sovereign, almighty, living God and for His glory. That is the way He created it and intended it to be.
Please prove this.
Don’t have to.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by FAITH. Romans 1:17
For by grace you have been saved through FAITH, and this is not your doing. It is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8
The ability to believe by faith is indeed a (free) gift and made possible by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown IT to them. Romans 1:19
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, EVEN the eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God and neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
Processing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Romans 1:23
Everything is about the sovereign, almighty, living God and for His glory. That is the way He created it and intended it to be.
Please prove this.
Don’t have to.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by FAITH. Romans 1:17
For by grace you have been saved through FAITH, and this is not your doing. It is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8
The ability to believe by faith is indeed a (free) gift and made possible by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit.
And that's the crux of the argument - believers rely on faith but deny the proof of the non-believers.
Seems there are 3 main lines of thought/belief on the origin and development of human beings...
(1) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
(2) human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process; and
(3) God created human beings pretty much in their current form in the last 6,000 years or so.
Good points.
It's easy to prove that (3) didn't happen. The final result between (1) and (2) is impossible to discern so either could have occurred and it's probably impossible to tell which it was.
I don.t believe that (3) happened, but I don't believe that anyone can prove that (3) didn't happened. Not easy to prove at all.
Indoctrinated Christians live in fear of burning in a hell invented by zealot christians.
The O.T. has no such eternal hell furnace for sinners, so maybe christians can tell CF readers when this firey hell first started operating.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." - Daniel 12:2
You told us you believe that anyone who goes to church has faith.
as if just keeping up appearances equates to actual real deal Faith.
are you really that naive and superficial?
Lots of folks in Church are there for appearances only, or because it's a family tradition. I think you are misinterpreting or overstating something I've said in the past.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." - Daniel 12:2
I see no mention of an eternal firey torture for mere mortal transgressors.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." - Daniel 12:2
I see no mention of an eternal firey torture for mere mortal transgressors.
I know you don't see it. If someone rose from the dead and explained it to you, you wouldn't see it either.
PS The New Testament is a higher level of revelation than was the Old Testament. What was vague in the Old is made clear in the New.
Lots of folks in Church are there for appearances only, or because it's a family tradition. I think you are misinterpreting or overstating something I've said in the past.
You simply said folks who go to church are displaying faith.
Lots of folks in Church are there for appearances only, or because it's a family tradition. I think you are misinterpreting or overstating something I've said in the past.
You simply said folks who go to church are displaying faith.
That's rather vague. You'll need the exact quote in context. We've had all sorts of discussions over the years.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." - Daniel 12:2
I see no mention of an eternal firey torture for mere mortal transgressors.
I know you don't see it. If someone rose from the dead and explained it to you, you wouldn't see it either.
Dream, imagine, believe, etc, all you want, it dont change the fact no firey eternal hell is mentioned in the slightest.
There are many transitional fossils. Anyone can check.
Stephen J. Gould called the lack of transitional in the fossil record "the trade secret of paleontology". Because evolution always seemed to be happening where we couldn't see any evidence of it (as evidenced by the lack of transitionals) Gould and Niles Eldredge were forced to postulate "punctuated equilibrium" to try to account for the decidedly "undarwinian" fossil record. According to Darwin (if his theory were true) transitional should dominate the fossil record and Darwin wondered aloud where were the missing transitional fossils? Of course, in Darwin's time the fossil strata hadn't been explored much, but it has now been explored with much greater thoroughness and the transitional are still lacking. There are a few candidates as possible transitional but of those we can't even be sure they are transitional without DNA evidence. On the whole, the fossil record refutes and does not confirm Darwin.
Dream, imagine, believe, etc, all you want, it dont change the fact no firey eternal hell is mentioned in the slightest.
You are sharing your delusions , nothing more.
Where are you getting that there needs to be fire? Fire has always been used to symbolize the suffering that awaits people in hell, but I'm not sure there's any definite statement about it being fiery in either the New or Old Testaments. Might be, but I don't recall it. I know Paul says some will be saved as if through fire, but that's about salvation, not damnation.
I don’t believe that (3) happened, but I don't believe that anyone can prove that (3) didn't happen. Not easy to prove at all.
Many fossils of anatomically modern humans that are 200,000 years old say otherwise.
The Biblical creation story has the earth and man both being created just days apart. A 4.5 billion year old earth says otherwise as well.
I believe that 6000 years ago a "day" was about the same 24 hours that it is now. Not very clear to me how you "prove" that to those who believe otherwise.
But the time frame of six literal days of creation is given and described. If Adam/humankind evolved just as the evidence tells us, there is no need to invoke special creation or intelligent design...which is not supported by the evidence, fossil record, multiple extinction events, etc.
The time frame is allegorical.
God can command X,Y, and Z, and see that it is good, then move on to command A,B, and C, both billions of years before any of it actually takes place. Time duration and sequence is a thing for us, not for God. He doesn't live within the confines of such concepts.
It wasn't believed to be allegory in the past, some still don't. It was believed to be the inspired word of God describing how the world came to be, how it was created in literally six days, why the world has suffering/ the fall and the need for redemption, etc. Which doesn't work with allegory.
Now that it's been shown that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has evolved from a common ancestor, microbes for 3 billion years, multiple extinction events, and nearly us in the last ice age, it is more convenient to call it allegory.
.. Fire has always been used to symbolize the suffering that awaits people in hell, .
The O..T. makes no mention of suffering in a hell or hades (sheol).. If anything it specifically describes such place where the dead Sleep and know of nothing.
so when did this hell suffering place that you believe in, come into actual existence?
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
PS The New Testament is a higher level of revelation than was the Old Testament. What was vague in the Old is made clear in the New.
The O.T. Is not vague on what hell/hades/sheol constitutes, it's clear and concise.
The concept of fire is used to symbolize suffering.
Christians take it as being tormented for eternity.
What eternal tormentation (or suffering) is there if the book says God will inflict the punishment of death [destroy the wicked].. ?
What can you suffer after death?
For a God to torment the wicked for eternity doesn't that require keeping them alive?
Scripture says both heaven and hell are eternal/everlasting. Rejecting Jesus results in permanent eternal punishment for conscious souls, and the fire will never be quenched.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
If hell is not eternal, then neither is heaven.
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The 3rd angel’s message in Revelation 14:10-11 is all about eternal hellfire.
He will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Revelation 14:10
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night. Revelation 14:11
If believers reign in heaven forever and ever, those who reject Jesus will be tormented forever and ever. There are only two choices, eternal life or eternal death. If there were not an eternal consequence for rejecting Jesus, God’s justice would be less absolute than His amazing grace and mercy.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
...If believers reign in heaven forever and ever, those who reject Jesus will be tormented forever and ever. There are only two choices, eternal life or eternal death. If there were not an eternal consequence for rejecting Jesus, God’s justice would be less absolute than His amazing grace and mercy.
So would god be graceful and show mercy if a non-believer accepted Jesus while in hell, or is there a "best before" date on the mercy?
My testimony as a convert from one faith to another.
I'm now a believer in The One Who Created this universe.
For anyone who cared to watch the Hovind lecture, believers in God believe in something called Micro evolution. Those are small changes due to genetic variabilities. Some dogs have long hair, some have curly hair and so forth. This can be observed, repeated, measured, and fulfill the scientific method.
I am not trying to be unkind, so please don't feel that way. I am trying to be as concise as I know how, to save you, the readers time. Just stating what I was taught, not necessarily what all evolutionist believe.
What my faith in Evolutionism fell under that which cannot be measured, observed, nor repeated. It was taught by devotees/teachers/professors as following scientific methodology. However, it belonged in the liberal arts department of philosophy and comparative religions IMHO. Most in college was in evolutionary biology. ......First semester of bio... earthworm to professor. That professor died this year. I hope that he came to understand that which was to come upon him before it was too late. I liked Dr. Blades and hoped the best for him. But I digress. This comes under the belief in MACRO Evolutionism. If classified as a "physical science", then the term Should be the HYPOTHESIS of Macro Evolution. There are many variations on this theme. This has many hypotheses, the two prominent ones being Darwinism, named after their prophet Charles Darwin. The origin of this predated Darwin as far back as Hinduism. It is a doctrine of multiple polytheistic religions, including all of the occultic mystery religions, satanism included.
The other major category of faith, last I checked, was Punctuated Equalibrium(a) or "The Hopeful Monster Theory", if my memory is correct. This tries to come up with an explanation of why there are major gaps in the Fossil impressions. It gives another's opinion for the vast majority of Evolutionary prophets to latch onto who USED to believe in Darwinism. This is easier to believe for them because of so many issues that can not be explained by their faith. It's more like, one kind of animal had some huge number of mutations that transitioned breeding pairs from one kind to another. ...reptile to birds for example. Now that dinosaur squatted, laid a clutch of eggs, out pecks the multiple breeding mutants that are ....Shazam! Birds. This pair or group can now reproduce as a different kind of animal.This remained stable as a fish, then a reptile, then a bird, then whatever...but the transitions were sudden. This is how it explains the distinct kinds of animals.... Little or no gradual changes.
The other day I was speaking to a group outside and pointed to the different varieties if flowers and said, Some believe that these came about accidentally....the complexity beyond understanding, the order, yet variety. In all of our life unlimited amounts of money has been stolen from us and given to those who are deemed most intelligent who have had our entire lifetime to produce living organisms. All that these brilliant minds can do from all the Earth's labs is take what has been provided to them, rearrange, modify, and pervert that life. So far they have not so much as produced this leaf that I hold.
I am older and hopefully wiser than I was as a child. I used to think that those working in academia, anthopoligist friends, professors, just were so much smarter than anyone and that I could put my trust in their opinions.
I used to be a believer in that of the faith of Darwinian Macro Evolutionism. I changed my mind. Most here won't. We all have the option of whatever we choose to believe. However, lots of money time and effort.went into shoving that down my throat every time teachers of that faith had the opportunity. Its a miracle that anyone who was raised a strick devoted Darwinian, like I was, could ever consider another faith. 4 Years old on ....hard core evol- schooling and all 14 years plus 5 more in the sciences....TV, documentaries, on and on indoctrination. That's part one of my testimony.
You might wonder why I converted to a different faith. My brief story below.....
...If believers reign in heaven forever and ever, those who reject Jesus will be tormented forever and ever. There are only two choices, eternal life or eternal death. If there were not an eternal consequence for rejecting Jesus, God’s justice would be less absolute than His amazing grace and mercy.
So would god be graceful and show mercy if a non-believer accepted Jesus while in hell, or is there a "best before" date on the mercy?
Oh schiett, troll schiett. Get the [bleep] over it.
The following is my faith and that of other evolutionists as well as quasi-Christians, who found answers to the questions of sin, judgement and the afterlife. This is not based upon science any more than my former faith. However, Jesus was convinced of everything that was written in the Old Testament and was the New Testator. I find it much easier to trust Him over that of any other man I've met. Now I find it more convincing that The Almighty does truly exist. His name is Jesus. He gave us many gifts by creating such order, power, complexity, and amazing beauty. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:.. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"
Why did mankind need redemption through His blood? People sin and are therefore separated from God. God is just and man can not make things right with the Judge, God by doing any amends or restitution, nor good works.."For the wages of sin is death." "Death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." God does not want that death sentence to remain on you. That is why the only sinless substitute who did NOT deserve judgement, was judged on behalf of you! He took the torture upon Himself so that you would not have to undergo that in hell......... However, God will allow you to chose, His sacrifice or your belief that you are A OK and not going to think about death ....put it off and deal with God maybe after death....at judgement. Problem is that the second death / condemnation...guilty sentence will be waiting. At that point God will have to condemn you. Right now He WANTS to save you. Jesus became a man to die for mankind. After burial, He took His life back on the third day. You cannot add to that by good deeds. The gift was already paid for in full. "It is the gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast." The solution was told over and over again. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that BELIEVETH on him is not condemned: but he that BELIEVETH not is condemned already, because he hath not BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
That is my faith and that of Biblical faith given by the object of that trust in God and Savior Jesus Christ. He guarantees, gives His promises, that anyone who realizes their need.to be saved from hell.....they deserve. They can not do any amount of of goodness or works, baptism to pay for sins . Jesus Christ was the only truly good man. He took your punishment on your behalf. The Father can now be just, yet extend undeserving mercy on you....... because of His Son . He will never go back on His Word. After receiving the gift of everlasting life, well, it lasts forever. Even though you will not be perfect here on earth. YES, once you are saved, you will always be saved.! When you sin after that, He will discipline you as a child, but never throw you into hell.
I am so glad that someone who cared enough to share this with me did so. I extend this gift to you. You can chose now to make Jesus the Object of your trust to save you and to take you to Heaven when you die by telling God the following.
"Dear God, I messed up many times. I've been awful towards You whenever I have sinned and rebelled against You. Please forgive me. I have nothing to offer. I can never pay for the wrong that I have committed. Only Jesus did that when he was tortured and suffered for me on the cross. He died and arose on the third day. I am now placing my faith in Him to save me from the hell that I deserve. I thank you for my free gift to me, that cost Jesus His life. The gift of everlasting life. Thank you for your kindness God...and that of Your Son. Amen
If you prayed that now, please PM me right now to let me know. God bless you! 🙂
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
Christians seems to confuse the "unquenchable fire", with eternal torment... but an eternal fire does not have to mean eternal torment for all the wicked.
of course there is specific exception made for the devil, beast and false profit. who get endless torment rather than death. (Revelation 20:10.) NASB. "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
Will just have to wait see if TRH returns to explain it away, coz he's one of those rare special Christians in the fold you know..
Seems like TRH like some others on the CF want people to believe they have revelatory insight into scripture...Yet we have folks like that, that still disagree on whose revelatory knowledge is the actual truth... Apparently God purposely sends mixed messages to a whole circus of special christians 'in the know'..making Christianity divisive.
Christianity just wouldn't be the same without them... 😂
It wasn't believed to be allegory in the past, some still don't. It was believed to be the inspired word of God describing how the world came to be, how it was created in literally six days, why the world has suffering/ the fall and the need for redemption, etc. Which doesn't work with allegory.
Now that it's been shown that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has evolved from a common ancestor, microbes for 3 billion years, multiple extinction events, and nearly us in the last ice age, it is more convenient to call it allegory.
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." - 2 Peter 3:8
This isn't meant to be taken literally, such as 1 day equals 1,000 years. It means only that our reckoning of time and God's are quite distinct.
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject.”
- Justin Martyr 155 AD
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.”
- Clement of Alexandria 208 AD
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.”
- Origen of Alexandria - 248 AD
"In discussing questions of this kind, two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
- Summa Theologica 1274 AD
I could go on and on. You are not knowledgeable about the subject on which you are speaking.
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
Correct. It is not. Judaism is a demonic distortion of the teachings of the Prophets and Patriarchs, and Jesus himself told them this when on the earth. Whenever he pointed this out to them, he was plotted against, and even stoned. Eventually, the Jews arranged for his execution by Pilate, thinking that this would finally put an end to the accusation (which they could not defend against, since it was true) that Judaism (i.e., the teachings of the rabbis) was a false and demonic religion that originated in Babylon during their captivity there.
Of course, in Darwin's time the fossil strata hadn't been explored much, but it has now been explored with much greater thoroughness and the transitional are still lacking. There are a few candidates as possible transitional but of those we can't even be sure they are transitional without DNA evidence. On the whole, the fossil record refutes and does not confirm Darwin.
What a childish and loony comment.
There are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of transitional fossils within the human lineage alone. Learn to read.
The reason you cannot compare DNA of Australopithecus amanensis with Homo sapiens is simply that DNA does not last long enough. However, we can compare our DNA with that of [bleep] and bonobos and guess what? Both their skeletal anatomy and DNA demonstrates they are our closest relatives.
I guess you don't understand the concept behind "punctuated equilibrium." It doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. It means that changes in the environment of a species can lead to faster evolution of some traits than if environmental changes didn't happen.
Then there's this "well we believe in micro evolution but macro evolution is impossible." How dumb can you get? Micro evolution, over hundreds of years, is the same stuff as macro over thousands or millions. Why would there be some mythical limit as to where the "micro" must stop? The fossil record proves there isn't.
Of course, in Darwin's time the fossil strata hadn't been explored much, but it has now been explored with much greater thoroughness and the transitional are still lacking. There are a few candidates as possible transitional but of those we can't even be sure they are transitional without DNA evidence. On the whole, the fossil record refutes and does not confirm Darwin.
There are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of transitional fossils within the human lineage alone. Learn to read.
The reason you cannot compare DNA of Australopithecus amanensis with Homo sapiens is simply that DNA does not last long enough. However, we can compare our DNA with that of [bleep] and bonobos and guess what? Both their skeletal anatomy and DNA demonstrates they are our closest relatives.
I guess you don't understand the concept behind "punctuated equilibrium." It doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. It means that changes in the environment of a species can lead to faster evolution of some traits than if environmental changes didn't happen.
Then there's this "well we believe in micro evolution but macro evolution is impossible." How dumb can you get? Micro evolution, over hundreds of years, is the same stuff as macro over thousands or millions. Why would there be some mythical limit as to where the "micro" must stop? The fossil record proves there isn't.
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
Correct. It is not. Judaism is a demonic distortion of the teachings of the Prophets and Patriarchs, and Jesus himself told them this when on the earth. Whenever he pointed this out to them, he was plotted against, and even stoned. Eventually, the Jews arranged for his execution by Pilate, thinking that this would finally put an end to the accusation (which they could not defend against, since it was true) that Judaism (i.e., the teachings of the rabbis) was a false and demonic religion that originated in Babylon during their captivity there.
TRH Religious Bigotry shows up again. Originally Posted By: The_Real_Hawkeye #9053788 - 07/26/14 I believe I've been clear on my position vis-a-vis Israel. It's a terrorist/apartheid state, an abomination to the Lord, and has been a curse to the world since its inception (which should have been no surprise to anyone who's read the New Testament). It should never have been permitted to be founded, and now that it's founded, it should disappear as a political entity, but it won't.
It will continue to be a curse to the world till the Lord comes to set all things aright.
How does that quote contradict what I said above??
Wikipedia: Anti-Judaism is the "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior." Anti-Judaism, which is the rejection of a particular way of thinking about God, is distinct from antisemitism, which is more akin to a form of racism. Scholars who see a less clear line between theology and racism have coined the term religious antisemitism.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
Marcion was in error, as are those who are of the mind that the God of the OT is not the God of the NT. These folks may not fully understand dispensations, the Law and the New Covenant.
Some folks even get confused with Jesus’ teachings on the law..... his teachings on the law were..... Before..... the sacrifice on the cross and the before the New Covenant.
All this info is readily available to one who desires to understand.
Of course, in Darwin's time the fossil strata hadn't been explored much, but it has now been explored with much greater thoroughness and the transitional are still lacking. There are a few candidates as possible transitional but of those we can't even be sure they are transitional without DNA evidence. On the whole, the fossil record refutes and does not confirm Darwin.
What a childish and loony comment.
There are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of transitional fossils within the human lineage alone. Learn to read.
The reason you cannot compare DNA of Australopithecus amanensis with Homo sapiens is simply that DNA does not last long enough. However, we can compare our DNA with that of [bleep] and bonobos and guess what? Both their skeletal anatomy and DNA demonstrates they are our closest relatives.
I guess you don't understand the concept behind "punctuated equilibrium." It doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. It means that changes in the environment of a species can lead to faster evolution of some traits than if environmental changes didn't happen.
Then there's this "well we believe in micro evolution but macro evolution is impossible." How dumb can you get? Micro evolution, over hundreds of years, is the same stuff as macro over thousands or millions. Why would there be some mythical limit as to where the "micro" must stop? The fossil record proves there isn't.
Well, we have been over this before. You are totally wrong about transitional fossil evidence. You are totally wrong that micro evolution over time is the same stuff as macro evolution. Also, the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” was simply a contrived explanation of instances where the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution. Lame....
I suspect you confuse “evolutionary transitional forms” with simple genetic variation. Prime example of this error is the presumed evolution of the horse.
How does that quote contradict what I said above??
Wikipedia: Anti-Judaism is the "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior." Anti-Judaism, which is the rejection of a particular way of thinking about God, is distinct from antisemitism, which is more akin to a form of racism. Scholars who see a less clear line between theology and racism have coined the term religious antisemitism.
Of course, in Darwin's time the fossil strata hadn't been explored much, but it has now been explored with much greater thoroughness and the transitional are still lacking. There are a few candidates as possible transitional but of those we can't even be sure they are transitional without DNA evidence. On the whole, the fossil record refutes and does not confirm Darwin.
What a childish and loony comment.
There are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of transitional fossils within the human lineage alone. Learn to read.
The reason you cannot compare DNA of Australopithecus amanensis with Homo sapiens is simply that DNA does not last long enough. However, we can compare our DNA with that of [bleep] and bonobos and guess what? Both their skeletal anatomy and DNA demonstrates they are our closest relatives.
I guess you don't understand the concept behind "punctuated equilibrium." It doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. It means that changes in the environment of a species can lead to faster evolution of some traits than if environmental changes didn't happen.
Then there's this "well we believe in micro evolution but macro evolution is impossible." How dumb can you get? Micro evolution, over hundreds of years, is the same stuff as macro over thousands or millions. Why would there be some mythical limit as to where the "micro" must stop? The fossil record proves there isn't.
Well, we have been over this before. You are totally wrong about transitional fossil evidence. You are totally wrong that micro evolution over time is the same stuff as macro evolution. Also, the concept of “punctuated equilibrium” was simply a contrived explanation of instances where the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution. Lame....
I suspect you confuse “evolutionary transitional forms” with simple genetic variation. Prime example of this error is the presumed evolution of the horse.
But, you are free to drink more of the kool aid.
Contrived? It was posited by one of the world's leading paleontologists to explain the absence of transitionals in the fossil record.
No, he didn’t. He just did not understand. Perhaps well meaning but nonetheless wrong in his understanding.
Same as with many today....
Btw.... can you explain how “Marcion got it right?”
The obvious differences between the Old and the New Testaments would be where I would start.
“Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.” George Carlin
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution : Transitional forms Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.
The Bible has been taught as literal for nearly 2000 years... talk against it and you risked your life.
Until science proved most of it was false... then it became allegorical and non-literal and suddenly all followers could be interpret it in any way they liked.
When there are dozens and dozens of Denominations that can't even decide which Christianity each should belive in.... Its called Faith.
The Bible has been taught as literal for nearly 2000 years... talk against it and you risked your life.
Until science proved most of it was false... then it became allegorical and non-literal and suddenly all followers could be interpret it in any way they liked.
When there are dozens and dozens of Denominations that can't even decide which Christianity each should belive in.... Its called Faith.
Science proves things.
.
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
- 2 Peter 3:8
This isn't meant to be taken literally, such as 1 day equals 1,000 years. It means only that our reckoning of time and God's are quite distinct.
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject.”
- Justin Martyr 155 AD
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.”
- Clement of Alexandria 208 AD
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.”
- Origen of Alexandria - 248 AD
"In discussing questions of this kind, two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
I think the parts that are allegorical, have ALWAYS been allegorical. Men chose to interpret it literally. Jesus used parables over 2000 years ago, and they were clearly allegorical THEN.
Who gives a flip how many different denominations there are...? Despite the insignificant theological differences between them, there are a few central tenets that all followers typically hold together...regardless of their particular church or denomination or culture or geographical location. Followers typically believe in God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and they typically believe that all humans are sinful and in need of grace, and that only Jesus makes it possible for people to have a relationship with God through His death and resurrection. Followers also typically believe that the Bible is a way that God reveals who He is, how they can have a relationship with Him, and how they can extend God’s love to other people. Other beliefs and practices are often the cause of disagreements...and they are secondary.
There are essential beliefs (such as those that I mentioned earlier), and there are non-essential beliefs. Individuals do have liberty in non-essential beliefs. Believers do have the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture. “...without passing judgment on disputable matters… Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master servants stand or fall… So then each of us will give an account of ourselves to God… So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” - Romans 14:1, 4, 12, 22
When you get right down to it, every individual is a denomination unto themselves.
I have zero issues...zero contradictions...between science and Christian theology.
Starman and DBT, you are both quite likely demon possessed. It really comes across. Pray for deliverance from this.
And there is it... . LoL
the last desperate trademark trump card used by christians, the (highly convenient) 'demonizing' uppity Christians like to use when they can't rationally address questions posed to them.
We can just expect more duck and weave, smoke and mirrors, and mythological character based drama-theatrics from TRH and his ilk.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
... Judaism is a demonic distortion of the teachings of the Prophets and Patriarchs, and Jesus himself told them this when on the earth...
...bla.. bla..bla..
The demon card thing again....
[btw:] you don't know what a Jesus actually said, you rely merely on old village mindset oral stories passed down and then recorded by anonymous authors.
the veracity of which remain highly questionable.
I recall when rumors were started at work in the morning, by afternoon it had changed completely to be unrecognizable ...so just imagine what happened with the Jesus stories in the decades before they were written down and what the mystery authors then did to them to entice readers.
If someone rose from the dead and explained it to you, you wouldn't see it either..
You actually believe 3 day dead cadavers rise to life?
And you would believe anything such a cadaver told you?
Any other ancient cult that believed in primitive, brutal and agonizing human blood sacrifice ritual would be considered depraved and condemned, ( even pagan Romans abhorred it) ...but without it Chritianity does not exist.
When I look around this wide world, I see far more good that the pagan Greco-Romans gave us than some primitive middle eastern Christianity has.
In fact if not for the educated pagan Greeks you would not have a N.T. written in Greek,. . if not for the Romans where would the Latin church be?
without such, the tiny christian Aramaic language cult would have shriveled up and died millenia ago like so many other competing cults of the time did.
Emperor Constantine had to step in and try sort out that mess called Christianity,.. christian factions were at each others throats—so divisive , that it threaten to break out into civil war over differing beliefs in Jesus.
Imagine that, an astute pagan had to assist a bunch of helpless "faith filled" raghead christians and instruct them on order and civility. .. even then, Christians resorted to bribery, threats, intimidation, and vote stacking to iron out their theistic spiritual issues... 😂
and Christianity had been no less of a joke ever since.
How does that quote contradict what I said above??
Wikipedia: Anti-Judaism is the "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior." Anti-Judaism, which is the rejection of a particular way of thinking about God, is distinct from antisemitism, which is more akin to a form of racism. Scholars who see a less clear line between theology and racism have coined the term religious antisemitism.
Oh, well that settles it, then.
BIGOT | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › english › bigot Jul 1, 2020 - a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong:.
Emperor Constantine had to step in and try sort out that mess called Christianity,.. christian factions were at each others throats and so divisive , that it threaten to break out into civil war over differing beliefs in Jesus.
Imagine that, a pagan had to help a bunch of raghead christians and instruct them on order and civility.
While he was a former pagan, Constantine was a christian, so a christian sorted out christians.....not a pagan. Fact.
Who’s to blame him? He might have been a bit impressed by Daniel’s prediction that his empire would implode and fragment into several separate states that would never come under single rule again. The dead sea scroll versions of the book of Daniel date back to 150 BC....over 500 years before Constantine was evicted.
While he was a former pagan, Constantine was a christian, so a christian sorted out christians.....not a pagan. Fact.
Can you positively verify Constatine became a real deal christian?
Did he really have the Holy Spirit? and HTF would you actually know?
it's said he had a vision of Apollo in 310 AD which foretold his victory at Milvian Bridge then there's the other later version where he had a vision of Chi-Rho 312 AD sent by the christian God foretelling his victory at Milvian Bridge.
the belated christian version is told by Eusebius a christian bishop and polemicist in Roman Caesarea... Re: Life of Constantine (1.26-32), which he wrote in the late 330s.
Its not unusual for christians to steal pagan myths, legends and celebrations and make them their own to promote their agenda -
Easy,.. just tweak the 310 AD story a bit cut out Apollo and paste in Chi - Rho. .. 😂
and how convenient that the story changes the same year [312 AD] that Constantine (supposedly) 'converted'.
And you think this picture is somehow funny? I went to Joel and Amy's wedding a few years ago. Rode my bike and bought a suit after I got there. Amy is a nurse in a handicapped facility. I would really like for you to explain to Joel just how funny your picture really is.
There used to be a member here that would post a cartoon of someone beating a dead horse. This horse has been beaten beyond recognition. It might be best for the theists here to pray for the salvation of the atheists and the atheists can just give up. Neither side is making an inch of headway.
And you think this picture is somehow funny? I went to Joel and Amy's wedding a few years ago. Rode my bike and bought a suit after I got there. Amy is a nurse in a handicapped facility. I would really like for you to explain to Joel just how funny your picture really is.
I'm not making fun of your condition. I'm wondering if you still need the helmet, is all. Just showing interest.
... It might be best for the theists here to pray for the salvation of the atheists and the atheists can just give up. Neither side is making an inch of headway.
Maybe we should do this the other way around. The theists start 95% or more of these "discussions". They are the ones that need to give up. They have not converted a single person to their agenda.
Let the atheists do the praying. The omniscient and all-knowing God already knows about the hopelessness of the theists, so praying is just redundant anyway, but they could use practice just keep busy. .
[quote=RayF]Can you positively verify Constatine became a real deal christian?
Did he really have the Holy Spirit? and HTF would you actually know?
Ah. Now documented history doesn’t matter. To answer your question directly and honestly, I don’t know what the man felt.
Originally Posted by Starman
its not unusual for christians to steal pagan myths, legends and celebrations and make them their own to promote their agenda -
Easy,.. just tweak the 310 AD story a bit cut out Apollo and paste in Chi - Rho.
The book of Daniel was carbon dated 150 to 30 BC. No idea what you’re talking about here. How about reciprocating some direct and honest answers. Have the fossils of the missing link(s) been found? Must’ve asked a have dozen times. All I get is redirection and insults. Funny how this is common on the evolution side of this discussion.
Maybe we should do this the other way around. The theists start 95% or more of these "discussions". They are the ones that need to give up. They have not converted a single person to their agenda.. .
Some feel it's their life mission to be God botherers.
They start with little or no rational case to debate, then desperation soon sets in and they revert to fear and superstition and threats (believe 'or else') burn in Hell.. ..then that last desperate throw of the dice while cowering in the Foxhole of faith.- 'demonising' those who dare question.
... It might be best for the theists here to pray for the salvation of the atheists and the atheists can just give up. Neither side is making an inch of headway.
Maybe we should do this the other way around. The theists start 95% or more of these "discussions". They are the ones that need to give up. They have not converted a single person to their agenda.
.... .
Exactly right - just look at who and how this thread started.
I don't think the intention is about conversion, but I can't speak for what's in the head of others. I like the debate - good logical minds with knowledge on both sides, and I mean the non-believers having a good knowledge of the history and details of faith.
[quote=RayF]Can you positively verify Constatine became a real deal christian?
Did he really have the Holy Spirit? and HTF would you actually know?
Ah. Now documented history doesn’t matter. To answer your question directly and honestly, I don’t know what the man felt.
Originally Posted by Starman
its not unusual for christians to steal pagan myths, legends and celebrations and make them their own to promote their agenda -
Easy,.. just tweak the 310 AD story a bit cut out Apollo and paste in Chi - Rho.
The book of Daniel was carbon dated 150 to 30 BC. No idea what you’re talking about here. How about reciprocating some direct and honest answers. Have the fossils of the missing link(s) been found? Must’ve asked a have dozen times. All I get is redirection and insults. Funny how this is common on the evolution side of this discussion.
Starman and DBT, you are both quite likely demon possessed. It really comes across. Pray for deliverance from this.
No such thing. That kind of thinking is straight out of the dark ages. Witch burning.
And it still remains that if genesis is not taken literally, a literal creation, a literal fall, there is no need for redemption, a redeemer or the sacrifice of Jesus. It all falls apart.
As for Judaism being 'demonic' - the old testament is Judaism, which is why it's not compatible with the new testament.
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
And it still remains that if genesis is not taken literally, a literal creation, a literal fall, there is no need for redemption, a redeemer or the sacrifice of Jesus. It all falls apart.
The Bible has been taught as literal for nearly 2000 years... talk against it and you risked your life.
Until science proved most of it was false... then it became allegorical and non-literal and suddenly all followers could be interpret it in any way they liked.
When there are dozens and dozens of Denominations that can't even decide which Christianity each should belive in.... Its called Faith.
Science proves things.
.
"But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
- 2 Peter 3:8
This isn't meant to be taken literally, such as 1 day equals 1,000 years. It means only that our reckoning of time and God's are quite distinct.
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject.”
- Justin Martyr 155 AD
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.”
- Clement of Alexandria 208 AD
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally.”
- Origen of Alexandria - 248 AD
"In discussing questions of this kind, two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that, since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."
- Summa Theologica 1274 AD
Mornings and evenings are specified in genesis, a morning and an evening defines a literal day, not a thousand years, epochs or anything else. They are days.
But of course magical creation of the world in six literal days is absurd, therefore inconvenient, hence the attempts to make it allegorical.
Exactly right - just look at who and how this thread started.I don't think the intention is about conversion, but I can't speak for what's in the head of others. I like the debate - good logical minds with knowledge on both sides, and I mean the non-believers having a good knowledge of the history and details of faith.
I must admit I enjoy the discussion also. I am not atheist but there are some that post here that are plenty smart and pretty well read and will have you checking your hole card.
When you get right down to it, every individual is a denomination unto themselves.
There's a lot of truth in that.
But if no two people understand god in the same way, does anyone really understand him at all?
I can only speak for myself. To me, Jesus is the expression of God’s nature towards us, and Jesus is the expression of God’s love towards us. If I want to know about God...and all that that entails...to me, the best way to do that is to learn of and from Jesus. The best I can. I do think you can both wrestle with honest questions and embrace a genuine faith in God.
And it still remains that if genesis is not taken literally, a literal creation, a literal fall, there is no need for redemption, a redeemer or the sacrifice of Jesus. It all falls apart.
lmao
Great argument, ha, ha. If there was no fall, what need of redemption? What need of Jesus?
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
If creationists took the time and effort to objectively understand the nature of evolution and evidence for it, they would accept its reality.
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
If creationists took the time and effort to objectively understand the nature of evolution and evidence for it, they would accept its reality.
I support whichever evolution theory that has the best supporting evidence. It is a learning experience. I cannot find much difference in any of them. it is how we got the world we live in.
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
If creationists took the time and effort to objectively understand the nature of evolution and evidence for it, they would accept its reality.
I support whichever evolution theory that has the best supporting evidence. It is a learning experience. I cannot find much difference in any of them. it is how we got the world we live in.
When the huff- puff smoke and mirrors dont work, christians don't have anything remaining but claiming ~victim status.
LOL. Why are the majority of evolution supporters on this thread so angry? 😂
Originally Posted by Starman
Christian frauds, you can get 13 to the dozen for a lousy dime.
No argument here. They almost rival the human evolution supporters that have delivered the missing link with the level of science used in the “Search for Bigfoot” reality TV show.
They almost rival the human evolution supporters that have delivered the missing link with the level of science used in the “Search for Bigfoot” reality TV show.
Were you born ignorant or did you have to practice.
There is not the slightest evidence for Bigfoot.
There are thousands of pieces of evidene for transitional human ancestors. That's the difference.
Have you ever visited a natural history museum?
BTW: There is not the slightest evidence for Adam and Eve, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, etc. They are equally as spurious as Bigfoot.
The 'missing link' is a strawman. Evolution doesn't rest on a single thing, a 'missing link.' We have transitional fossils, they exist, they are the links.
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
If creationists took the time and effort to objectively understand the nature of evolution and evidence for it, they would accept its reality.
I support whichever evolution theory that has the best supporting evidence. It is a learning experience. I cannot find much difference in any of them. it is how we got the world we live in.
They almost rival the human evolution supporters that have delivered the missing link with the level of science used in the “Search for Bigfoot” reality TV show.
Were you born ignorant or did you have to practice.
There is not the slightest evidence for Bigfoot.
There are thousands of pieces of evidene for transitional human ancestors. That's the difference.
Have you ever visited a natural history museum?
BTW: There is not the slightest evidence for Adam and Eve, talking snakes, Noah's Ark, etc. They are equally as spurious as Bigfoot.
Yep. No intent here on conversion. If the Evolutionists would have taken the time to listen to the video, they would have been familiarized with several different theories of evolution.
The simple question was for the evolutionists to see and explain which one of the several they believed in.
The Creationists simply explained the shortcomings of those theories presented.
If creationists took the time and effort to objectively understand the nature of evolution and evidence for it, they would accept its reality.
I support whichever evolution theory that has the best supporting evidence. It is a learning experience. I cannot find much difference in any of them. it is how we got the world we live in.
Not according to Christ. He made a very clear distinction. The teachers of Judaism rejected the religion found in the Old Testament Scriptures and substituted what Christ termed the traditions of men, which was what the Rabis were teaching under the name Judaism, later to be codified in what is called the Talmud. It's what is also today termed Judaism.
Were you born ignorant or did you have to practice.
Classy. 😂
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
There is not the slightest evidence for Bigfoot. There are thousands of pieces of evidene for transitional human ancestors.
We have a third “No. The missing link(s) hasn’t/haven’t been found” with a claim of other evidence being enough to claim modern man came from non-modern man “ancestors” and a suggestion to visit the Museum of Natural History.
Thanks.
Originally Posted by DBT
The 'missing link' is a strawman. Evolution doesn't rest on a single thing, a 'missing link.'
Says you and the rest of evolution supporters that appear to subjectively seek out evidence that supports what opinion you’ve already come to. Puts a different (faith-based) twist on the scientific method.
Originally Posted by DBT
We have transitional fossils, they exist, they are the links.
Not according to Christ. He made a very clear distinction. The teachers of Judaism rejected the religion found in the Old Testament Scriptures and substituted what Christ termed the traditions of men, which was what the Rabis were teaching under the name Judaism, later to be codified in what is called the Talmud. It's what is also today termed Judaism.
We have nothing from Jesus, only anonymous gospel writers and Paul.
The OT is clearly incompatible with the new testament....up to and including the requirements for the prophesied Messiah given in the OT and Jesus
Were you born ignorant or did you have to practice.
Classy. 😂
Originally Posted by IndyCA35
There is not the slightest evidence for Bigfoot. There are thousands of pieces of evidene for transitional human ancestors.
We have a third “No. The missing link(s) hasn’t/haven’t been found” with a claim of other evidence being enough to claim modern man came from non-modern man “ancestors” and a suggestion to visit the Museum of Natural History.
Thanks.
Originally Posted by DBT
The 'missing link' is a strawman. Evolution doesn't rest on a single thing, a 'missing link.'
Says you and the rest of evolution supporters that appear to subjectively seek out evidence that supports what opinion you’ve already come to. Puts a different (faith-based) twist on the scientific method.
Originally Posted by DBT
We have transitional fossils, they exist, they are the links.
Please see above.
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims.
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims.
Did you just invoke the “I’m rubber. You’re glue.” proclamation with a double stamp?
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims.
Did you just invoke the “I’m rubber. You’re glue.” proclamation with a double stamp?
Statement of fact. Your response is somewhat ironic.
It's not an unfounded claim being made by 'evolutionsts,' the evidence is there. It has withstood one hundred and fifty years of testing. It's the creationist who makes claims.
Did you just invoke the “I’m rubber. You’re glue.” proclamation with a double stamp?
claiming Constantine to be a fully fledged christian as you did, when by your own later Admission you don't know it to be true.
Since you cannot verify your claim, then it's a fantasy or fabrication till proven otherwise.
BTW: Britannica is not a Theistic source to verify any faith you had in Constantine being an actual Christian. your desperation is showing again.
Ah. A Phd-conducted historical study must to come from a theistic source. Surely, my desperation is clearly evident. LOL.
Originally Posted by Starman
please point out the anger in my post, I can't see it coz my vivid imagination isn't anywhere good as yours.
I’d say, based on your views of evolution, your imagination is as vivid as anyone’s. Do I need a theistic resource to point out your hostile tone or can it be observed by the readers of this thread?
Originally Posted by Starman
You claimed you were being attacked and I pointed out your victim status attitude
So what exactly is your issue.?
First you call me desperate. Now you call me a victim? LOL. You’re clearly struggling to avoid admitting the theory of evolution is not proven and using slander as a tactic to distract away from that point. Again, this is par for the course on the evolutionist side of this thread: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make accusations and minimize the christian’s input by disparaging the poster. It would have to actually work for me to be a victim. It does not.
You can provide evidence, but not proof. Since the beginning of this thread, my position has been the same: Christianity it subjective, so it cannot be measured using the scientific method. No Christian in this thread has suggested otherwise. It’s a relationship with Jesus and being as such, is as measureable as your relationship with anyone you know. How do you measure that? Can you provide a tangible scale of how you love anyone?
This is where the evolutionists in this thread fail. They collectively disparage faith in an unobserved entity because faith in something unobserved is not part of the science. Yet while they dismiss God because he can’t be seen, touched or managed to leave tangible proof behind, they display faith in an unobserved theory that modern man evolved from monkeys and portray it as fact. Again, facts are proven and by science’s standard, evolution has not been proven. No…a finalistic answer of “yes it has” doesn’t make it any more proven. Nor does taking it to a personal level. Besides, you can’t triple stamp a double stamp.
Hawkeye can post as many links as he wants, but a Don Barnes look-alike presenting a compelling (yet subjective) argument for evolution and dropping the mic is not proof of evolution. Others can condescendingly suggest to go read a book, but since the book has to be from their reading list, I don’t consider that proof, either. Proof is conclusive.
Dismissing subjectivity while relying on subjectivity is hypocritical and discredits any argument evolutionists have. If the evolutionists here stated they believed evolution to be true based on evidence, but cannot prove it, this thread would’ve arrived at the same conclusion and been done in 3 pages. They won’t, however, as it would provide transparency to the fact that modern man’s evolution requires a leap of faith….the same characteristic they dismiss in Christianity. Instead, evolutionists here insist evolution is proven, falsely suggesting the theory has been concluded based on objective science. That is not science and actually discredits real science.
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote: ''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''
''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote: ''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''
''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
Thank you for that, DBT. It’s a good example of productive, uncontentious counterpoint.
Allow me, however, to point out that your definition of a fact and NAS’s definition of a fact differ. This very much presents part of my point.
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution ...
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
You think you're bolstering its veracity by denying that it's a theory, but you're not. To say that it's not a scientific theory is to say that it lacks the necessary characteristics of a scientific theory, i.e., that it lacks falsifiability. Falsifiability just means that, were it false, it would be a simple matter to disprove it with evidence that can be acquired via scientific discovery or experimentation. Evolution theory meets that standard.
Stop denying it's a theory. It just tells the informed that you don't know what that word means.
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled. Quote: ''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''
''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
Thank you for that, DBT. It’s a good example of productive, uncontentious counterpoint.
Allow me, however, to point out that your definition of a fact and NAS’s definition of a fact differ. This very much presents part of my point.
If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact.
There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution.
If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact.
There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution.
Let’s see how you arrived at that:
Originally Posted by DBT
”Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''
I believe you misinterpreted this. Not expressing reservations on a topic is not the same thing as claiming the opposite is true. If the intent was to claim its accepted as true, this would have been more direct in saying so. It’s actually supported in the below statement:
Originally Posted by DBT
”'In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
It’s carefully crafted and the bias is restrained, but it is apparent. The writer implies evolution as a fact, but falls short of openly stating it. I appreciate that he/she defines “fact” and utilizes the term “evidence” instead of “proof”.
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
We've been through that already.
You're still stuck with the facts. No Ph.D. creationists are switching to evolution. Gee! I wonder why.
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Intelligent men playing in the laboratory. Secondly there is evolution. It's called adaptability. From where did the adaptors come? That is the question.
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Intelligent men playing in the laboratory. Secondly there is evolution. It's called adaptability. From where did the adaptors come? That is the question.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution : "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment. Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples. The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them. "It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."
Experiments in Self Organizational studies and the Science of Evolution are not owned by biologists, and they don't own the definitions. (thats what the argument is anyway, ---- what is intelligence?---)
The entire universe evolves,self organizes and re-directs it self on whatever the smallest time scale imaginable on the quantum level.
Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics people have their evolution
Bifurcation and Chaos people have their evolution
Enzymologists and molecular biologists have their evolution
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Intelligent men playing in the laboratory. Secondly there is evolution. It's called adaptability. From where did the adaptors come? That is the question.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution : "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment. Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples. The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them. "It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."
Seems like Mendel started this type of work in 1865.
This is simple genetic variation.... genetics, not evolution..... natural selection is not evolution. Do you see how “genetics” and “natural selection” have been characterized as “micro evolution?” Simple propaganda to get folks to,think that evolution has been proven. It has not.
Do you see this is nothing more than what Darwin observed in the finches?
This e Coli is still E. coli. Same as breeding big dogs, little dogs, dogs with long hair, dogs with good noses. All are still dogs. Not cats and not raccoons.... they are all still dogs.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
We're all rooting for him not to need that helmet one day.
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Intelligent men playing in the laboratory. Secondly there is evolution. It's called adaptability. From where did the adaptors come? That is the question.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution : "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment. Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples. The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them. "It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."
Seems like Mendel started this type of work in 1865.
This is simple genetic variation.... genetics, not evolution..... natural selection is not evolution. Do you see how “genetics” and “natural selection” have been characterized as “micro evolution?” Simple propaganda to get folks to,think that evolution has been proven. It has not.
Do you see this is nothing more than what Darwin observed in the finches?
This e Coli is still E. coli. Same as breeding big dogs, little dogs, dogs with long hair, dogs with good noses. All are still dogs. Not cats and not raccoons.... they are all still dogs.
There is nothing to see here.....sos
Wrong on two counts.
Genetics was used by the Egyptians and they used Fibonacci sequences as their "algebra" to explain the mechanics.
some Biology (outdated taxonomy) uses as their "algebra" to explain differences, or when their is a difference -- the math of Bertrand Russell -- Set Theory, or Boolean type logic instead of Fuzzy Logic of Zadeh, as in when does a cat become a dog.
like comparing apples and oranges hmmm
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
Wouldnt chickens have had a higher survival rate if they had been armed with some teeth for defensive purposes?
Why did every critter evolving from the sea end up developing into being a predator of some of its offspring and prey to another? IWO, a relationship of enmity developed between fox and fawn. Did some fawns decide there were too many of them esting acorns and just naturally decide to start morphing into foxes in order to develop mother natures balancing act?
They could have just kept growing into deer which became too populus for their environment and died out from starvation from not enough grass.That would have been easier than having to develop into being something that could really haul ass.
Oh, now i get it. The earlier fawns wanted to be foxes so they could help their buds develop survival of the fittest.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
Here is a good example of hard set theory
If we look at it from inclusion or union of set elements, and the implication is God is involved, then the implication is kind, gracious and humanitarian
from the point of intersection of set elements or exclusion Beans prays everynight to the other god, (devil, belzabub,) Bowsinger will run into a brick wall going a 100 mph.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
Here is a good example of hard set theory
If we look at it from inclusion or union of set elements, and the implication is God is involved, then the implication is kind, gracious and humanitarian
from the point of intersection of set elements or exclusion Beans prays everynight to the other god, (devil, belzabub,) Bowsinger will run into a brick wall going a 100 mph.
Wouldnt chickens have had a higher survival rate if they had been armed with some teeth for defensive purposes?
Why did every critter evolving from the sea end up developing into being a predator of some of its offspring and prey to another? IWO, a relationship of enmity developed between fox and fawn. Did some fawns decide there were too many of them esting acorns and just naturally decide to start morphing into foxes in order to develop mother natures balancing act?
They could have just kept growing into deer which became too populus for their environment and died out from starvation from not enough grass.That would have been easier than having to develop into being something that could really haul ass.
Oh, now i get it. The earlier fawns wanted to be foxes so they could help their buds develop survival of the fittest.
Hey, that was really a pretty INTELLIGENT PLAN.
Hmm your getting into Game theory the first one is the prisoners dilemma the second one is tit for tat the fawn or third one is the called the hawk and dove dilemma
Genetics was used by the Egyptians and they used Fibonacci sequences as their "algebra" to explain the mechanics.
some Biology (outdated taxonomy) uses as their "algebra" to explain differences, or when their is a difference -- the math of Bertrand Russell -- Set Theory, or Boolean type logic instead of Fuzzy Logic of Zadeh, as in when does a cat become a dog.
like comparing apples and oranges hmmm
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
If there's no such thing as evolution, how did we get Covid-19?
Intelligent men playing in the laboratory. Secondly there is evolution. It's called adaptability. From where did the adaptors come? That is the question.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution : "Richard Lenski of Michigan State University is in charge of the world's longest-running evolution experiment. Since 1988, Lenski has been tracking 12 populations of Escherichia coli bacteria in his lab. The bacteria are left to their own devices in storage containers, with nutrients to feed on, and Lenski's team regularly freezes small samples. The E. coli are no longer the same as they were in 1988. "In all 12 populations, the bacteria have evolved to grow much faster than did their ancestor," says Lenski. They have adapted to the specific mix of chemicals he gives them. "It's a very direct demonstration of Darwin's idea of adaptation by natural selection. Now, 20-some years into the experiment, the typical lineage grows about 80% faster than did the ancestor."
Seems like Mendel started this type of work in 1865.
This is simple genetic variation.... genetics, not evolution..... natural selection is not evolution. Do you see how “genetics” and “natural selection” have been characterized as “micro evolution?” Simple propaganda to get folks to,think that evolution has been proven. It has not.
Do you see this is nothing more than what Darwin observed in the finches?
This e Coli is still E. coli. Same as breeding big dogs, little dogs, dogs with long hair, dogs with good noses. All are still dogs. Not cats and not raccoons.... they are all still dogs.
There is nothing to see here.....sos
Wrong on two counts.
Genetics was used by the Egyptians and they used Fibonacci sequences as their "algebra" to explain the mechanics.
some Biology (outdated taxonomy) uses as their "algebra" to explain differences, or when their is a difference -- the math of Bertrand Russell -- Set Theory, or Boolean type logic instead of Fuzzy Logic of Zadeh, as in when does a cat become a dog.
like comparing apples and oranges hmmm
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
A Phd-conducted historical study must to come from a theistic source.. .
Neither Britannica or your own wishful thinking theistic Faith can know if Constantine was a real deal christian.. Yet you positively made out that he was...
You tried to make it by Faking it and FAILED.
Originally Posted by RayF
your hostile tone
So now you can see both anger and hostility? about as much credibility as your claim that Constantine was christian.
Keep imagining/fabricating since it's working so well for you... 😂
Originally Posted by RayF
First you call me desperate..
Citing Britannica to back your claim of Constantines faith/Christianity is laughable. To me that reeks of desperation or its just sheer stupidity, I will let you decide.
Originally Posted by RayF
.. Now you call me a victim? .
You alleged that you had been repeatedly attacked. people who get attacked are normally deemed victims... Your claims of attack may well be fabricated- make believe, like your Constantine claim.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
Keep telling yourself GOD is cheering those buds of yours who kicked HIM out of our schools and push homosexuality on the kids and pushed abortion and now push infanticide. Keep drinking your mind numbing kool--aid.
Genetics was used by the Egyptians and they used Fibonacci sequences as their "algebra" to explain the mechanics.
some Biology (outdated taxonomy) uses as their "algebra" to explain differences, or when their is a difference -- the math of Bertrand Russell -- Set Theory, or Boolean type logic instead of Fuzzy Logic of Zadeh, as in when does a cat become a dog.
like comparing apples and oranges hmmm
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
Whatever you're on must be really good.
This is another really good example of set theory dogma.
most folks think that a set has something in it,, but there is an empty set called the Null Set --- nothing there zero, this is a living example
it also forms the basis of the Null Hypothesis, used in probability theory,, simply stating that this much empty cant exist so the opposite must exist.
Genetics was used by the Egyptians and they used Fibonacci sequences as their "algebra" to explain the mechanics.
some Biology (outdated taxonomy) uses as their "algebra" to explain differences, or when their is a difference -- the math of Bertrand Russell -- Set Theory, or Boolean type logic instead of Fuzzy Logic of Zadeh, as in when does a cat become a dog.
like comparing apples and oranges hmmm
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
Whatever you're on must be really good.
This is another really good example of set theory dogma.
most folks think that a set has something in it,, but there is an empty set called the Null Set --- nothing there zero, this is a living example
it also forms the basis of the Null Hypothesis, used in probability theory,, simply stating that this much empty cant exist so the opposite must exist.
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
Perhaps, in the least eloquent manner possible, you could answer a question.
These apples and oranges....despite all they have in common, can they (or have they ever) produce(d) fruit with each other?
Don't think Delicious and Naval have got it on, although I know they set beside each other at the store. Positive that Envy and Tangerines have, how else could Mandarins be so much better. Pretty sure Honeycrisp has been seeing Grapefruit
to answer directly yes they can produce , if you would like to donate to my genetics lab we can finish question up a the Myriad genetics lab in SLC
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
I heard a Parathenogenist say, If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would like a tree. Whats your point?
The question assumes a exclusive set of arguments.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
I am just a simpleton and have no idea exactly what has been explained to me or anyone else on this thread. The old Bible thread was better. So many Biblical contradictions got posted on there, it was almost embarrassing. Even I did not know or remember how bloodthirsty the Old Testament really was. Jesus’s old Man was a real SOB. He would have fit well on the ‘Fire.
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
That’s contrary to the scientific consensus.
Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on observation and repeatability. Creation and evolution are exactly the same: Both happened in the past and are taken on faith. Therefore it is incumbent upon the observers to set aside their biases, as much as is possible, and search for the most likely "facts". That's why evolutionists become creationists and not the reverse.
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
So, im wondering what was the reason for the driving force to make them become more specialized, or different if you will.
[/quote]
Didn't you ever go to high school? Those so-called similarities are shared by all fruits that evolved to have their seeds spread by herbivores.
What was the driving force? A random genetic mutation occurs. Mostly it has no value and does not propogate through the species. If it has some survival value, more offspring will have that variation and it will become more standard.
An example is white skin. Homo sapiens all had dark skin until perhaps 8,000 years ago. A light skin mutation quickly spread through European Homo sapiens (your ancestors) because it helps UV radiation from the sun produce more Vitamin D. Those with the light skin mutation survived to produce more offspring. That's why you're "white." Dark skin is better for survival in the tropics.
Homo neanderthal, which separated from your stock a lot earlier, developed a different mutation for white skin. There are many other examples.
If the Caucasian and Negro races remained separate for a few hundred thousand years (which won't happen), they would each acquire a different genetic load through mutations that would eventually prevent them from interbreeding.
Evolution is as simple as that and that's how different species arise.
Sometimes different species which are somewhat closely interrelated can interbreed. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthal, for instance. Wolves and dogs in the wild. Lions and tigers (but not in the wild). Horses and donkeys (though the offspring are infertile). But those of more genetic distande, such as dogs and cats, cannot interbreed.
Could humans and chim-panzees interbreed? Asking that question would certainly be forbidden. The two branches diverged about 7,000,000 years ago so the answer is probably no.
Bowsinger, this has been explained to you many times and yet you choose to not listen. Now it is time for you to quit this and be quiet while we pray for you. God knows you need all the help you can get.
I am just a simpleton and have no idea exactly what has been explained to me or anyone else on this thread. The old Bible thread was better. So many Biblical contradictions got posted on there, it was almost embarrassing. Even I did not know or remember how bloodthirsty the Old Testament really was. Jesus’s old Man was a real SOB. He would have fit well on the ‘Fire.
If justice were to prevail over tyranny in this country, there would be blood flowing bridle length....uh, nevermind.
apples and oranges have more in common than not in common
same size same weight almost same amt. of carbohydrates both have seeds both can be cut with a knife.
So, im wondering what was the reason for the driving force to make them become more specialized, or different if you will.
Didn't you ever go to high school? Those so-called similarities are shared by all fruits that evolved to have their seeds spread by herbivores.
What was the driving force? A random genetic mutation occurs. Mostly it has no value and does not propogate through the species. If it has some survival value, more offspring will have that variation and it will become more standard.
An example is white skin. Homo sapiens all had dark skin until perhaps 8,000 years ago. A light skin mutation quickly spread through European Homo sapiens (your ancestors) because it helps UV radiation from the sun produce more Vitamin D. Those with the light skin mutation survived to produce more offspring. That's why you're "white." Dark skin is better for survival in the tropics.
Homo neanderthal, which separated from your stock a lot earlier, developed a different mutation for white skin. There are many other examples.
If the Caucasian and Negro races remained separate for a few hundred thousand years (which won't happen), they would each acquire a different genetic load through mutations that would eventually prevent them from interbreeding.
Evolution is as simple as that and that's how different species arise.
Sometimes different species which are somewhat closely interrelated can interbreed. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthal, for instance. Wolves and dogs in the wild. Lions and tigers (but not in the wild). Horses and donkeys (though the offspring are infertile). But those of more genetic distande, such as dogs and cats, cannot interbreed.
Could humans and chim-panzees interbreed? Asking that question would certainly be forbidden. The two branches diverged about 7,000,000 years ago so the answer is probably no.
[/quote]
So, the first human born from a [bleep] couldnt interbreed with its sibling of the opposite sex? I suppose it was just good luck another such human of the same genetic mutation but of the opposite sex was dropped by a monkey in an adjoining tree. Then they grew up bossom buds and made whoopi. From there we were off to the proverbial races, as different as they would soom prove to be.
Im sorry you are so stuck to unproven science you havent the ability to delve into theoretical philosophy without being thrown out of yout circadian rythm.
Now, tell me how the Bell Curve doesnt really pass scientic muster. As i expected, so much for your love of science.
main difference between apples and oranges is citric acid.
once man figured out they needed Vit C, oranges (citrus fruit) was carried wherever shipping went.
apples meh, high fructose, requiring ATP and purines spells gout.
Yes, but how did apples know to become oranges because man needed Vit C. The apple came first . Remember, there was an apple tree in the Garden of Eden.
reasons being it is not science, but technology ----- there is a difference.
Not one great scientific idea or breakthrough was done by consensus.
somebody had a revelation, an epiphany, call it what you want, and all the players lined up. it was because they "knew" science (at least up to that point in history) more players lined up
reasons being it is not science, but technology ----- there is a difference.
Not one great scientific idea or breakthrough was done by consensus.
somebody had a revelation, an epiphany, call it what you want, and all the players lined up. it was because they "knew" science (at least up to that point in history) more players lined up
This^^^ And yes, like treating H pylori or a silver bullet for C-19.
main difference between apples and oranges is citric acid.
once man figured out they needed Vit C, oranges (citrus fruit) was carried wherever shipping went.
apples meh, high fructose, requiring ATP and purines spells gout.
Yes, but how did apples know to become oranges because man needed Vit C. The apple came first . Remember, there was an apple tree in the Garden of Eden.
unfounded assumption, apple was chosen for metaphorical sweetness remember the fructose 100s sweeter than sugar. the writings were adjusted to appeal to the masses.
I thought science proved that as time progressed, things became less specialized. Put tame feral pigs in the forest for generations and they eventually revert back to the hogs they were originally. IOW, less specialized.
Sir, respectfully...how is a feral hog that obtains its own food and water in the wild, “less specialized” than a hog in a pen that is totally dependent upon others for its sustenance...?
reasons being it is not science, but technology ----- there is a difference.
Not one great scientific idea or breakthrough was done by consensus.
somebody had a revelation, an epiphany, call it what you want, and all the players lined up. it was because they "knew" science (at least up to that point in history) more players lined up
This^^^ And yes, like treating H pylori or a silver bullet for C-19.
not exactly , when the C popped up with the Plaquenil question I posted 2-3 months ago that Plaquenil had ARB properties, and as such Losarten (or any ARB/ACE2) would be a competitive inhibitor. and would work Im not the only one, but it was overridden by the consensus at the Heart institute who aren't hormone specialized Ca/Mg/Zn for viral infections has been around since (Natures Bounty) since the 70s
Real science is knowing how to build the pyramids without needing pi. type things. ex.
Truth, and Hydroxychloroquine, along with those works well. However, i was referring to Dr Richard Bartletts use of budesonide inhaled steroid which is cleared for use even for premies, Etoh.
The Gospels=gossip=you said, they said he said=heresy = hearsay
The Theory of God=BELIEF (FAITH) in Mind before Matter
Folks used to see tangible Gods in the elements Earth, Air, Fire, Water. Then they saw them in the planets and other heavenly bodies, Now they believe in an unknowable invisible intangible God beyond the known universe, and get upset IF you question the veracity of what popped out of the imaginations of Bibilcal story writers.
The thing christians can't escape is that the Jesus character does not match the essential word of God Biblical Messianic criteria... but they just bury their heads in the sand on the matter.
Since the foundational claims of Jesus as the Messiah are so flawed, How much of what is written and relayed about that mysterious Jesus character can actually be taken as truth? Anonymous Gospel authors and Paul, (that some Christians describe as a break-away paranoid schizophrenic) do little to make the case for Jesus.
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution ...
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
You think you're bolstering its veracity by denying that it's a theory, but you're not. To say that it's not a scientific theory is to say that it lacks the necessary characteristics of a scientific theory, i.e., that it lacks falsifiability. Falsifiability just means that, were it false, it would be a simple matter to disprove it with evidence that can be acquired via scientific discovery or experimentation. Evolution theory meets that standard.
Stop denying it's a theory. It just tells the informed that you don't know what that word means.
You may want to believe that you have 'corrected' my use of the word fact, and given your faith based position, that's understandable.
But you are wrong.
Evolution is both fact and theory for the given reasons. Reasons and evidence that have been provided numerous times, only to be ignored.
Preferring faith to reason and evidence, you refuse to accept the truth.
If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact.
There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution.
Let’s see how you arrived at that:
Originally Posted by DBT
”Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''
I believe you misinterpreted this. Not expressing reservations on a topic is not the same thing as claiming the opposite is true. If the intent was to claim its accepted as true, this would have been more direct in saying so. It’s actually supported in the below statement:
Originally Posted by DBT
”'In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''
It’s carefully crafted and the bias is restrained, but it is apparent. The writer implies evolution as a fact, but falls short of openly stating it. I appreciate that he/she defines “fact” and utilizes the term “evidence” instead of “proof”.
You are playing the semantic shuffle. It can be pointed out how and why evolution is a fact in several ways. It has been explained in a number of ways. But none of these ways can be acceptable for those who prefer faith.
How else is creationism to be defended except through semantics and denial?
Anybody who considers the evidence for evolution objectively can see it's reality, that evolution, well beyond all reasonable doubt, is a fact.
How do you feel about people of other faiths? Hindus, Muslims? Are they right because they have faith? Are their hearts hardened to the truth? Who has the truth?
How do you feel about people of other faiths? Hindus, Muslims? Are they right because they have faith? Are their hearts hardened to the truth? Who has the truth?
It’s easy to tell the difference between a hard heart, and someone who is clearly threatened or bothered by what others believe. We have both here...but MUCH more of one than the other.
HE loved us enough to sacrifice HIS son -the way, the truth and the life, JESUS CHRIST. HE gave all the way to obtain the greatest gift of all, everlasting life, if one would not reject it.
People choose the flesh and reject HIM. HE doesnt reject you. HE doesnt hate you. HE hates the sin men do. Like, if your older son accidently shoots your younger son, you would hate that occurance, but not your remaining son, if you were as HE.
You are the one who puts your name in the Great White Throne judgement or in the Book of Life, not HE.
Evolution is both fact and theory for the given reasons. Reasons and evidence that have been provided numerous times, only to be ignored.
Preferring faith to reason and evidence, you refuse to accept the truth.
It was you who said it wasn't a theory, which shows you don't know what the word means.
I said that evolution is both fact and theory.
No, that's what I said. You said evolution is a fact, and that only the theories about the mechanism were theories. That's incorrect.
PS I'm happy for you to correct yourself now, but don't pretend you didn't say what I said you did. It's on the record right here in this thread.
No, I have repeatedly said that evolution is a fact and that we form theories to explain the means of evolution. Don't presume to tell me what I said or mean.
Think about your family. You and your closest relatives look more alike than you and your cousins. Likewise, you look more like your cousins than you do more distant relatives, and more like distant relatives that people on the other side of the globe. The closer you are related, by-and-large, the more similarities you share. Of course, these similarities extend well beyond the surface level, reaching into our genetics.
This patterning, like in your family, extends throughout all life on Earth. The patterning of the similarities speaks volumes. In evolution, these “similarities” are known as “synapomorphies.” They are characteristics that are present in ancestral species and are shared exclusively (in more or less modified form) by this species evolutionary descendants. Synapomorphies come in nested hierarchies that are related to the variety and intensity of the similarities.
Why is this the case? The similarities have been inherited from common ancestors, and the further back in time any two species shared a common ancestor, the more faded and distant the similarities become. It is important to note that, species with a large number of similarities tend to live near each other—penguin species only live in the Southern Hemisphere, marsupials live almost exclusively in Australia, cacti almost exclusively in the Americas, lemurs in Madagascar, etc. If evolution was not true, this geographic patterning would make absolutely no sense. Furthermore, these similarities often seem to be completely arbitrary, rather than having some selective advantage.
Insects, though unbelievably diverse, have 6 legs. There are likely several hundred thousand insect species and they all have pretty much the same body plan. Coincidence? I think not! (source) Insects, though unbelievably diverse, have 6 legs. There are likely several hundred thousand insect species and they all have pretty much the same body plan.
One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.
That would be interesting enough on its own. What makes it more interesting is that, the further back one goes, the more different the species appear when compared to today’s species. These overarching trends can also be seen on the individual level, as lineages can be seen changing over time.
How do we know, though, that fossil progressions don’t just represent separate, unrelated species? First, they have similarities that suggest they are related (see above reasoning concerning similarities between species). Secondly, they represent a trend, also known as a progression of change. For instance, over time, the species go from low expression of a certain trait to intermediate expression to high expression. Like the evolution of legs, for example. In fact, since we are on the topic, there is no missing link in evolution.
Lastly, the fossils are dated and organized by direct means (like radiometric dating) or indirect means (like relative dating using unique marker layers, fossils, or other techniques).
Fossils aren’t the only way that we can see species changing. We can see it in a laboratory, across geographic distribution as a species spreads, or through artificial selection performed by humans.
Turn over a manufactured product today, and you are likely to see a small sticker or tag that says what country it was made in. Like those tags, species bear the marks of where they came from. These signs of origin might come in the form of repurposed traits, traits that hurt a species chances of surviving or reproducing. Put simply, species are flawed, and it’s these flaws that clearly tell of their natural origin.
Examples: If you didn't know any better, you might think this was a flattened elephant foot. Well, that's not far from the truth since manatees are closely related to elephants. This West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) has fingernails on their flippers and hair on their body (visible in this photo). (source) If you didn’t know any better, you might think this was a flattened elephant foot. Well, that’s not far from the truth since manatees are closely related to elephants. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) has fingernails on its flippers and hair on its body (visible in this photo). (Image source: Fritz Geller-Grimm)
Other non-human mammals can produce Vitamin C. They don't need it from their diet. Humans, on the other hand, have had ancestors that have been eating fruit for so long (which is high in vitamin C) that our vitamin C genes is long ago mutated. We do, however, still possess its remnant in pseudogene form. (source) Other non-human mammals can produce Vitamin C. They don’t need it from their diet. Humans, on the other hand, have had ancestors that have been eating fruit for so long (which is high in vitamin C) that our vitamin C genes long ago mutated. We do, however, still possess its remnant in pseudogene form. (source)
What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions:
Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related? Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography? Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations?
Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.''
Science is based on observation and repeatability.
And the general agreement...overwhelmingly...in science, based on observation and repeatability, supports evolution.
Evolution is zero threat to the faith of SO many Jesus followers; why does it appear to be such a threat to your faith...?
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by antlers
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
Science is based on observation and repeatability.
And the general agreement...overwhelmingly...in science, based on observation and repeatability, supports evolution. [/quote]
You are using your brainwashing. Show me the documentation of evolution being observed and repeated, please. I have heard in the past it was too fast and in the present it is too slow.
Quote
Evolution is zero threat to the faith of SO many Jesus followers; why does it appear to be such a threat to your faith...?
I am convinced as much as a person can be convinced recent creation is a fact. I don't feel the least bit threatened by ANY scientific fact. You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can. You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can. You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
No, I have repeatedly said that evolution is a fact and that we form theories to explain the means of evolution.
Again, incorrect formulation. What you're saying above is that evolution itself isn't a theory. It is a theory, however, (scientifically speaking) since were it false, disproving it would be a simple matter, i.e., it has the characteristic of being falsifiable, which distinguishes it from a proposition that, for example, vampires exist, but can become invisible at will. The latter is non-falsifiable, so cannot be a scientific theory.
For what I posted about Wabi is true and nothing hurts more than the truth. But we know you fragile feelings christians got to stick together.... like sheep.
Get a grip and Try the logical real world for a change over delusional mythical emotional state beliefs.
Hmm let me guess, all your pre-programmed mind can see is more 'hate' in my words...
It’s a common misinterpretation of evolution to think that humans were lineally descended from existing species of apes. Some people think that a fossil ape-man or man-ape seems necessary in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Today it is widely recognized that the relationship of modern humans to the present species of apes is through common ancestors ‘rather’ than through direct descent.
And you said...
Originally Posted by Ringman
I heard an evolutionist in lecture say something like, "If we could find the common ancestor of man and ape it would look like an ape."
Then I responded...
Originally Posted by antlers
That’s contrary to the scientific consensus.
In other words, what you claimed to hear an evolutionist say in a lecture is ‘not’ in general agreement with the huge body of knowledge held by science regarding evolution.
couldnt interbreed with its sibling of the opposite sex? I suppose it was just good luck another such human of the same genetic mutation but of the opposite sex was dropped by a monkey in an adjoining tree. Then they grew up bossom buds and made whoopi. From there we were off to the proverbial races, as different as they would soom prove to be.
Now, tell me how the Bell Curve doesnt really pass scientic muster. As i expected, so much for your love of science.
Of coure they could interbreed. The genetic difference was not enough to preclude that. Please go back to high school before expounding on things of which you are ignorant.
As for the bell curve, wehat does that have to do with anything? I don't understand why the Gaussian distribution would not pass scientific muster in many areas.
For what I posted about Wabi is true and nothing hurts more than the truth. But we know you fragile feelings christians got to stick together.... like sheep.
Get a grip and Try the logical real world for a change over delusional mythical emotional state beliefs.
Hmm let me guess, all your pre-programmed mind can see is more 'hate' in my words... 😂
It’s easy to tell the difference between a hard heart, and someone who is clearly threatened or bothered by what others believe. We have both here...but MUCH more of one than the other.
Rather than what someone believes, isn't the issue about working out what is true and factual regardless of what anyone happens to believe?
You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can. You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can. You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
Oh gimme a break, Ringman. You're smarter than that. Helium atoms are here because the solar nebula, that condensed into the sun and planets, was mostly hydrogen and helium. There is NO superabundance, BTW. Because helium is (a) light, (b) chemically inert, and (c) the earth's gravity is relatively weak, most helium has long since escaped. What lack of chemicals in the ocean? Retrograde motion? Kepler explained it about 1600.
So you can't verify any hate in my post. No worries, I fully understand that imagining things to suit yourself is good enough for christians.
You strain at a gnat and miss the camel...... can't be helped.
Oh well...here's another one: In Matthew 5
"11 “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way."
It’s easy to tell the difference between a hard heart, and someone who is clearly threatened or bothered by what others believe. We have both here...but MUCH more of one than the other.
Rather than what someone believes, isn't the issue about what is true and factual regardless of what anyone happens to believe?
Yes.
It is also true and factual that God is a God of Justice and purity. No sin will be allowed to abide with Him in Heaven.
Choose what you believe .... Choose wisely. That belief is a matter of choice as we have discussed in the past.
Edit to add: Been fun but I gotta go.... y'all play nice!
"11 “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way."
Quote all the scripture you want But Fact remains...
You still haven't verified any HATE in my post.
All that make believe in your mind is not evidence or better still proof... so far it's mere fantasy nothing more..
Subjective mind fantasy is of no real value. You accused someone of hating, but cant rationally back your claim.
I will chalk it up as another Christian with another FAIL.
Show me the documentation of evolution being observed and repeated, please.
This very thread is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. Every single evolution thread on this board is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. One hundred and fifty years of the scientific record is chock full of evidence that does just that...and you deny it all. The internet is loaded with TONS of information that does just that...and you deny it all.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I am convinced as much as a person can be convinced recent creation is a fact.
Yes, we know...despite ALL of the scientific evidence mentioned above to the contrary.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I don't feel the least bit threatened by ANY scientific fact.
Your words and tactics over the years say otherwise, clearly. But that’s OK. Believe what you choose to believe. I’m cool with what you choose to believe...but there’s zero reciprocity on your end, and I find that telling.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can.
You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can.
lol Based upon the claim of one creationist - Dr. D. Russel Humphreys, a physicist at the Institute for Creation Research. He argues that the timeline proposed in the Book of Genesis is more realistic than the geological timeline accepted by most scientists. lol some more http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
lol Arrived at by Walter T. Brown, a young earth creationist who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, who also does his own ‘research’. https://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/questions.htm
Show me the documentation of evolution being observed and repeated, please.
This very thread is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. Every single evolution thread on this board is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. One hundred and fifty years of the scientific record is chock full of evidence that does just that...and you deny it all. The internet is loaded with TONS of information that does just that...and you deny it all.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I am convinced as much as a person can be convinced recent creation is a fact.
Yes, we know...despite ALL of the scientific evidence mentioned above to the contrary.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I don't feel the least bit threatened by ANY scientific fact.
Your words and tactics over the years say otherwise, clearly. But that’s OK. Believe what you choose to believe. I’m cool with what you choose to believe...but there’s zero reciprocity on your end, and I find that telling.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can.
You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can.
lol Based upon the claim of one creationist - Dr. D. Russel Humphreys, a physicist at the Institute for Creation Research. He argues that the timeline proposed in the Book of Genesis is more realistic than the geological timeline accepted by most scientists. lol some more http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
lol Arrived at by Walter T. Brown, a young earth creationist who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, who also does his own ‘research’. https://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/questions.htm
Walter T. Brown? A quackdoodle. No scientific method. No degrees in science. A quackdoodle.
Show me the documentation of evolution being observed and repeated, please.
This very thread is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. Every single evolution thread on this board is chock full of references that do just that...and you deny it all. One hundred and fifty years of the scientific record is chock full of evidence that does just that...and you deny it all. The internet is loaded with TONS of information that does just that...and you deny it all.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I am convinced as much as a person can be convinced recent creation is a fact.
Yes, we know...despite ALL of the scientific evidence mentioned above to the contrary.
Originally Posted by Ringman
I don't feel the least bit threatened by ANY scientific fact.
Your words and tactics over the years say otherwise, clearly. But that’s OK. Believe what you choose to believe. I’m cool with what you choose to believe...but there’s zero reciprocity on your end, and I find that telling.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can.
You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can.
lol Based upon the claim of one creationist - Dr. D. Russel Humphreys, a physicist at the Institute for Creation Research. He argues that the timeline proposed in the Book of Genesis is more realistic than the geological timeline accepted by most scientists. lol some more http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/ocean_floor_sediment.html
Originally Posted by Ringman
You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
lol Arrived at by Walter T. Brown, a young earth creationist who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, who also does his own ‘research’. https://chem.tufts.edu/science/FrankSteiger/questions.htm
Walter T. Brown? A quackdoodle. No scientific method. No degrees in science. A quackdoodle.
Kind of like what they said about JESUS CHRIST, huh?
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
You cannot explain the super abundance of helium atoms in the crust of the earth while creationists can. You cannot explain the lack of chemical in the ocean, creationists can. You cannot explain the retrograde rotation of some of the planets and moons, creationists can.
Oh gimme a break, Ringman. You're smarter than that. Helium atoms are here because the solar nebula, that condensed into the sun and planets, was mostly hydrogen and helium. There is NO superabundance, BTW. Because helium is (a) light, (b) chemically inert, and (c) the earth's gravity is relatively weak, most helium has long since escaped. What lack of chemicals in the ocean? Retrograde motion? Kepler explained it about 1600.
I figured you would know what you are talking about. And you don't. I see you didn't address the ocean.
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
So all you have to do to convert them to evolution is prove their studies wrong. Some of their information is why Ph.D. evolutionists become creationists and the reverse never happens.
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
So all you have to do to convert them to evolution is prove their studies wrong. Some of their information is why Ph.D. evolutionists become creationists and the reverse never happens.
It's been done. The claims are biased and cater to a market: those who believe in special creation and young earth cosmology despite all evidence to the contrary. The bible does of course describe young earth creationism and cosmology.
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
So all you have to do to convert them to evolution is prove their studies wrong. Some of their information is why Ph.D. evolutionists become creationists and the reverse never happens.
lol The fact that their “studies” are blatantly dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree doesn’t even matter to you. That’s very telling Ringman. I’m not out to “convert” anyone “to evolution”. Believe what you choose...fine by me...even if it’s based on blatanty fraudulent and deceitful information (which it is). But using dishonesty and disingenuousness, and fraud and deceit to support a ‘Christian’ perspective (to some) goes against the grain of Jesus’ teachings more than a little bit...!
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
So all you have to do to convert them to evolution is prove their studies wrong. Some of their information is why Ph.D. evolutionists become creationists and the reverse never happens.
The tactic of these ‘young earth, Ph.D. scientists’ that Ringman is always touting is clear...ask questions for which there may be no answers in order to attack evolution by discrediting science. The basic premise is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. It’s dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree.
So all you have to do to convert them to evolution is prove their studies wrong. Some of their information is why Ph.D. evolutionists become creationists and the reverse never happens.
lol The fact that their “studies” are blatantly dishonest and disingenuous to the Nth degree doesn’t even matter to you. That’s very telling Ringman. I’m not out to “convert” anyone “to evolution”. Believe what you choose...fine by me...even if it’s based on blatanty fraudulent and deceitful information (which it is). But using dishonesty and disingenuousness, and fraud and deceit to support a ‘Christian’ perspective (to some) goes against the grain of Jesus’ teachings more than a little bit...!
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Here's an interesting quote from Stephen Jay Gould. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Every single “study” or ‘claim’ that you have posted by dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, and disingenuous “young earth creationist Ph.D.’s” has been thoroughly debunked as the abject garbage that it is. And your response is to post even more of it. Shocker.
Here's an interesting quote from Stephen Jay Gould. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Based on observation and repeatability...based on the evidence we have. Gould knew that most fossils are still in place, embedded in to earth's crust and inaccessible. Gould also knew that thousands of fossils ‘have’ been discovered, and we do see a reasonably smooth continuum in the fossil record for some species where sufficient fossils have been found. In other cases where the fossil record is incomplete, it is not possible to demonstrate a smooth transition. Creationists would have us believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The argument that we should see a smooth continuum for ‘all’ species doesn't wash. The dishonest and disingenuous tactic of the creationists is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. And you left out the part about Gould being an evolutionist who argued against creationism.
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Every single “study” or ‘claim’ that you have posted by dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, and disingenuous “young earth creationist Ph.D.’s” has been thoroughly debunked as the abject garbage that it is. And your response is to post even more of it. Shocker.
I used to read evolutionists. EVERY claim by evolutionist was discredited by another evolutionist. So the idea you would appeal to others instead of doing your own research reminds me you are appealing to your brainwashing.
Here's an interesting quote from Stephen Jay Gould. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Punctuated equilibrium is perfectly consistent with Darwinian evolution theory, and it makes perfect sense. When there are few pressures for adaptation in a given environment, there are few morphological changes in a well adapted species, and these periods are the norm. Major pressures arise on rare occasion, with large changes in the environment, or when a new adaptation very different from a previous adaptation comes about (e.g., aquatic life to life on land). During these periods, in geologic time scales, morphological change is rapid, because early adaptations are inferior in relation to the new environment, so pressure is high for improved adaptation. Once nicely adapted, the rate of morphological change is radically slowed or stopped till something again changes in the environment of said species, or in the environment of an offshoot of said species.
You are misinterpreting Gould due to general ignorance of the subject matter on your part.
Here's an interesting quote from Stephen Jay Gould. “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Based on observation and repeatability...based on the evidence we have. Gould knew that most fossils are still in place, embedded in to earth's crust and inaccessible. Gould also knew that thousands of fossils ‘have’ been discovered, and we do see a reasonably smooth continuum in the fossil record for some species where sufficient fossils have been found. In other cases where the fossil record is incomplete, it is not possible to demonstrate a smooth transition. Creationists would have us believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The argument that we should see a smooth continuum for ‘all’ species doesn't wash. The dishonest and disingenuous tactic of the creationists is that if ‘any’ information is unknown, then what ‘is’ known is incorrect. And you left out the part about Gould being an evolutionist who argued against creationism.
The fossil record was generated by Noah's Flood a few thousand years ago. There are literally trillions of fossils to investigate. And yet where are the millions of transitional forms?
You wrote several words to not say anything. If you accept Gould at his word you have to admit there is no evidence for evolution. Of course your blind faith in the unknown and unknowable is too strong and you always come up with a recuing device.
The fossil record was generated by Noah's Flood a few thousand years ago. There are literally trillions of fossils to investigate. And yet where are the millions of transitional forms?
You clearly reject the results of true scientific investigations that contradict your view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead support quack pseudoscientific creation science. And the abject dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and disingenuousness on the part of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’ is clearly OK with you. THAT says a lot.
Retrograde motion? Kepler explained it about 1600.
I figured you would know what you are talking about. And you don't. I see you didn't address the ocean. [/quote]
Go drink a quart of sea water and tell us about no chemicals in the Ocean.
Do you believe in talking snakes too? Do you believe that if you make goats copulate while holding striped poles in front of them they will produce striped offspring? Hmmmmm?
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Every single “study” or ‘claim’ that you have posted by dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, and disingenuous “young earth creationist Ph.D.’s” has been thoroughly debunked as the abject garbage that it is. And your response is to post even more of it. Shocker.
I used to read evolutionists. EVERY claim by evolutionist was discredited by another evolutionist. So the idea you would appeal to others instead of doing your own research reminds me you are appealing to your brainwashing.
Wrong. Nobody has refuted the reality of evolution in over one hundred and fifty years of testing. You certainly haven't.
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Every single “study” or ‘claim’ that you have posted by dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, and disingenuous “young earth creationist Ph.D.’s” has been thoroughly debunked as the abject garbage that it is. And your response is to post even more of it. Shocker.
I used to read evolutionists. EVERY claim by evolutionist was discredited by another evolutionist. So the idea you would appeal to others instead of doing your own research reminds me you are appealing to your brainwashing.
Wrong. Nobody has refuted the reality of evolution in over one hundred and fifty years of testing. You certainly haven't.
DBT, trying to reason with people who believe the bible literally violates one of Jesus's commands: "Do not cast pearls among swine."
How many of their studies have you actually reviewed? I think you are regurgitating what others have said. Let's take the helium study for example. Tell us where the errors are. While you're at it let us know why there is carbon 14 in EVERY coal sample, gas sample, diamond, and anything else with an organic history.
Every single “study” or ‘claim’ that you have posted by dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, and disingenuous “young earth creationist Ph.D.’s” has been thoroughly debunked as the abject garbage that it is. And your response is to post even more of it. Shocker.
I used to read evolutionists. EVERY claim by evolutionist was discredited by another evolutionist. So the idea you would appeal to others instead of doing your own research reminds me you are appealing to your brainwashing.
Wrong. Nobody has refuted the reality of evolution in over one hundred and fifty years of testing. You certainly haven't.
DBT, trying to reason with people who believe the bible literally violates one of Jesus's commands: "Do not cast pearls among swine."
Ringman's been known to use arguments so bad that even the ICR says not to use them.
"11 “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way."
Quote all the scripture you want But Fact remains...
You still haven't verified any HATE in my post.
All that make believe in your mind is not evidence or better still proof... so far it's mere fantasy nothing more..
Subjective mind fantasy is of no real value. You accused someone of hating, but cant rationally back your claim.
I will chalk it up as another Christian with another FAIL.
Starman.....
Nah, you know what you posted and why and then you got tagged. All you have done is what has been called "dispute transformation." You cannot defend yourself on the substance of the issue so you try to change the dispute by diverting to some minor issue.... in this case, you try to divert by focus on the word "hate" and thereby diverting focus on the real substance of the dispute.
Seems to be a commonly used by you when you are backed into a corner and can't find a way out.
Anyway, here is another for you.....
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
So, it has been served up to you...... should you respond, I would not be surprised if you focus on the word "fear" instead of the substantive meaning of the verse.
So, if you like, respond and will can delve into what "fear" of the Lord is.
Edit to add.... recall that this side trip is in response to your previous comments about Mr. Wabigoon.
Matthew 5
"11 “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way."
HE loved us enough to sacrifice HIS son -the way, the truth and the life, JESUS CHRIST. HE gave all the way to obtain the greatest gift of all, everlasting life, if one would not reject it.
.
Can we explore this oft repeated quote for a bit?
Did Christ the Son even exist before being born to Mary?
If a thousand years is like a blink of an eye to God. Then the time Jesus existed in Earth must have been infinitesimal.
HE loved us enough to sacrifice HIS son -the way, the truth and the life, JESUS CHRIST. HE gave all the way to obtain the greatest gift of all, everlasting life, if one would not reject it.
.
Can we explore this oft repeated quote for a bit?
Did Christ the Son even exist before being born to Mary?
If a thousand years is like a blink of an eye to God. Then the time Jesus existed in Earth must have been infinitesimal.
Jesus was both man and God (in union with the Trinity). Before he was born, he wasn't yet Jesus, but was God, and in union with the Godhead, from all eternity.
Did Christ the Son even exist before being born to Mary?
I believe He did. The phrase "the Word" (a translation of the Greek word "Logos") is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter. So, I believe that John:1-1 could just as easily say “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God”.
We DO know that the earth is billions of years old. Radioactive decay and half-lives are FACTS. They can be proven over and over again. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are FACTS. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods are FACTS. The logic of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’...or rather the lack of it...on this matter is like them saying ‘there is no proof’ that linear accelerators work in treating cancer. Or that ‘there is no proof’ that controlled nuclear fission can produce usable energy, etc. Science makes their lives better and easier, every single day. From the clean water that they routinely have piped into their home, to the safe and plentiful food that they routinely consume, to the reliable transportation that they routinely depend on, etc.. ALL of it is due to science. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they give Sunday school answers and explanations and rebuttals to real world questions and discussions. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they demand things are a certain way, even though we have FACTUAL evidence otherwise. I see no problem with believing in God...and in particular trying to follow Jesus’ teachings...while at the same time understanding FACTS and TRUTHS regarding the world in which we live. In my opinion, these people clearly have a problem doing that.
The fossil record was generated by Noah's Flood a few thousand years ago. There are literally trillions of fossils to investigate. And yet where are the millions of transitional forms?
How many do you need?
The problem with your picture is in South America the order was reversed in the fossil record.
Originally Posted by antlers
Ringman...
You clearly reject the results of true scientific investigations that contradict your view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead support quack pseudoscientific creation science. And the abject dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and disingenuousness on the part of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’ is clearly OK with you. THAT says a lot.
You have it backwards about who is accepting pseudoscientific information. That's why every year Ph.D scientists become creationists instead of the other way around. For years I have been asking for any Ph.D. creationists you know who have switched and none have been found.
Retrograde motion? Kepler explained it about 1600.
I figured you would know what you are talking about. And you don't. I see you didn't address the ocean.
Go drink a quart of sea water and tell us about no chemicals in the Ocean.
Do you believe in talking snakes too? Do you believe that if you make goats copulate while holding striped poles in front of them they will produce striped offspring? Hmmmmm? [/quote]
You have any idea why evolutionists don't crow about the chemicals in the ocean? According to about any theory of evolution the earth and the ocean is millions or billions of years old. For decades the amount of chemicals entering the ocean have been measured. It takes no more than a million years or so and even less in some to reach the level the ocean has. Explain that. While you're at it maybe you would explain why there is debris close to the sun, which should be clear out past Saturn if the solar system is billions of years old.
You distort God's Word for your attack. The Bible does not talk about "talking snakes". It truthfully teaches about Satan taking the form of a serpent. Later in God's Word we are taught Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. As far as the goat thing. I think the story tells us what Jacob did. It is not telling us about animal husbandry.
HE loved us enough to sacrifice HIS son -the way, the truth and the life, JESUS CHRIST. HE gave all the way to obtain the greatest gift of all, everlasting life, if one would not reject it.
.
Can we explore this oft repeated quote for a bit?
Did Christ the Son even exist before being born to Mary?
If a thousand years is like a blink of an eye to God. Then the time Jesus existed in Earth must have been infinitesimal.
Jesus was both man and God (in union with the Trinity). Before he was born, he wasn't yet Jesus, but was God, and in union with the Godhead, from all eternity.
Thank you TRH. Well said.
I was busy pondering why a whole slew of sharks at the same time started developing into salamanders and why they thought doing so would be advantageous to them since if they did become salamanders it wouldnt be them but only salamanders it would be advantageous to.
Ditto to a slew of dogs wanting to morph into cats. Now, i can see why cats would want to start morphing into dogs. I think anyone would rather be a dog than a cat. After all, dogs are mans best friend.
Dayom, now why would dogs want to become apes? It just doesnt make sense to me.
One thing that does make sense is that unbelievers cant comprehend they have a spirit that separates them from being common animals because, as GOD said, HE blinded them. They wont see the truth until HE removes the scales from their eyes.
We DO know that the earth is billions of years old. Radioactive decay and half-lives are FACTS. They can be proven over and over again. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are FACTS. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods are FACTS. The logic of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’...or rather the lack of it...on this matter is like them saying ‘there is no proof’ that linear accelerators work in treating cancer. Or that ‘there is no proof’ that controlled nuclear fission can produce usable energy, etc. Science makes their lives better and easier, every single day. From the clean water that they routinely have piped into their home, to the safe and plentiful food that they routinely consume, to the reliable transportation that they routinely depend on, etc.. ALL of it is due to science. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they give Sunday school answers and explanations and rebuttals to real world questions and discussions. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they demand things are a certain way, even though we have FACTUAL evidence otherwise. I see no problem with believing in God...and in particular trying to follow Jesus’ teachings...while at the same time understanding FACTS and TRUTHS regarding the world in which we live. In my opinion, these people clearly have a problem doing that.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
You have any idea why evolutionists don't crow about the chemicals in the ocean? According to about any theory of evolution the earth and the ocean is millions or billions of years old. For decades the amount of chemicals entering the ocean have been measured. It takes no more than a million years or so and even less in some to reach the level the ocean has. Explain that.
You clearly reject the results of true scientific investigations that contradict your view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead support quack pseudoscientific creation science. And the abject dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and disingenuousness on the part of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’ is clearly OK with you. THAT says a lot.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You have it backwards about who is accepting pseudoscientific information.
See what I mean...? Facts don’t cease to exist just because ‘you’ deny them. You asked for transitional fossils and TRH almost instantaneously provided you with some (because information about them is so easily found), and you denied them. You are a modern-day Pharisee. I truly think that people like you drive more people away from Jesus than Satan himself does. Morals clearly mean nothing to you. You give lip service to being a ‘Christian’ while supporting and advocating the very things that Jesus Himself taught against. Curdog4570 once said on here that you were the polar opposite of the great Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis. And he was deadly accurate.
I was busy pondering why a whole slew of sharks at the same time started developing into salamanders and why they thought doing so would be advantageous to them since if they did become salamanders it wouldnt be them but only salamanders it would be advantageous to.
Ditto to a slew of dogs wanting to morph into cats. Now, i can see why cats would want to start morphing into dogs. I think anyone would rather be a dog than a cat. After all, dogs are mans best friend.
Dayom, now why would dogs want to become apes? It just doesnt make sense to me.
One thing that does make sense is that unbelievers cant comprehend they have a spirit that separates them from being common animals because, as GOD said, HE blinded them. They wont see the truth until HE removes the scales from their eyes.
Why are you repeating that nonsense? You've already been shown that science doesn't propose any such things. If you are interested in this topic, why don't you actually study what science actually proposes about it, and why. There are endless sources for this, and you could avoid sounding foolish in these discussions.
We DO know that the earth is billions of years old. Radioactive decay and half-lives are FACTS. They can be proven over and over again. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are FACTS. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods are FACTS. The logic of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’...or rather the lack of it...on this matter is like them saying ‘there is no proof’ that linear accelerators work in treating cancer. Or that ‘there is no proof’ that controlled nuclear fission can produce usable energy, etc. Science makes their lives better and easier, every single day. From the clean water that they routinely have piped into their home, to the safe and plentiful food that they routinely consume, to the reliable transportation that they routinely depend on, etc.. ALL of it is due to science. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they give Sunday school answers and explanations and rebuttals to real world questions and discussions. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they demand things are a certain way, even though we have FACTUAL evidence otherwise. I see no problem with believing in God...and in particular trying to follow Jesus’ teachings...while at the same time understanding FACTS and TRUTHS regarding the world in which we live. In my opinion, these people clearly have a problem doing that.
You take the "FACTS" by faith. If radiometric dating was valid a scientist would get the same date for a rock when broken in several pieces and sent to different labs. That is not the case. If radiometric dating was valid a scientist would get the correct age for a rock from Mt. St. Hellens as being too young to measure. But the rocks date all over the place. Explain that. While you're at it tell us why the rocks of known age from Hawaiian volcanoes never match their ages.
You have any idea why evolutionists don't crow about the chemicals in the ocean? According to about any theory of evolution the earth and the ocean is millions or billions of years old. For decades the amount of chemicals entering the ocean have been measured. It takes no more than a million years or so and even less in some to reach the level the ocean has. Explain that.
OK. Which chemicals are you talking about?
Pick a couple of your favorites. You will get the same results. There aren't enough for millions of years.
You clearly reject the results of true scientific investigations that contradict your view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead support quack pseudoscientific creation science. And the abject dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and disingenuousness on the part of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’ is clearly OK with you. THAT says a lot.
Originally Posted by Ringman
You have it backwards about who is accepting pseudoscientific information.
See what I mean...? Facts don’t cease to exist just because ‘you’ deny them. You asked for transitional fossils and TRH almost instantaneously provided you with some (because information about them is so easily found), and you denied them. You are a modern-day Pharisee. I truly think that people like you drive more people away from Jesus than Satan himself does. Morals clearly mean nothing to you. You give lip service to being a ‘Christian’ while supporting and advocating the very things that Jesus Himself taught against. Curdog4570 once said on here that you were the polar opposite of the great Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis. And he was deadly accurate.
He should have found one that was not refutes so easily. Jesus believed Moses. Jesus says, "Do not think I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom yo have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if yo do not believe his Writings how will you believe My Words?" Moses wrote Genesis.
I was busy pondering why a whole slew of sharks at the same time started developing into salamanders and why they thought doing so would be advantageous to them since if they did become salamanders it wouldnt be them but only salamanders it would be advantageous to.
Ditto to a slew of dogs wanting to morph into cats. Now, i can see why cats would want to start morphing into dogs. I think anyone would rather be a dog than a cat. After all, dogs are mans best friend.
Dayom, now why would dogs want to become apes? It just doesnt make sense to me.
One thing that does make sense is that unbelievers cant comprehend they have a spirit that separates them from being common animals because, as GOD said, HE blinded them. They wont see the truth until HE removes the scales from their eyes.
Why are you repeating that nonsense? You've already been shown that science doesn't propose any such things. If you are interested in this topic, why don't you actually study what science actually proposes about it, and why. There are endless sources for this, and you could avoid sounding foolish in these discussions.
Idaho proposed that over ages genetic changes occurred to creatures which gradually genitically morphed into more advanced life forms. Im just wondering why philosophically?
2 sharks didnt have a sudden identical mutation of the opposite sex that could subsequently reproduce the same genetic mutation im told, and i agree. A whole school of them had to start morping into land based creatures at the same time along with having corresponding genetic changes.
Why, what drove those changes to occur to a higher, more speciliazed or advanced life form.
Apparenlty Jesus knew the earth was not billions of years old. He says, "For this reason also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles. Some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...'"
Abel died so early in earth history Jesus used the term "since the foundation of the world."
So, if we start colonizing the moon and mars, evolutionists, how many millions of years will it take for my grandkids to become mooneys or martians who dont need much O2 and can eat stardust?
So, if we start colonizing the moon and mars, evolutionists, how many millions of years will it take for my grandkids to become mooneys or martians who dont need much O2 and can eat stardust?
I know you're much smarter than you pretend to be whenever this subject comes up.
Apparenlty Jesus knew the earth was not billions of years old. He says, "For this reason also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles. Some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...'"
Abel died so early in earth history Jesus used the term "since the foundation of the world."
Since the foundation of the world was a way of saying from the start. It's a figure of speech, like straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Or do you suppose Jesus literally meant that some people swallow camels?
So, if we start colonizing the moon and mars, evolutionists, how many millions of years will it take for my grandkids to become mooneys or martians who dont need much O2 and can eat stardust?
I know you're much smarter than you pretend to be whenever this subject comes up.
Well, we have the smartest evolutionists here, TRH. Im just wanting them to explain how the creature between the shark and salamander, being able to survive on land or sea, wasnt in a better position to survive history than the other two.
Since the foundation of the world was a way of saying from the start. It's a figure of speech, like straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Or do you suppose Jesus literally meant that some people swallow camels?
Originally Posted by smokepole
...tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
It’s just more dishonesty and deceit on the part of a modern-day Pharisee who quotes scripture minutiae while ignoring, and even supporting the polar opposite of, the weightier matters of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome? PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Give him a few minutes... He claimed to do his own research. Which means he’s gotta see what the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis have to say about these things.
So, if we start colonizing the moon and mars, evolutionists, how many millions of years will it take for my grandkids to become mooneys or martians who dont need much O2 and can eat stardust?
I know you're much smarter than you pretend to be whenever this subject comes up.
Well, we have the smartest evolutionists here, TRH. Im just wanting them to explain how the creature between the shark and salamander, being able to survive on land or sea, wasnt in a better position to survive history than the other two.
You're so all over the place with false assumptions, that it's hard to interpret your question, but I'm going to assume you're sincere, and I will try to understand your question.
I think you're asking how a more typical aquatic chordate (commonly referred to as a fish) made the jump from an aquatic existence to that of a tetrapod on the land.
This guy can do a better job than me. Watch all seven in order for a detailed and accurate discussion of that subject matter. They are short videos.
Apparenlty Jesus knew the earth was not billions of years old. He says, "For this reason also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles. Some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...'"
Abel died so early in earth history Jesus used the term "since the foundation of the world."
Since the foundation of the world was a way of saying from the start. It's a figure of speech, like straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Or do you suppose Jesus literally meant that some people swallow camels?
You don't believe Moses was able to communicate God's Word to us. How in the world do decide which of Jesus' Word mean what He says?
Since the foundation of the world was a way of saying from the start. It's a figure of speech, like straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Or do you suppose Jesus literally meant that some people swallow camels?
Originally Posted by smokepole
...tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
It’s just more dishonesty and deceit on the part of a modern-day Pharisee who quotes scripture minutiae while ignoring, and even supporting the polar opposite of, the weightier matters of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.
Since the thread is already sort of hijacked from what the original poster asked, I will seriously ask, what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Please tell me the naturalistic system that produced and laid down these geological entities.
Apparenlty Jesus knew the earth was not billions of years old. He says, "For this reason also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles. Some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, in order that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah...'"
Abel died so early in earth history Jesus used the term "since the foundation of the world."
Since the foundation of the world was a way of saying from the start. It's a figure of speech, like straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Or do you suppose Jesus literally meant that some people swallow camels?
You don't believe Moses was able to communicate God's Word to us. How in the world do decide which of Jesus' Word mean what He says?
There's not good evidence for the Exodus, and it's been accepted by serious Biblical scholars since the 1970's that Moses mythical.
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Please tell me the naturalistic system that produced and laid down these geological entities.
If you need me to explain evaporation, precipitation of minerals out of solution, deposition of evaporite deposits, and the biological origin of carbonate rocks you have no business talking about "chemicals in the ocean."
You have it backwards about who is accepting pseudoscientific information. That's why every year Ph.D scientists become creationists instead of the other way around. For years I have been asking for any Ph.D. creationists you know who have switched and none have been found.
Perhaps that's because PhD creationists (if any exist) are too stupid to understand science.
We DO know that the earth is billions of years old. Radioactive decay and half-lives are FACTS. They can be proven over and over again. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are FACTS. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods are FACTS. The logic of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’...or rather the lack of it...on this matter is like them saying ‘there is no proof’ that linear accelerators work in treating cancer. Or that ‘there is no proof’ that controlled nuclear fission can produce usable energy, etc. Science makes their lives better and easier, every single day. From the clean water that they routinely have piped into their home, to the safe and plentiful food that they routinely consume, to the reliable transportation that they routinely depend on, etc.. ALL of it is due to science. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they give Sunday school answers and explanations and rebuttals to real world questions and discussions. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they demand things are a certain way, even though we have FACTUAL evidence otherwise. I see no problem with believing in God...and in particular trying to follow Jesus’ teachings...while at the same time understanding FACTS and TRUTHS regarding the world in which we live. In my opinion, these people clearly have a problem doing that.
You take the "FACTS" by faith. If radiometric dating was valid a scientist would get the same date for a rock when broken in several pieces and sent to different labs. That is not the case. If radiometric dating was valid a scientist would get the correct age for a rock from Mt. St. Hellens as being too young to measure. But the rocks date all over the place. Explain that. While you're at it tell us why the rocks of known age from Hawaiian volcanoes never match their ages.
Once again,
Intentionally, dishonestly applying the dating methods in question.
But I know you know that, since I've sighted the sources to you in the past.
Since the thread is already sort of hijacked from what the original poster asked, I will seriously ask, what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
You’re not “seriously” asking anything Ringman. You’re just displaying more of the disingenuous behaviors and tactics that you have become known for here. Pharisees still exist today. You’re one of em’. Your legalistic attitudes clearly take precedence even over the Gospel itself.
You have it backwards about who is accepting pseudoscientific information. That's why every year Ph.D scientists become creationists instead of the other way around. For years I have been asking for any Ph.D. creationists you know who have switched and none have been found.
Not true. I've given you one and you refuse to address it. Please stop with your dishonestly:
You have any idea why evolutionists don't crow about the chemicals in the ocean? According to about any theory of evolution the earth and the ocean is millions or billions of years old. For decades the amount of chemicals entering the ocean have been measured. It takes no more than a million years or so and even less in some to reach the level the ocean has. Explain that. While you're at it maybe you would explain why there is debris close to the sun, which should be clear out past Saturn if the solar system is billions of years old.
Don't BS me, Ringman, my education includes physics.
Chemicals in the ocean combine with other chemicals and precipitate out. Ever hear of limestone?
There is less debris close to the sun than (a) outside of Mars's orbit and (b) outside of Neptune's. What are you trying to prove and who is the quackdoodle you are genuflecting to this time?
...what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
If you need me to explain the things that Jesus prioritized over legalism, then you have no business discussing His teachings with anybody at all. Ever.
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Please tell me the naturalistic system that produced and laid down these geological entities.
If you need me to explain evaporation, precipitation of minerals out of solution, deposition of evaporite deposits, and the biological origin of carbonate rocks you have no business talking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Give me a break! You don't like the answer to the lack of chemicals in the ocean so you do what usually happens. Go on the attack. Good job.
Since the thread is already sort of hijacked from what the original poster asked, I will seriously ask, what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
You’re not “seriously” asking anything Ringman. You’re just displaying more of the disingenuous behaviors and tactics that you have become known for here. Pharisees still exist today. You’re one of em’. Your legalistic attitudes clearly take precedence even over the Gospel itself.
Help me here. What is your definition of Pharisees? What is "legalistic attitudes"? What is "the Gospel"?
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Please tell me the naturalistic system that produced and laid down these geological entities.
If you need me to explain evaporation, precipitation of minerals out of solution, deposition of evaporite deposits, and the biological origin of carbonate rocks you have no business talking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Give me a break! You don't like the answer to the lack of chemicals in the ocean so you do what usually happens. Go on the attack. Good job.
.....but he just gave you the answer......Can't you read?
Oh, that's right. You never finished high school.
What subject caused you to fail out? Was it critical thinking?
...what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
If you need me to explain the things that Jesus prioritized over legalism, then you have no business discussing His teachings with anybody. Ever.
In other words you don't know.
laffin’
You’re a reservoir of fraud, deceit, disingenuousness, and dishonesty...and it’s been pointed out by so many here...by other believers, non-believers, and doubters alike.
Ringman and Jaguartx: Please go get a high school education before asking foolish questions.
You remind me of the New Guinea stone age natives during WWII. The Americans built bases and runways for cargo planes to land. No matter how many times it was explained to the natives, they couldn't understand what was happening. They built their own long rickety stick enclosures to trap the "big birds" that disgorged all the goodies. How do you explain aerodynamics to ignorant people?
It would help if you would read something on the subject that didn't come from the Billy Bob Bubba Bible School for Bucktooths, i.e. the Creation Science Institute.
Rigid dogmatic people like you are the reason that 48% of millennials now answer "none" when asked about their religious beliefs.
Since the thread is already sort of hijacked from what the original poster asked, I will seriously ask, what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
You’re not “seriously” asking anything Ringman. You’re just displaying more of the disingenuous behaviors and tactics that you have become known for here. Pharisees still exist today. You’re one of em’. Your legalistic attitudes clearly take precedence even over the Gospel itself.
Help me here. What is your definition of Pharisees? What is "legalistic attitudes"? What is "the Gospel"?
Young Earth Creationism is no better than Flat Earth Cosmology. That either of these are still being believed to be true doesn't say much for public education. There must be a gap somewhere.
Of course I know what I posted and why But you are conveniently imaginining what suits you as to what and why I posted it.
Christians like you are no different to blacks, jews and gays , who conveniently imagine hate and victimization in anything they don't like being said about them... what's hurts them the most is when the truth is told.
Wabi has made no response to my post , but you keep following me around prosecuting a case for him...weird, .. you come across as a christian carrying a grudge for the christian cause.
Originally Posted by TF49
.. You cannot defend yourself on the substance of the issue...
LOL.. Theres no need for me to defend against your vivid imagination based accusation. Prove your accusation in a rational constructive mature adult way or do yourself a favor and STFU.
Originally Posted by TF49
.... so you try to change the dispute by diverting to some minor issue.... in this case, you try to divert by focus on the word "hate"...
You brought up John 15:18 and his focused mention of 'hate' , Now that I ask you to prove such hate you call it a distraction / minor issue.? .
Do you actually have all your rational mind congnitive faculties.. .???
Originally Posted by TF49
.. Seems to be a commonly used by you when you are backed into a corner and can't find a way out.
There is no need to look for a way out when the trap is only in your own mind.
I know it's a tough one for christians but Make believe is not reality - so Get a Grip.
Young Earth Creationism is no better than Flat Earth Cosmology. That either of these are still being believed to be true doesn't say much for public education. There must be a gap somewhere.
The modern Flat Earth movement is driven by the same forces as YEC, literalist interpretations of The Bible.
Ever heard of an evaporite deposit? How about a salt dome?
PS, tossing out something about "chemicals in the ocean" and then refusing to say which chemicals you're talking about is telling to say the least.
Ringman, do you know where the gypsum in your sheetrock comes from?
How about the minerals in coral reefs or sea shells? Or the minerals that make up all the sand on the beaches in the Bahamas and the rocks underneath, or the limestone in the Shenandoah Valley? Or the limestone that underlies most of Florida?
Please tell me the naturalistic system that produced and laid down these geological entities.
If you need me to explain evaporation, precipitation of minerals out of solution, deposition of evaporite deposits, and the biological origin of carbonate rocks you have no business talking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Give me a break! You don't like the answer to the lack of chemicals in the ocean so you do what usually happens. Go on the attack. Good job.
Ringman, I answered your questions. You're just too ignorant to know it.
Young Earth Creationism is no better than Flat Earth Cosmology. That either of these are still being believed to be true doesn't say much for public education. There must be a gap somewhere.
The modern Flat Earth movement is driven by the same forces as YEC, literalist interpretations of The Bible.
I think that when genesis was written, it was meant to be taken literally. That this is how the world is and how it came to be. They had no idea about the true size, scale and scope of the world and the Universe.
Of course I know what I posted and why But you are conveniently imaginining what suits you as to what and why I posted it.
Christians like you are no different to blacks, jews and gays , who conveniently imagine hate and victimization in anything they don't like being said about them... what's hurts them the most is when the truth is told.
Wabi has made no response to my post , but you keep following me around prosecuting a case for him...weird, .. you come across as a christian carrying a grudge for the christian cause.
Originally Posted by TF49
.. You cannot defend yourself on the substance of the issue...
LOL.. Theres no need for me to defend against your vivid imagination based accusation. Prove your accusation or do yourself a favor and STFU.
Originally Posted by TF49
.... so you try to change the dispute by diverting to some minor issue.... in this case, you try to divert by focus on the word "hate"...
You brought up John 15:18 and his focused mention of 'hate' , Now that I ask you to prove such hate you call it a distraction / minor issue.? .
Do you actually have all your rational mind congnitive faculties.. .???
Originally Posted by TF49
.. Seems to be a commonly used by you when you are backed into a corner and can't find a way out.
There is no need to look for a way out when the trap is only in your own mind.
I know it's a tough one for christians but Make believe is not reality - so Get a Grip.
Well, got cornered so you go into all out denial and get .... what...mad?
Of course I know what I posted and why But you are conveniently imaginining what suits you as to what and why I posted it.
Christians like you are no different to blacks, jews and gays , who conveniently imagine hate and victimization in anything they don't like being said about them... what's hurts them the most is when the truth is told.
Wabi has made no response to my post , but you keep following me around prosecuting a case for him...weird, .. you come across as a christian carrying a grudge for the christian cause.
Originally Posted by TF49
.. You cannot defend yourself on the substance of the issue...
LOL.. Theres no need for me to defend against your vivid imagination based accusation. Prove your accusation or do yourself a favor and STFU.
Originally Posted by TF49
.... so you try to change the dispute by diverting to some minor issue.... in this case, you try to divert by focus on the word "hate"...
You brought up John 15:18 and his focused mention of 'hate' , Now that I ask you to prove such hate you call it a distraction / minor issue.? .
Do you actually have all your rational mind congnitive faculties.. .???
Originally Posted by TF49
.. Seems to be a commonly used by you when you are backed into a corner and can't find a way out.
There is no need to look for a way out when the trap is only in your own mind.
I know it's a tough one for christians but Make believe is not reality - so Get a Grip.
Well, got cornered so you go into all out denial and get .... what...mad?
I recall a teaching given many years ago. The discussion centered on folks, kinda like yourself....who are seemingly anti-Jesus .... “to the max” You know you show up on every “Christian” theme discussion and you do your best to deny, cast doubt and generally denigrate Jesus and his followers. You are clearly highly motivated in your endeavors.
Anyway, this teacher was of the opinion that likely there were two possible motivations..... the first was that a person had been so resistant to the idea of sin, repentance, seeking forgiveness..... for so long, that the Holy Spirit simply did not visit any more and the individual knew .... that somehow, God had left him and so did his best to convince himself that not only was there no God. But, if there was, it was most certainly not any “Jesus”:involved. The Bible refers to this condition as having a “reprobate mind.” God left and the individual knows it.
The second case is similar but yet different. The Holy Spirit is indeed dealing with you, perhaps every day. The Spirit is stirring you up and spurring you on to get to a point of acknowledgement or surrender.... to a point where the rebellious one finally exhausts himself and turns to:the Lord,
Anyway, it was an interesting teaching and I do not know if it has any application to you. This is your struggle. The outcome has yet to be decided.
I will follow up with a story about a guy I worked with.... a number of years ago. You remind me of him.
Edit to add: A God botherer? Well put me out of your misery and set me on ignore!
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Don was a maintenance planner at a mine a worked at. Pretty good guy, competent in his job ..... but always on edge.... always unhappy and seemingly looking for something to complain about. Kinda like a “dissatisfied rebel” but not having any real cause or banner to take up. Don was also very much anti-Christian.
At age 37, Don got married for the first time.... by all accounts to a very good gal. They had been married only a couple of months when Don began to have small seizures. He was diagnosed with brain cancer. He continued to work and we were all impressed with how he was holding everything together..... but his attitude took a real turn when he was told It was inoperable....grew like a “spiderweb” in his brain. Don was gone for awhile and then returned to work.... a new man.... his new wife somehow witnessed to him, took to church...whatever, I really don’t know how it happened but Don was a new man.
He only worked another couple of weeks, but was telling everybody about his wonderful wife and his wonderful savior. No more angry, bitter rebel, just peaceful. Somber on some days, but often with a peaceful smile. He died just a few weeks after his last day at work.
Don had a thing or two to tell us..... 37 years wasted, 37:years of rejecting God....(btw, he used a completely inappropriate term to describe his treatment of Jesus, but after all, this was a mine filled with rough men). .....then a new wife and a bright future, then dismay with the prospect of loss and his impending death.... then....Joy. He said God got his attention and while he didn’t like the idea of dying so young, he called the cancer a blessing....a gift from the Lord to set him straight.
By all accounts, he died peacefully and in victory.
From the time of his marriage to his death was only 5-6 months.
Edit to add: A God botherer? Well put me out of your misery and set me on ignore!
Seems you don't recall that you told the CF you had Starman (and others) on 'ignore'
IF your word was worth anything, Starman would still be on ignore and you would not have seen the post about Wabi you took issue with.
You took Starman off ignore and now you even tangle with him /follow him around in true God botherer fashion.
You can't buy that kind of stupid, it's got to be a natural gift... 😂
Its becoming apparent you have some distinct Lack or disability in you congintive faculties.
Yep. Id say youre mad. Since when can one not change their mind and take someone off ignore and point out their inaccuracies? Maybe Rick has a reason for providing that ability.
That reminds me, why did I take you off ignore in the second place. Well, I can and will rectify that problem now.
Edit to add: A God botherer? Well put me out of your misery and set me on ignore!
Seems you don't recall that you told the CF you had Starman (and others) on 'ignore'
IF your word was worth anything, Starman would still be on ignore and you would not have seen the post about Wabi you took issue with.
You took Starman off ignore and now you even tangle with him /follow him around in true God botherer fashion.
You can't buy that kind of stupid, it's got to be a natural gift... 😂
Its becoming apparent you have some distinct Lack or disability in you congnitive faculties.
Well, as usual, you are wrong again. I never had you on ignore. You just made that up,or,your memory is just plain faulty. I just took a break from responding to you and DBT. That is what I said and what I posted.
So, you are in error about me putting you on ignore.....and go ahead and question “my word.“
Do you see why one would choose not to respond to you?
That reminds me, why did I take you off ignore in the second place
You and TF49 best stay in the safe space ignore bunker.. but the two of you can't keep your word on that.
TF49 came out of his ignore bunker then gets his fragile feelings hurt, and wants to blame others for his choices.
Sadly he's all over the shop, flip-flop indecisive, . in and out of the bunker, then John 15:18 was so important to him that he has to mention it, then it becomes inconvenient to him so he calls it a mere distraction tactic by me... 😂
He's a scatter brain. His rational mind congnitive faculties are a mess.
all he has is unsubstantiated accusations, mythological scripture and other long winded irrelevant stories he thinks are relevant on an Evolution topic.
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Punish God? That's hard to do when we have no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. A God should have no trouble making Its presence known.
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Punish God? That's hard to do when we have no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. A God should have no trouble making Its presence known.
Whether there is or not, that is the intent of many. There is no requirement that someone have scientific proof, to believe and subsequently love or, as in your or AS's case, hate.
Intelligent design was put on trial, but its supporters failed to make a case.
Thanks for reading the post link
The behaviour of magnetic fields, quantum, shell spirals, snowflake patterns, etc, etc, have nothing to do with design. Physics being the shaper and former of the Universe on every scale, gravity, strong force, weak force, EM, etc.
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Punish God? That's hard to do when we have no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. A God should have no trouble making Its presence known.
Whether there is or not, that is the intent of many. There is no requirement that someone have scientific proof, to believe and subsequently love or, as in your or AS's case, hate.
I have no hate. That accusation is used as a means of defending faith. To question is not to hate. To question and enquire is a sign of a willingness to understand.
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Punish God? That's hard to do when we have no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. A God should have no trouble making Its presence known.
Whether there is or not, that is the intent of many. There is no requirement that someone have scientific proof, to believe and subsequently love or, as in your or AS's case, hate.
I have no hate. That accusation is used as a means of defending faith. To question is not to hate. To question and enquire is a sign of a willingness to understand.
My apologies then. It seems you do exert a lot of effort denying HIM to many men.
TF, then there are those who spend their life trying to punish GOD because of some percieved slight. Perhaps a parent or friend or other close relative or pet died and so the person vowed to try and lead others from Christ by pointing out their percieved cruelties of HIM on Christians or percieved Inconstincies in HIS word in order to slap HIM in the face.
We have a few of those on the Fire who are in danger of everlasting fire.
Punish God? That's hard to do when we have no evidence for His/Her/Its existence. A God should have no trouble making Its presence known.
Whether there is or not, that is the intent of many. There is no requirement that someone have scientific proof, to believe and subsequently love or, as in your or AS's case, hate.
I have no hate. That accusation is used as a means of defending faith. To question is not to hate. To question and enquire is a sign of a willingness to understand.
My apologies then. It seems you do exert a lot of effort denying HIM to many men.
Is that what I'm doing? Or do you say that as a means of discouraging discussion and questioning of beliefs? Shouldn't we all question beliefs....especially our own?
Since the thread is already sort of hijacked from what the original poster asked, I will seriously ask, what are "the weightier matters of Jesus' teachings"?
You’re not “seriously” asking anything Ringman. You’re just displaying more of the disingenuous behaviors and tactics that you have become known for here. Pharisees still exist today. You’re one of em’. Your legalistic attitudes clearly take precedence even over the Gospel itself.
Help me here. What is your definition of Pharisees? What is "legalistic attitudes"? What is "the Gospel"?
still laffin’
Good God...! You appear to be completely lost.
I am. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. If sharing in love is one of the weightier matters, you have an opportunity at hand.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
lol
You are without a doubt the polar opposite of what Jesus Himself encourages us to be. And you clearly intensely and intentionally put forth effort to be that way.
Originally Posted by Ringman
If sharing in love is one of the weightier matters, you have an opportunity at hand.
lol some more
I might as well be dealing with Satan himself when I deal with you...I see no difference. You’re both evil and deceitful to the Nth degree.
Or do you say that as a means of discouraging discussion and questioning of beliefs? Shouldn't we all question beliefs....especially our own?
Some christian minds just perceive threats and church victims everytime they encounter rational enquiry.
Christians can verify their claims about as well as you can prove Santa and Rudolf are real.
Parents tell young kids to give up on their imaginary friends, then those same parents take kids to church and teach them to talk to a God they cant see, and get them to imagine him as a friend.
When making rational equiry. You end up having to bat away the mountain of BS Christians bombard you with, which in the end still leaves people searching for the actual truth.
If you don't entertain the subjective creative mind beliefs they present, they think theres something wrong with you, because in their mind there's never anything wrong with it.
We have posed several fair, reasonable and rational questions about scripture and the beliefs some christians hold, but when the convenient BS doesn't fly, they either get defensive and become a victim, or adopt attack mode and start 'demonising' then threaten with Flames of hell, . or just cowardly avoid the TFH questions all together.
Or do you say that as a means of discouraging discussion and questioning of beliefs? Shouldn't we all question beliefs....especially our own?
Some christian minds just perceive threats and church victims everytime they encounter rational enquiry.
Christians can verify their claims about as well as you can prove Santa and Rudolf are real.
Parents tell young kids to give on their imaginary friends, then those same parents take kids to church and teach them to talk to a God they cant see, and get them to imagine him as a friend.
When making rational equiry. You end up having to bat away the mountain of BS Christians bombard you with, which in the end still leaves people searching for the actual truth.
If you don't entertain the subjective creative mind beliefs they present, they think theres something wrong with you, because in their mind there's never anything wrong with it.
. Since when can one not change their mind and take someone off ignore and point out their inaccuracies?.
Nobody said one shouldn't use or switch off ignore. it's about the blatant dishonesty and denial that they actually did so.
Re: inaccuracies,
No CF christian seems willing or able to explain why the assumed traits of Jesus do not match up to O.T. criteria to qualify as the Messiah.
Surely you don't take the O.T. Word of God to be in error, so clearly Christianty has gone off the Rails when it comes to claims about Jesus.
There in lies the conundrum, for to ackowledge the O.T. is infallibly correct, means your beliefs are wrong,.. or you can claim your beliefs are infallible correct thus puting into question the veracity of the O.T.
Theists have created such dilemma and it aint going away no matter how much they ignore it.
dilemma (Def.) /dɪˈlɛmə,dʌɪˈlɛmə/ noun - a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.-
. Since when can one not change their mind and take someone off ignore and point out their inaccuracies?.
Nobody said one shouldn't use or switch off ignore. it's about the blatant dishonesty and denial that they actually did so.
Re: inaccuracies,
No CF christian seems willing or able to explain why the assumed traits of Jesus do not match up to O.T. criteria to qualify as the Messiah.
Surely you don't take the O.T. Word of God to be in error, so clearly Christianty has gone off the Rails when it comes to claims about Jesus.
There in lies the conundrum, for to ackowledge the O.T. is infallibly correct, means your beliefs are wrong,.. or you can claim your beliefs are infallible correct thus puting into question the veracity of the O.T.
Theists have created such dilemma and it aint going away no matter how much you ignore it.
dilemma (Def.) /dɪˈlɛmə,dʌɪˈlɛmə/ noun - a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.-
I used to believe God didn’t make any mistakes, but now I am sure he did when he created you.
So, you are in error about me putting you on ignore.....and go ahead and question “my word.“
Do you want me to produce your post saying you have Starman and others on ignore?
How about your post acknowledging you took Starman off ignore...You want to see that also?
You have lost your cognitive faculties or you are just a plain liar. .. either way you word ain't worth schitt.
Originally Posted by TF49
Well, as usual, you are wrong again. I never had you on ignore. You just made that up,or,your memory is just plain faulty.
Do you stand by those claims?
Yes, I would like you to do that.
Edit to add: a while back you posted that I had called you a dickhead in one of my posts. That of course was totally untrue. You made made that up. Care to,search for that one as well?
. Since when can one not change their mind and take someone off ignore and point out their inaccuracies?.
Nobody said one shouldn't use or switch off ignore. it's about the blatant dishonesty and denial that they actually did so.
Re: inaccuracies,
No CF christian seems willing or able to explain why the assumed traits of Jesus do not match up to O.T. criteria to qualify as the Messiah.
Surely you don't take the O.T. Word of God to be in error, so clearly Christianty has gone off the Rails when it comes to claims about Jesus.
There in lies the conundrum, for to ackowledge the O.T. is infallibly correct, means your beliefs are wrong,.. or you can claim your beliefs are infallible correct thus puting into question the veracity of the O.T.
Theists have created such dilemma and it aint going away no matter how much you ignore it.
dilemma (Def.) /dɪˈlɛmə,dʌɪˈlɛmə/ noun - a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially ones that are equally undesirable.-
I used to believe God didn’t make any mistakes, but now I am sure he did when he created you.
So you no longer believe in an infallible god. If he's not infallible is he really of god?
What other characteristics of your god are now in doubt?
I no longer respond nor even read posts by Starman. Rimfire and DBT just joined that club.
Simple trolls..... probably young ones.
So effectively you committed to totally ignore them in the future.
Originally Posted by Starman
#14087591 08/30/19
What happened to your pledge not to read or respond to my posts?
Originally Posted by TF49
14087598 08/30/19
Yes, I admit that I was backslidden and rededicate my pledge to refrain from responding to your inane postings.
You have failed not only the orig. pledge but also the rededication.
Originally Posted by TF49
Well, as usual, you are wrong again. I never had you on ignore. You just made that up,or,your memory is just plain faulty. I just took a break from responding to you and DBT. That is what I said and what I posted.
So, you are in error about me putting you on ignore.....and go ahead and question “my word.“
Evidence shows that's not what you said, so you are not being truthful. On top of your erratic flip-flop behavior you also weave a complex web for yourself through your denial and dishonesty.
The more learn about you the more It rings true..
James 1:8 "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."
I think that religion has just about run it's course - nothing left for it to evolve in to. It's stagnated for hundreds of years now and many people are turning away from it, helped in part no doubt to the angry, illogical, incoherent believers that are typified by those responding in this thread - people are getting tired of their childish and nonsense responses, as well as also playing the victim playcard as another dishonest tactic. Imagine how much more pleasant life is going to be when the judging and prejudice stops when the "death fearers" numbers dwindle into insignificance. They'll have to go underground, just like when their religion started off, but there won't be anyone sympathetic enough to "bail them out" this time.
Believers are only concerned about salvation - they don't really care about life because the ticket to the afterlife is belief in some else being their saviour. Leading a moral existence does not lead to salvation - sounds like a ticket to do what ever you want. Religion is based on the opposite of what it purports to represent. It's one big lie.
It’s tragic that more people don’t experience the amazing life-changing love of Jesus and the grace, wisdom, and power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing greater in this life than believing in Jesus Christ.
The world can’t accept the spirit of truth because it doesn’t see, hear, or know him. For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him. God was pleased through the foolishness to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:21
Neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:39.
It’s so easy to be saved, and it’s free. If you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’ll be saved. Romans 10:9
I do think that organized religion is one of the biggest crocks in the history of crocks. Some people love their religion more than they love the people for whom the religion was given. And they sometimes end up hurting people with the religion that was given for people, and then they wonder why people don’t want to get involved in their religion. It’s hard to blame anyone for not wanting to be part of an often disputatious and disingenuous group. One can still remain committed to Jesus though, while stepping away from what was described above. Striving to follow Jesus’ teachings can still be central to ones life. Jesus is way more important than the ‘religion’ of Christianity and always will be...no matter what the religion of Christianity is, has been, or might become.
I no longer respond nor even read posts by Starman. Rimfire and DBT just joined that club.
Simple trolls..... probably young ones.
So effectively you committed to totally ignore them in the future.
Originally Posted by Starman
#14087591 08/30/19
What happened to your pledge not to read or respond to my posts?
Originally Posted by TF49
14087598 08/30/19
Yes, I admit that I was backslidden and rededicate my pledge to refrain from responding to your inane postings.
You have failed not only the orig. pledge but also the rededication.
Originally Posted by TF49
Well, as usual, you are wrong again. I never had you on ignore. You just made that up,or,your memory is just plain faulty. I just took a break from responding to you and DBT. That is what I said and what I posted.
So, you are in error about me putting you on ignore.....and go ahead and question “my word.“
Evidence shows that's not what you said, so you are not being truthful. On top of your erratic flip-flop behavior you also weave a complex web for yourself through your denial and dishonesty.
The more learn about you the more It rings true..
James 1:8 "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."
So, you were wrong you alleged that I had put you on ignore. You springboarded off that untruth and then alleged that my word was no good. A statement that is unsupported by any fact you have noted. Typical.
You were also wrong when you alleged that I had posted that you were a dickhead. You made that up as it fit with your butt hurt emotional frustration.
Fact is, you get get Emotionally hurt and embarrassed when someone refutes your silly, poorly thought out, ill conceived, inflammatory nonsense.
You also have a habit of quoting someone’s post and then applying your own twisted meaning and Illogical interpretation to it. I did not “effectively commit“ to anything..... again, you make that up to suit the imaginations of your mind.
As usual, your bull dog mouth overloads your puppy dog ass.
So, I have changed my mind. I may indeed respond to your posts when you spout nonsense and make outrageously wrong claims about .... whatever. Does that statement make my “word” no good?
Meh.....
Edit to add: let me try to make this simple for you.. if I tell my wife I am going to the market to get ice cream but I come home with a chocolate cake..... does that make me a liar and indicate that “my word” is no good?
It’s tragic that more people don’t experience the amazing life-changing love of Jesus and the grace, wisdom, and power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing greater in this life than believing in Jesus Christ. The world can’t accept the spirit of truth because it doesn’t see, hear, or know him. For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him. God was pleased through the foolishness to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:21 Neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:39. It’s so easy to be saved, and it’s free. If you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’ll be saved. Romans 10:9
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
In short. Jesus and Paul differ on salvation. Jesus made very clear that the law, works, and conduct were vital and that REPENTANCE was vital. Paul tried to do away with Jesus' teaching and preach belief and faith and completely dismissed works and the law. Paul also came up with some pretty fantastic tales of being taken up to some level of heaven and that 3 versions of meeting Yeshua out in the boondocks on the road to Damascus. Paul doesn't quote Jesus' eathly teachings. He was intent on setting up an organization with himself as leader. That is, if he really wrote all that correspondence. Check out the web site Jesuswordsonly.com with a open mind. It won't hurt to question a little and open the door a little.
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
In short. Jesus and Paul differ on salvation. Jesus made very clear that the law, works, and conduct were vital and that REPENTANCE was vital. Paul tried to do away with Jesus' teaching and preach belief and faith and completely dismissed works and the law. Paul also came up with some pretty fantastic tales of being taken up to some level of heaven and that 3 versions of meeting Yeshua out in the boondocks on the road to Damascus. Paul doesn't quote Jesus' eathly teachings. He was intent on setting up an organization with himself as leader. That is, if he really wrote all that correspondence. Check out the web site Jesuswordsonly.com with a open mind. It won't hurt to question a little and open the door a little.
I guess you missed where Paul teaches us to work out our salvation.
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
In short. Jesus and Paul differ on salvation. Jesus made very clear that the law, works, and conduct were vital and that REPENTANCE was vital. Paul tried to do away with Jesus' teaching and preach belief and faith and completely dismissed works and the law. Paul also came up with some pretty fantastic tales of being taken up to some level of heaven and that 3 versions of meeting Yeshua out in the boondocks on the road to Damascus. Paul doesn't quote Jesus' eathly teachings. He was intent on setting up an organization with himself as leader. That is, if he really wrote all that correspondence. Check out the web site Jesuswordsonly.com with a open mind. It won't hurt to question a little and open the door a little.
I guess you missed where Paul teaches us to work out our salvation.
I really like Jesus and believe he was who he said he was. You might do well to avoid the writings ascribed to Paul. They contradict Jesus (Yeshua)
I have read this posted by different posters and have become very curious. If you or someone who agrees with this would post two or three contradictions Apostle Paul makes in relation to Jesus I would really appreciate it.
In short. Jesus and Paul differ on salvation. Jesus made very clear that the law, works, and conduct were vital and that REPENTANCE was vital. Paul tried to do away with Jesus' teaching and preach belief and faith and completely dismissed works and the law. Paul also came up with some pretty fantastic tales of being taken up to some level of heaven and that 3 versions of meeting Yeshua out in the boondocks on the road to Damascus. Paul doesn't quote Jesus' eathly teachings. He was intent on setting up an organization with himself as leader. That is, if he really wrote all that correspondence. Check out the web site Jesuswordsonly.com with a open mind. It won't hurt to question a little and open the door a little.
Paul claimed his inspiration and revelation were from Jesus. I don’t believe there are any other writers of the Bible claiming that type of authority.
Paul wrote: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12
Peter also said Paul’s writings were inspired scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
So Paul is either a true apostle or a false apostle—no middle ground. And the Bible is either all true or all false.
I’m sure glad that there are so many people who reject that opinion. To suggest that another...should they choose to follow Jesus...is now also required to accept that dinosaurs actually went on the ark with Noah and his family and all of the other animals of the world is a bit much for a lot of folks. Understandably so.
It’s tragic that more people don’t experience the amazing life-changing love of Jesus and the grace, wisdom, and power of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing greater in this life than believing in Jesus Christ.
The world can’t accept the spirit of truth because it doesn’t see, hear, or know him. For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him. God was pleased through the foolishness to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:21
Neither height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:39.
It’s so easy to be saved, and it’s free. If you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’ll be saved. Romans 10:9
Peter also said Paul’s writings were inspired scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
Except "Peter" didn't say that. 2nd Peter wasn't written by the same person as first. Modern Biblical Scholars accept both as pseudepigraphical, i.e. later forgeries.
I’m sure glad that there are so many people who reject that opinion. To suggest that another...should they choose to follow Jesus...is now also required to accept that dinosaurs actually went on the ark with Noah and his family and all of the other animals of the world is a bit much for a lot of folks. Understandably so.
Do you use faith to accept Jesus as historical? How did you decide God didn't protect His Word from the beginning?
[quote=Hastings]Paul claimed his inspiration and revelation were from Jesus. I don’t believe there are any other writers of the Bible claiming that type of authority. Paul wrote: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 Peter also said Paul’s writings were inspired scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
So Paul is either a true apostle or a false apostle—no middle ground. And the Bible is either all true or all false.
A document can have both truth and falsity in it. And Paul does say a lot that is plausible and true along with his false claims. So does almost every court witness that takes the stand to commit perjury and sell a lie. If you can reconcile Paul and Jesus you may not be paying close enough attention. As to the ending of 2nd Peter we have no idea what Peter knew of Paul at the time he wrote or even if Peter wrote the last few verses. I respectfully disagree that the bible has to be all true or all false but I do agree that Paul is either a true apostle or a false apostle. In the case of Paul vs Jesus, I take Jesus. If you are blessed with decent reading comprehension dig into the subject and forget your long time investment in your previous beliefs. Hanging onto an investment only because you've owned it a long time is not a good strategy. I don't think the Creator would mind you checking up on the veracity of those who claim to speak for him. He probably would expect you to be careful. Jesus warned that many would come in his name. Thank you for your time. Dave
I respectfully disagree that the bible has to be all true or all false...
Same here. I think one can both wrestle with honest questions ‘and’ embrace a genuine faith in God. I believe God understands our questions. I believe He welcomes our questions, and I am convinced that God would rather have us yell at Him than walk away from Him. When one hits the crisis of belief, don’t deny your doubts. And don’t run from God. One can let their doubts drive them to continue to embrace, even when one wrestles with God.
I’m sure glad that there are so many people who reject that opinion. To suggest that another...should they choose to follow Jesus...is now also required to accept that dinosaurs actually went on the ark with Noah and his family and all of the other animals of the world is a bit much for a lot of folks. Understandably so.
Being as it would be impossible to flood the earth with all the ice and water available I wonder if the Noah saga didn't possibly come from an oral history of a people that escaped the flooding of the Black Sea as the ice age ended and the ocean poured through the Bosphorus inundating the lower country. Maybe the oral history of the people remembered an escape to the mountains with the animals they could drive ahead of them.
Idk Hastings. Doesn’t really matter to me. Believing literally in Noah’s ark is not essential to one’s salvation. Nor is it essential to following Jesus and His teachings.
Idk Hastings. Doesn’t really matter to me. Believing literally in Noah’s ark is not essential to one’s salvation. Nor is it essential to following Jesus and His teachings.
Peter also said Paul’s writings were inspired scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
Except "Peter" didn't say that. 2nd Peter wasn't written by the same person as first. Modern Biblical Scholars accept both as pseudepigraphical, i.e. later forgeries.
All need to do their own study and come to their own conclusions. Those who blindly take others opinions as “the gospel” will likely never to have developed their own understanding of the subject at hand. Gotta do your own homework or you will only be as smart as what some other fella told you. Not good enough for me and should not be good enough for anyone else.
In the Jewish writings of the day, apparently there was a phrase....”...a man’s agent is as himself....”
Consider this.... a honcho is in the States and needs to communicate something to workforce in a foreign land. He phones and communicates the information to an on-site manager, who writes it down and then sends out a memo in behalf of the honcho..... but in three different languages..... with at least two interpreters involved. So the question is this: Is the honcho the author of the memo?
Another example, perhaps a prisoner has been beaten and his hand is crippled so he cannot write a letter. So, he calls a scribe and tells him what he wants to say. The scribe writes it down. So, who is the author of the letter? The prisoner or the scribe?
Edit to add: Once I was in the main church square in Lima, Peru. There were literally dozens of typists there, set up with their stands, typewriters and paper. People would go the them and dictate letters.... both personal and business letters.... the guy would listen, type....listen, type some more.... you get the idea. Now some of these folks simply did not have typewriter or means to create a letter. Some did not know how to read or write, but wanted a letter written so:they could communicate.
All need to do their own study and come to their own conclusions. Those who blindly take others opinions as “the gospel” will likely never to have developed their own understanding of the subject at hand. Gotta do your own homework or you will only be as smart as what some other fella told you. Not good enough for me and should not be good enough for anyone else.
When something is spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew and later written down from 2nd hand memory in Greek and later translated into Latin and archaic English there are bound to be a few difficulties involved in getting things exact. Not to mention the editing by those with a vested interest. As a side note we all know how several witnesses to the same event can give different versions with no intent at deception.
When something is spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew and later written down from 2nd hand memory in Greek and later translated into Latin and archaic English there are bound to be a few difficulties involved in getting things exact. Not to mention the editing by those with a vested interest. As a side note we all know how several witnesses to the same event can give different versions with no intent at deception.
I’m sure glad that there are so many people who reject that opinion. To suggest that another...should they choose to follow Jesus...is now also required to accept that dinosaurs actually went on the ark with Noah and his family and all of the other animals of the world is a bit much for a lot of folks. Understandably so.
Being as it would be impossible to flood the earth with all the ice and water available I wonder if the Noah saga didn't possibly come from an oral history of a people that escaped the flooding of the Black Sea as the ice age ended and the ocean poured through the Bosphorus inundating the lower country. Maybe the oral history of the people remembered an escape to the mountains with the animals they could drive ahead of them.
You need to talk to a Ph.D. geologist about how deep the water would be is the land was smoothed out
Idk Hastings. Doesn’t really matter to me. Believing literally in Noah’s ark is not essential to one’s salvation. Nor is it essential to following Jesus and His teachings.
Did Jesus make a mistake? He accepted The Flood as historical.
Idk Hastings. Doesn’t really matter to me. Believing literally in Noah’s ark is not essential to one’s salvation. Nor is it essential to following Jesus and His teachings.
Did Jesus make a mistake? He accepted The Flood as historical.
There is evidence that there was a flood. I agree there was a heck of a rise in the water level.
Please give us three of Paul's false claims. Claims you can back up with facts.
I am wondering. How do you prove a claim false when there is no evidence other than the claim itself? Paul (assuming it was him) did write quite a bit that negated Jesus' teaching on salvation. I have suggested the site Jesuswordsonly.com. Read your bible. Compare Jesus and Paul.
And the more absurd the narrative has become the more some people believe it... go figure,
Instead of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, they prefer just to double down Xtra hard on make-believe.
Rational enquiry or questioning is frowned apon, for such indoctrination does not permit such...believe or face punishment.
Take away the marketing spin and cheap window dressing and we see Christianity for what it is:
A primitive ritualistic human blood sacrifice cult brotherhood offering exlusive membership to the gullible weak and insecure..Designed to make them feel special by belonging.
Please give us three of Paul's false claims. Claims you can back up with facts.
I am wondering. How do you prove a claim false when there is no evidence other than the claim itself? Paul (assuming it was him) did write quite a bit that negated Jesus' teaching on salvation. I have suggested the site Jesuswordsonly.com. Read your bible. Compare Jesus and Paul.
I have for forty-years. I have made scores of cross references between them. I gave up on commentaries and others' opinions decades ago.
And they continue to argue amongst themselves over details of the good book of "Chinese whispers", choosing to believe what best suits their particular narrative
There was no world wide deluge as described in the bible. Especially not in the given time frame. Flood stories probably originated from extensive flooding during the end of the ice age. Extensive flooding is not a world wide deluge where all land is submerged.
Please give us three of Paul's false claims. Claims you can back up with facts.
I am wondering. How do you prove a claim false when there is no evidence other than the claim itself? Paul (assuming it was him) did write quite a bit that negated Jesus' teaching on salvation. I have suggested the site Jesuswordsonly.com. Read your bible. Compare Jesus and Paul.
I have for forty-years. I have made scores of cross references between them. I gave up on commentaries and others' opinions decades ago.
When you make comments here, are you ‘arguing’...or are you simply voicing your opinion on a subject that you’re interested in...?
I was meaning that it's not just non-believer vs believer, it's also believer vs believer which is an ironic battle - no faith is fact, yet one is better than the other (for no provable reason)? My "fairy tale" is better than your "fairy tale"??? Really? Supposedly reading from the same book too on many occasions.
Please give us three of Paul's false claims. Claims you can back up with facts.
I am wondering. How do you prove a claim false when there is no evidence other than the claim itself? Paul (assuming it was him) did write quite a bit that negated Jesus' teaching on salvation. I have suggested the site Jesuswordsonly.com. Read your bible. Compare Jesus and Paul.
I have for forty-years. I have made scores of cross references between them. I gave up on commentaries and others' opinions decades ago.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong
I was meaning that it's not just non-believer vs believer, it's also believer vs believer...
Your opinion on a matter is ‘yours’. People clearly and often see things differently amongst themselves. Regardless of them being non-believers or believers.
Your opinion on a matter is ‘yours’. People clearly and often see things differently amongst themselves. Regardless of them being non-believers or believers.
So everyone is a winner. All faiths are correct and valid?
Supposedly reading from the same book too on many occasions.
So if you read a book and somebody else reads the same book, and both of you draw different conclusions from that book, does that mean that something is ‘wrong’ with either of you...? Does it mean that something is wrong with either of your conclusions...? Does it mean that something is wrong with the book...?
Your opinion on a matter is ‘yours’. People clearly and often see things differently amongst themselves. Regardless of them being non-believers or believers.
So everyone is a winner. All faiths are correct and valid?
Supposedly reading from the same book too on many occasions.
So if you read a book and somebody else reads the same book, and both of you draw different conclusions from that book, does that mean that something is ‘wrong’ with either of you...? Does it mean that something is wrong with either or your conclusions...? Does it mean that something is wrong with the book...?
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
Your opinion on a matter is ‘yours’. People clearly and often see things differently amongst themselves. Regardless of them being non-believers or believers.
So everyone is a winner. All faiths are correct and valid?
If that’s ‘your’ opinion, so be it.
You have a unique perception on faith. It's a pity all the other believer's didn't think the same - could've saved a lot of bloodshed over the millennia.
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
So if two people read the same history book about the American Civil War, and one is a southerner and the other is a yankee...but they’re ‘both’ Americans...then if they aren’t both drawing the exact same conclusions from that book - then something is wrong with the book...?
What is there to be drawn from the bible? Are we to accept without question what the ancients believed?
As an evolution of belief, the god of the bible began as a war god of the tribe of Israel, transformed over time into a universal creator, the ultimate God, yet still angry and intolerant.
New testament times brought change, Greek thought and influence softened the character of god somewhat....so it is clear that this not 'divine revelation' but human thought and human belief.
You need to talk to a Ph.D. geologist about how deep the water would be is the land was smoothed out
At a crude guesstimate, the answer is about a half mile to a mile deep.
But that's IF the land was smoothed out.
According to the Bible God created the earth. Could He not smooth it for a special judgement?
You know what? You gotta get up very early in the morning to outwit Ringman. Although I disagree with him on a lot of things, he always has a good comeback. No complaint about that.
New testament times brought change, Greek thought and influence softened the character of god somewhat....so it is clear that this not 'divine revelation' but human thought and human belief.
Your assertion above of “it is clear” is simply your opinion. Others are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and that can certainly influence someone’s thought and belief regarding the ‘softening of another’s character’.
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
So if two people read the same history book about the American Civil War, and one is a southerner and the other is a yankee...but they’re ‘both’ Americans...then if they aren’t both drawing the exact same conclusions from that book - then something is wrong with the book...?
If there's disputes over the facts either the book is wrong, or the readers are wrong or biased and not willing to accept the facts. So, yes there are errors somewhere in the process. Your logic comparison with faith is saying to read whatever facts you choose to believe. Not a rational stance, but the crux of how believers seem to work.
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
So if two people read the same history book about the American Civil War, and one is a southerner and the other is a yankee...but they’re ‘both’ Americans...then if they aren’t both drawing the exact same conclusions from that book - then something is wrong with the book...?
If there's disputes over the facts either the book is wrong, or the readers are wrong or biased and not willing to accept the facts. So, yes there are errors somewhere in the process. Your logic comparison with faith is saying to read whatever facts you choose to believe. Not a rational stance, but the crux of how believers seem to work.
Or it could simply be that different people see things differently. Different people feel things differently. Different people experience things differently...even when it’s the ‘same’ experience. People think about things differently. To say that that’s “not a rational stance” is your opinion.
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
So if two people read the same history book about the American Civil War, and one is a southerner and the other is a yankee...but they’re ‘both’ Americans...then if they aren’t both drawing the exact same conclusions from that book - then something is wrong with the book...?
If there's disputes over the facts either the book is wrong, or the readers are wrong or biased and not willing to accept the facts. So, yes there are errors somewhere in the process. Your logic comparison with faith is saying to read whatever facts you choose to believe. Not a rational stance, but the crux of how believers seem to work.
Or it could simply be that different people see things differently. Different people feel things differently. Different people experience things differently...even when it’s the ‘same’ experience. People think about things differently. To say that that’s “not a rational stance” is your opinion.
You're saying then that facts are irrelevant, and only perceptions are important. I kinda think that we got to where we are technology wise due to observance and development of facts (ie science) - just remember that you benefit from a legacy of prior fact concurring understanding and development. Are you a hippy by chance?
You're saying then that facts are irrelevant, and only perceptions are important.
You’ve said from start to finish here that there are no “facts” in the Bible. And I do think that perceptions ‘are’ important, especially when it comes to the Bible.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I kinda think that we got to where we are technology wise due to observance and development of facts (ie science).
I think so too, “technology wise”.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
...just remember that you benefit from a legacy of prior fact concurring understanding and development.
No doubt, but that’s not ‘all’ that I benefit from.
I think you folks don't realize Who God is. Remember the pale blue dot that is the earth in a photo taken from Pluto? That was just this solar system. God created not just this Galaxy but all of them. Infinite is, well, Infinite!
You're saying then that facts are irrelevant, and only perceptions are important.
You’ve said from start to finish here that there are no “facts” in the Bible. And I do think that perceptions ‘are’ important, especially when it comes to the Bible.
So why do you bother with the bible anyway? Aren't your perceptions going beyond it anyway?
I think you folks don't realize Who God is. Remember the pale blue dot that is the earth in a photo taken from Pluto? That was just this solar system. God created not just this Galaxy but all of them. Infinite is, well, Infinite!
Research and evidence indicate that god is man made. Their is otherwise no proof of his existence.
Plenty of proof and evidence for the formation of the universe and evolution of life. No evidence of an "intelligent design", in fact, if you look at ourselves, we have hidden "timebomb" legacies that defy intelligent design ie appendix, wisdom teeth - both capable of premature demise. Intelligence fail for those two, especially from a loving god.
Driven by desire and fear, faith is a poor means of sorting fact from fiction.
Nobody’s forcing any of it upon you, yet you seem to be ‘bothered’ by what others choose to believe about these matters. Why is that...?
It makes some people nervous.
Not really. Having beliefs questioned appears to make some nervous...and at times angry.
Why would it make believers nervous? If there is no Heaven, then there is no hell. If at the end of my life there is nothing, what have I lost. Ive lost nothing more than you, if what you say is true.
I mean, if I die and there is nothing, you seem to think I'm going to be sitting around in darkness pissed off that Im not in Heaven. You seem to think Id be dissapointed. Hummm. I you think Id be disappointed, that means you think there would be some knowledge after death, rather than nothing after death.
You, on the other hand, may have a spirit thats going somewhere. DBT may just not be the dog critter without a spirit he thought he was.
Now, just what would I be in fear of if there is nothing? I dont think I need to fear nothing.
You dont need to fear nothing either, but you might need to fear something. HIM
Let me ask ‘you’ this - Is it OK with you that I believe what I believe, and that I believe the way that I believe...?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
One of the deceitful tactics of believers is feigning innocence.
laffin’
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
Yes, faith generates bigotry, prejudice and violence. It's embraces "virtues" and "morals" that are anything but. Believing in, and acting upon advice from, invisible beings should be left behind at childhood.
Believing in, and acting upon advice from, invisible beings should be left behind at childhood.
And ‘you’ think that ‘you’ should get to make that determination for others...?
laffin’ some more
And since ‘you’ don’t get to make that determination for others, you’re clearly pissed off and bothered by it.
still laffin’
So you're okay with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that goes along with faith? Thousand of years of evidence about that, or do you choose to assign your own understanding and belief of what has transpired?
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Yes, faith generates bigotry, prejudice...
What is it that generates ‘your’ bigotry and prejudice...towards those who simply ‘believe’ differently than ‘you’ do...?
That doesn't even make sense, and looks like an oppressor complaining about perceived oppression.
Those that believe in ghosts have historically made seriously bad choices in the past and continue to do so. I believe in fact, morals and integrity - this is lacking in faith, despite what they claim. Faith is a ticket to an afterlife that doesn't exist.
So you're okay with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that goes along with faith?
Nope. And I’m also not OK with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that has nothing at all to do with faith...? Are you OK with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that has nothing at all to do with faith...?
Where on earth are believers in Christ oppressors?
There are plenty of places Christians are killed and oppressed.
I think you are getting Christians mixed up with Muzzies.
How many times a day do we sound the horn for you to kneel and pray. Or drop what we are doing to kneel in the street, or forcing you to pray in church or school or making your wife wear a head covering or stoning you for crimes you do or for killing a sacred cow to eat?
What is it that generates ‘your’ bigotry and prejudice...towards those who simply ‘believe’ differently than ‘you’ do...?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
That doesn't even make sense, and looks like an oppressor complaining about perceived oppression.
lol
‘You’ brought up “bigotry, prejudice”. And once again, the bottom line is that ‘you’ can’t stand it that believers ‘are’ believers. Period.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Those that believe in ghosts have historically made seriously bad choices in the past and continue to do so.
And what of those who don’t “believe in ghosts” yet ‘still’ have made historically bad choices...like Jeffrey Dahmer, Mussolini, Mao, Jim Jones, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...? Do ‘you’ think that ‘only’ “those that believe in ghosts” make bad choices...?
Originally Posted by mausetand9mm
I believe in fact, morals and integrity - this is lacking in faith,...
This is lacking ‘outside’ of faith as well. Do ‘you’ believe that these qualities are ‘only’ lacking ‘in’ faith...?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Faith is a ticket to an afterlife that doesn't exist.
Let me ask ‘you’ this - Is it OK with you that I believe what I believe, and that I believe the way that I believe...?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
One of the deceitful tactics of believers is feigning innocence.
laffin’
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
Yes, faith generates bigotry, prejudice and violence. It's embraces "virtues" and "morals" that are anything but. Believing in, and acting upon advice from, invisible beings should be left behind at childhood.
I don’t know about that. If one looks at what is going on with Black Lives Matter in Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York, one would notice an abundance of bigotry, prejudice and violence..... and I am pretty darn sure those rioters are not good upright Christian folks.
One does not have to look very far to find bigotry, prejudice and violence in this old world.....Think of where the “bpv” has been seen in the last 100 years..
Where on earth are believers in Christ oppressors?
There are plenty of places Christians are killed and oppressed.
I think you are getting Christians mixed up with Muzzies.
How many times a day do we sound the horn for you to kneel and pray. Or drop what we are doing to kneel in the street, or forcing you to pray in church or school or making your wife wear a head covering or stoning you for crimes you do or for killing a sacred cow to eat?
What stores do we force closure of on Sunday?
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?, if their belief says its okay and recommended. I know murders occur anyway but infidel murder is a faith specialty - on both sides too. Believers in Islam were the original infidels historically speaking if we look back a bit.
Yet ‘you‘ have clear animosity towards believers because they ‘are’ believers. ‘You‘ have clear animosity towards others because they ‘believe’ differently than ‘you‘ do
lol some more
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe in...morals and integrity...
From what we’ve seen here, ‘you’ give lip service to “morals and integrity”.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
Where on earth are believers in Christ oppressors?
There are plenty of places Christians are killed and oppressed.
I think you are getting Christians mixed up with Muzzies.
How many times a day do we sound the horn for you to kneel and pray. Or drop what we are doing to kneel in the street, or forcing you to pray in church or school or making your wife wear a head covering or stoning you for crimes you do or for killing a sacred cow to eat?
What stores do we force closure of on Sunday?
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?, if their belief says its okay and recommended. I know murders occur anyway but infidel murder is a faith specialty - on both sides too. Believers in Islam were the original infidels historically speaking if we look back a bit.
Thanks, but I was referring to believers in Christ.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty humorous...
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?, if their belief says its okay and recommended. I know murders occur anyway but infidel murder is a faith specialty - on both sides too. Believers in Islam were the original infidels historically speaking if we look back a bit.
Like I said...comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty funny.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty humorous...
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?, if their belief says its okay and recommended. I know murders occur anyway but infidel murder is a faith specialty - on both sides too. Believers in Islam were the original infidels historically speaking if we look back a bit.
Like I said...comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty funny.
That's a compelling argument you just came back with - you seem to have run out of ideas?
Believing in, and acting upon advice from, invisible beings should be left behind at childhood.
And ‘you’ think that ‘you’ should get to make that determination for others...?
laffin’ some more
And since ‘you’ don’t get to make that determination for others, you’re clearly pissed off and bothered by it.
still laffin’
So you're okay with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that goes along with faith? Thousand of years of evidence about that, or do you choose to assign your own understanding and belief of what has transpired?
I think young folks make a lot more bad choices now days than they did 60 years ago before Christ was kicked out of school. There are a lot more suicides, murders, kids addicted to drugs, rap sheets for stealing to pay for addiction, dui's, abortions, kids born out of wedlock and unmarried single moms.
It is now truly a lowyers world.
Progressives call that progress along with kicking God out of school, but we must have progress. Its the plan. There is no God, other than man.
Yet ‘you‘ have clear animosity towards believers because they ‘are’ believers. ‘You‘ have clear animosity towards others because they ‘believe’ differently than ‘you‘ do
lol some more
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe in...morals and integrity...
From what we’ve seen here, ‘you’ give lip service to “morals and integrity”.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Originally Posted by antlers
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Yes, faith generates bigotry, prejudice...
There it is. Clear substantiated bigotry and prejudice that ‘you’ have towards believers because they ‘are’ believers.
Yet ‘you‘ have clear animosity towards believers because they ‘are’ believers. ‘You‘ have clear animosity towards others because they ‘believe’ differently than ‘you‘ do
lol some more
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe in...morals and integrity...
From what we’ve seen here, ‘you’ give lip service to “morals and integrity”.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Originally Posted by antlers
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty humorous...
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?, if their belief says its okay and recommended. I know murders occur anyway but infidel murder is a faith specialty - on both sides too. Believers in Islam were the original infidels historically speaking if we look back a bit.
Like I said...comin’ from ‘you’ that’s pretty funny.
That's a compelling argument you just came back with - you seem to have run out of ideas?
New testament times brought change, Greek thought and influence softened the character of god somewhat....so it is clear that this not 'divine revelation' but human thought and human belief.
Your assertion above of “it is clear” is simply your opinion. Others are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and that can certainly influence someone’s thought and belief regarding the ‘softening of another’s character’.
It has nothing to do with opinion, mine or anyone who reads the bible objectively. The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times. There are verses in the OT, as I'm sue you know, that state 'god of war' and a creator of trouble and strife. I don't make that up, it is there for anyone to see.
If two people of reasonable intelligence read the same book of facts (ie non-fiction) and they aren't getting the same facts, something is wrong with that book. Your talking about fiction.
So if two people read the same history book about the American Civil War, and one is a southerner and the other is a yankee...but they’re ‘both’ Americans...then if they aren’t both drawing the exact same conclusions from that book - then something is wrong with the book...?
If there's disputes over the facts either the book is wrong, or the readers are wrong or biased and not willing to accept the facts. So, yes there are errors somewhere in the process. Your logic comparison with faith is saying to read whatever facts you choose to believe. Not a rational stance, but the crux of how believers seem to work.
Or it could simply be that different people see things differently. Different people feel things differently. Different people experience things differently...even when it’s the ‘same’ experience. People think about things differently. To say that that’s “not a rational stance” is your opinion.
Something is true regardless of who happens to believe this or that. The world is what it regardless of how you see it or believe about it. If there is a contradiction between view, one is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Opposing views can't all be right. Somebody has to be wrong.
New testament times brought change, Greek thought and influence softened the character of god somewhat....so it is clear that this not 'divine revelation' but human thought and human belief.
Your assertion above of “it is clear” is simply your opinion. Others are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and that can certainly influence someone’s thought and belief regarding the ‘softening of another’s character’.
It has nothing to do with opinion, mine or anyone who reads the bible objectively. The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times. There are verses in the OT, as I'm sue you know, that state 'god of war' and a creator of trouble and strife. I don't make that up, it is there for anyone to see.
The issue is what brought about this change. Your opinion of what brought about this change differs from the opinions of others.
Driven by desire and fear, faith is a poor means of sorting fact from fiction.
Nobody’s forcing any of it upon you, yet you seem to be ‘bothered’ by what others choose to believe about these matters. Why is that...?
It makes some people nervous.
Not really. Having beliefs questioned appears to make some nervous...and at times angry.
Why would it make believers nervous? If there is no Heaven, then there is no hell. If at the end of my life there is nothing, what have I lost. Ive lost nothing more than you, if what you say is true.
I mean, if I die and there is nothing, you seem to think I'm going to be sitting around in darkness pissed off that Im not in Heaven. You seem to think Id be dissapointed. Hummm. I you think Id be disappointed, that means you think there would be some knowledge after death, rather than nothing after death.
You, on the other hand, may have a spirit thats going somewhere. DBT may just not be the dog critter without a spirit he thought he was.
Now, just what would I be in fear of if there is nothing? I dont think I need to fear nothing.
You dont need to fear nothing either, but you might need to fear something. HIM
I'd say that [some] believers appear to get nervous based on the defensive nature of response, ad homs, threats of hell for not believing, etc. That is not a rational discussion.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
Yet ‘you‘ have clear animosity towards believers because they ‘are’ believers. ‘You‘ have clear animosity towards others because they ‘believe’ differently than ‘you‘ do
lol some more
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
I believe in...morals and integrity...
From what we’ve seen here, ‘you’ give lip service to “morals and integrity”.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler
Originally Posted by antlers
And ‘there’ we have it. You can’t stand it that “believers” believe what they do. Period.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Yes, faith generates bigotry, prejudice...
There it is. Clear substantiated bigotry and prejudice that ‘you’ have towards believers because they ‘are’ believers.
So you believe that all believers are equal? How can that be - isn't at least someone wrong with their faith? How do you feel about that? Or is that okay? Murdering infidels is okay if that's what you believe and your faith endorses? Slavery? Oppressing the teaching of science and evolution?
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
New testament times brought change, Greek thought and influence softened the character of god somewhat....so it is clear that this not 'divine revelation' but human thought and human belief.
Your assertion above of “it is clear” is simply your opinion. Others are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and that can certainly influence someone’s thought and belief regarding the ‘softening of another’s character’.
It has nothing to do with opinion, mine or anyone who reads the bible objectively. The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times. There are verses in the OT, as I'm sue you know, that state 'god of war' and a creator of trouble and strife. I don't make that up, it is there for anyone to see.
The issue is what brought about this change. Your opinion of what brought about this change differs from the opinions of others.
The bible tells us that god is eternal and unchanging, “For I, the Lord, do not change.'' Malachi 3:6 - "Whatever is good and perfect comes to us from God above, who created all heaven's lights. Unlike them, He never changes or casts shifting shadows" (James 1:17).
Yet we start with a God of War, not love. A God who kills and order killings, a god who does not forgive.
There lies the contradictions and the stark differences between the war god of the tribe of Israel and the god of the new testament.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
lol
That’s ‘your’ opinion.
That's not an argument. You don't appear to have an argument. Just a rationale: oh, that's just an opinion.
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
lol
That’s ‘your’ opinion.
No, it was a fact of statement that you made, along the lines that everyone make their own decision on beliefs - without facts that would make them opinions, and now you are denying that? That's deceitful isn't it?
I believe that people are the supreme object of God's creation.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
...isn't at least someone wrong with their faith?
I believe so, but if no one is being harmed, it’s not my place to point that out...and if no one is being harmed, it’s not ‘your’ place to point that out either.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Murdering infidels is okay if that's what you believe and your faith endorses it...?
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
What I said concerning ‘you’ was clearly substantiated. It’s all posted up for all to see. And they did.
Originally Posted by DBT
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
lol
That’s ‘your’ opinion.
Originally Posted by DBT
That's not an argument. You don't appear to have an argument. Just a rationale: oh, that's just an opinion.
No need to argue about it. ‘Your’ answer above is clearly ‘your’ opinion. It is what it is.
I believe so, but if no one is being harmed, it’s not my place to point that out...and if no one is being harmed, it’s not ‘your’ place to point that out either.....
So you have no problem if you've picked the wrong faith and will burn in hell as a result? Wasn't that the point of picking a faith - salvation?
You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims there Antler, but please continue with how you feel, don't let facts get in the way, or you can interpret them to suit as you see fit
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
lol
That’s ‘your’ opinion.
No, it was a fact of statement that you made, along the lines that everyone make their own decision on beliefs - without facts that would make them opinions, and now you are denying that? That's deceitful isn't it?
His answer is his opinion regarding the matter. Period. And your insinuation of ‘deceit’ is ‘your’ opinion. Anyone can read these posts on here and see for themselves what was said, and they can also see the context in which it was said.
I believe so, but if no one is being harmed, it’s not my place to point that out...and if no one is being harmed, it’s not ‘your’ place to point that out either.....
So you have no problem if you've picked the wrong faith and will burn in hell as a result?
lol
‘You’ seem to have a lot more of a problem with it than I do.
Something is true regardless of who happens to believe this or that. The world is what it regardless of how you see it or believe about it. If there is a contradiction between view, one is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Opposing views can't all be right. Somebody has to be wrong.
Tell ‘that’ to the passionate Confederate and the passionate Yankee who both read the same history book about the Civil War...and come up with two entirely different perspectives on the matter.
I believe so, but if no one is being harmed, it’s not my place to point that out...and if no one is being harmed, it’s not ‘your’ place to point that out either.....
So you have no problem if you've picked the wrong faith and will burn in hell as a result?
lol
‘You’ seem to have a lot more of a problem with it than I do.
still lol
It's not about me. How come you can't answer such a simple question? What makes you think you've chosen the correct faith, or is just because you know deep in your gut?
Oh I beg to differ...it is clearly about ‘you’...and ‘your’ disdain for those who have the audacity to believe in something that ‘you’ don’t want them to.
Oh I beg to differ...it is clearly about ‘you’...and ‘your’ disdain for those who have the audacity to believe in something that ‘you’ don’t want them to.
lol and smh
You're still avoiding the question. I don't think you have an answer so ignorance and arrogance make you turn it around on me - typical believer response. You think you are right but have no substantiation.
Your lack of response is very telling and here for all to see.
Oh I beg to differ...it is clearly about ‘you’...and ‘your’ disdain for those who have the audacity to believe in something that ‘you’ don’t want them to.
lol
I don't think you have an answer...
’You’ can think what ‘you’ want. And ‘you’ can believe what ‘you’ want. Unlike ‘you’...I’m not bothered by what another chooses to believe. At all.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
You think you are right...
And ‘you’ are clearly pissed off and bothered because believers choose to ‘be’ believers.
Comin’ from ‘you’ who are absolutely livid that another person actually has the nerve to believe in something that ‘you’ don’t want them to believe in.
Comin’ from ‘you’, who clearly thinks ‘you’ should get to determine what others believe.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
...and incapable of logical discussion.
Comin’ from ‘you’, who clearly gets mad when others don’t believe the way that ’you’ want them to believe.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
You have a child's mentality.
Comin’ from ‘you’, who throws a hissy online because someone has the gumption to believe in something that ‘you’ clearly don’t want them to believe in.
Others are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and that can certainly influence someone’s thought and belief regarding the ‘softening of another’s character’.
Jesus didn't want to die for mankind , on the contrary he directly asked if he could skip the process. (Matthew 26:39)
Ultimately His will was to submit to the will of the Father.
The concept of having someone tortured and killed to demonstrate the love for someone else , most would see such kind of act as abhorrent.
Those who do such, normally reserve it for their worst enemies and are just plain crazy depraved.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Well, according to Antler there is nothing particularly wrong with Islam, or any other religion for that matter, if that's what "feels" right to them, then good to go. Murdering infidels is okay right?,... .
Ironically, 'Infidel' originates from the Latin not Islam... LoL.
Faith has driven christians to build large armies To kill what they deemed infidels and heretics.. 'might makes right' on matters of faith. ..while they had the swords and maces out, they took oportunity to slaughter rival eastern orthodox christians, jews, pagans, etc.
Originally Posted by antlers
.. And I’m also not OK with the bigotry, prejudice and violence that has nothing at all to do with faith..
Antlers. do you subscribe to the Christian 'all other God's are false'.. ?
Not only do Christians disagree with other people's choice of deity , they also feel compelled to judge and condemn other deities.
remembering that prejudice is thinking poorly of another person's different religious beliefs.
and bigotry is when one refuses to accept the possibility that their particular opinions are the result of flawed logic.
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times.
And your opinion on ‘why’ that change occurred is different from that of others.
It's not an opinion. History tells us that ideas and beliefs change over time. Believers in this day and age can't agree on theology or the nature of God. Which makes a belief in the existence of God a matter of opinion, and to observe what is happening as a matter of fact. Sorry if that simple truth is hard to accept.
Something is true regardless of who happens to believe this or that. The world is what it regardless of how you see it or believe about it. If there is a contradiction between view, one is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong. Opposing views can't all be right. Somebody has to be wrong.
Tell ‘that’ to the passionate Confederate and the passionate Yankee who both read the same history book about the Civil War...and come up with two entirely different perspectives on the matter.
That's the point. neither side looks at it objectively. Both sides see the world through the filter of their own faith. Neither side sees the bible for what it is, a document of the beliefs of ancient people. Plus the Civil War was fought for many reasons, some economic, some ideological, others religious.
That seems to be the crux of it. Everything is reduced to an 'opinion.' Therefore the opinion of a Christian is as good as the opinion a scientist or the opinion of a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc......
Hinduism doesnt say their narrative is true, they humbly admit t's just a mythological interpretation or tale... Christianity however can't get together and decide what's true and what isn't.... 2000 yrs down the road and all those folks allegedly with the holy spirit, but still receiving conflicting truths.
We've got them right here on the CF plainly telling others they are wrong, while claiming they themselves are correct and they don't like to be quized on it - you just need to take their word for it.
Originally Posted by DBT
.. History tells us that ideas and beliefs change over time...
Christians blamed jews for the black plague, Christians today still blame jews for certain things.... and if you question those christians they say you are working for the devil.
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times.
Originally Posted by antlers
And your opinion on ‘why’ that change occurred is different from that of others.
Originally Posted by DBT
It's not an opinion. History tells us that ideas and beliefs change over time.
It ‘is’ an opinion. Your opinion that the nature and character of God between the OT and NT changed due to “Greek thought and influence” differs from the opinions of others on this matter. And your opinion that that change was due to “beliefs change over time” differs from the opinions of others on this matter...especially when the time period in question was ‘just’ a few decades...from Jesus’ ministry, to the appearance of the earliest New Testament documents in the first century. Some are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and ‘that’ can certainly influence someone’s thoughts and beliefs, and lead to the change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT.
I think you folks don't realize Who God is. Remember the pale blue dot that is the earth in a photo taken from Pluto? That was just this solar system. God created not just this Galaxy but all of them. Infinite is, well, Infinite!
One question I've always had, is if humans are so important to God, why create all the rest of the universe if the message is for people on earth? And if the message is for all earthlings, why screw around with some dinky backwater in Palestine 2000 years ago when the message is "unto all nations," not just the Jews?
And where is heaven? The ancients thought it was up (as in "ascending"). But now we know the earth is round, the atmosphere is shallow, and heaven ain't "up," at least not for a gazillion miles.
God, being Infinite shows His Power with the universe. There are three heavens. Our atmosphere, space, and beyond is "the third heaven." Of course infinite is beyond our comprehension.
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
The only way for the deaf to hear or see the truth is if they ask HIM to come into their heart.
Satan is in them and convicts them of their sin. Satan makes them too ashamed to to acknowledge HIM, so they turn away and deny HIM as their master directs them.
God, being Infinite shows His Power with the universe. There are three heavens. Our atmosphere, space, and beyond is "the third heaven." Of course infinite is beyond our comprehension.
Ringman, do you still need me to explain where the "chemicals in the ocean" end up? Do you know where the salt in your salt shaker comes from?
One question I've always had, is if humans are so important to God, why create all the rest of the universe if the message is for people on earth? And if the message is for all earthlings, why screw around with some dinky backwater in Palestine 2000 years ago when the message is "unto all nations," not just the Jews?
And where is heaven? The ancients thought it was up (as in "ascending"). But now we know the earth is round, the atmosphere is shallow, and heaven ain't "up," at least not for a gazillion miles. [/quote] 1. Why do some people put a pool in their backyard.
2. The Jews were supposed to spread the GOOD NEWS, but they were stiff necked, like you.
3. There is no heaven as far as you're concerned, other than the blessing from HIM that you can look up and see.
God, being Infinite shows His Power with the universe. There are three heavens. Our atmosphere, space, and beyond is "the third heaven." Of course infinite is beyond our comprehension.
Ringman, do you still need me to explain where the "chemicals in the ocean" end up? Do you know where the salt in your salt shaker comes from?
I guess I was not clear enough. I want you to tell me why if the earth and ocean is billions of years old and chemicals have been eroding into the ocean for eons, why is it not so laden life can not exist. Try to answer that, please.
Don was a maintenance planner at a mine a worked at. Pretty good guy, competent in his job ..... but always on edge.... always unhappy and seemingly looking for something to complain about. Kinda like a “dissatisfied rebel” but not having any real cause or banner to take up. Don was also very much anti-Christian.
At age 37, Don got married for the first time.... by all accounts to a very good gal. They had been married only a couple of months when Don began to have small seizures. He was diagnosed with brain cancer. He continued to work and we were all impressed with how he was holding everything together..... but his attitude took a real turn when he was told It was inoperable....grew like a “spiderweb” in his brain. Don was gone for awhile and then returned to work.... a new man.... his new wife somehow witnessed to him, took to church...whatever, I really don’t know how it happened but Don was a new man.
He only worked another couple of weeks, but was telling everybody about his wonderful wife and his wonderful savior. No more angry, bitter rebel, just peaceful. Somber on some days, but often with a peaceful smile. He died just a few weeks after his last day at work.
Don had a thing or two to tell us..... 37 years wasted, 37:years of rejecting God....(btw, he used a completely inappropriate term to describe his treatment of Jesus, but after all, this was a mine filled with rough men). .....then a new wife and a bright future, then dismay with the prospect of loss and his impending death.... then....Joy. He said God got his attention and while he didn’t like the idea of dying so young, he called the cancer a blessing....a gift from the Lord to set him straight.
By all accounts, he died peacefully and in victory.
From the time of his marriage to his death was only 5-6 months.
And all it took was damage due to a highly invasive brain tumor. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
I believe so, but if no one is being harmed, it’s not my place to point that out...and if no one is being harmed, it’s not ‘your’ place to point that out either.....
So you have no problem if you've picked the wrong faith and will burn in hell as a result?
lol
‘You’ seem to have a lot more of a problem with it than I do.
still lol
It's not about me. How come you can't answer such a simple question? What makes you think you've chosen the correct faith, or is just because you know deep in your gut?
mauserand9mm,
Legit question, here is some explanation and some testimony:
First a related point…. Yes, I believe that the Christian…. Jesus following religion… is the only true religion. Obviously, all religions can’t be true as there are huge mutually exclusive teachings amongst the world’s religions. Christianity is unique in that it’s namesake rose from the dead…..Also unique in that there are no other world religions that do not teach some sort of ‘works’ doctrine.
But, back to your question… “What makes you think you’ve chosen the correct faith, or is it just because you know deep in your gut?”
Let’s ignore the “chosen” aspect for now….
So, “Why indeed….”
Here is Jesus speaking…. John 14:19…..”Before long, the world will not see me anymore, (crucifixion) but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, andI am in you.”
In a nutshell…. Jesus is living within me. Same for the Holy Spirit. This is not some feeling “…. deep in your gut.” It is a heavy mind crashing, indescribable loving reality. When god speaks within, there is no doubt about who is doing the speaking and no doubt about that reality. As Jesus says…. “…. you will realize…..I am in you.”
Many who have posted on this topic will say they do not have that experience. I believe that. Jesus visits with the honest seeker. The objections that are raised by many posters here seem to be mind soothing excuses not to address the fundamental issue….. Jesus and You.
Now, from my own experience….. I prayed the “sinners prayer” …. actually many times while sitting in that pew….. but I did not have what some folks describe as the “overwhelming filled with the Spirit, bathed in love, freedom from sin experience.” I wish I had, but I did not.
Over a period of months, I struggled with that…. then I decided that well, I asked Him to forgive and I will act like He did indeed do that, whether I felt the glow or not….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
So, no, knowing that Jesus is real is not some deep in the gut feeling. It is far far greater than that.
Ringman, the ocean is not a closed system and there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater. Both physical and biological processes The salt in your shaker was formerly dissolved in the ocean, and precipitated in shallow seas to form salt beds, some of which are hundreds and thousands of feet thick. Like the salt beds used to store radioactive waste at the WIPP site. Or the salt beds that formed salt domes beneath Louisiana and Texas. Same with the gypsum in your sheetrock, formerly calcium sulfate dissolved in seawater that precipitated in shallow seas. And all the limestone previously mentioned, as well as limestone all over the world came from dissolved ions in seawater, either fixed by shelled organisms or sometimes precipitated in shallow seas.
In other words, the sea is not a closed system where the ions from dissolved rocks just accumulate. There are many processes that remove the ions from solution. These materials accumulate in sediments, are lithified into rock formations thousands of feet thick, and are eroded and recycled.
And like I said before, if this has to be explained to you, you have no business taking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Do you exert as much effort disputing threads on the internet discussing allah?
Alla, Duw, Gud, Dios, Bog, Vajtswv, Tann, Xudo, Allah, God, Jumal, Dieu, Istan, Gott, Theos, Buh, Duh, What matter is the language of the speaker when all are synonymous for the Creator, the being in charge of all existence, the God of Abraham.
Don was a maintenance planner at a mine a worked at. Pretty good guy, competent in his job ..... but always on edge.... always unhappy and seemingly looking for something to complain about. Kinda like a “dissatisfied rebel” but not having any real cause or banner to take up. Don was also very much anti-Christian.
At age 37, Don got married for the first time.... by all accounts to a very good gal. They had been married only a couple of months when Don began to have small seizures. He was diagnosed with brain cancer. He continued to work and we were all impressed with how he was holding everything together..... but his attitude took a real turn when he was told It was inoperable....grew like a “spiderweb” in his brain. Don was gone for awhile and then returned to work.... a new man.... his new wife somehow witnessed to him, took to church...whatever, I really don’t know how it happened but Don was a new man.
He only worked another couple of weeks, but was telling everybody about his wonderful wife and his wonderful savior. No more angry, bitter rebel, just peaceful. Somber on some days, but often with a peaceful smile. He died just a few weeks after his last day at work.
Don had a thing or two to tell us..... 37 years wasted, 37:years of rejecting God....(btw, he used a completely inappropriate term to describe his treatment of Jesus, but after all, this was a mine filled with rough men). .....then a new wife and a bright future, then dismay with the prospect of loss and his impending death.... then....Joy. He said God got his attention and while he didn’t like the idea of dying so young, he called the cancer a blessing....a gift from the Lord to set him straight.
By all accounts, he died peacefully and in victory.
From the time of his marriage to his death was only 5-6 months.
And all it took was damage due to a highly invasive brain tumor. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Apparently so.....
I have sat with a few who were in their last days. Seen victory and defeat.... joy and fear.... The mind can be tricky in those times.
Had one tell me....."Well, I can't get.... THERE.... if I don't leave HERE!"
Thanks, I was just wondering. I've been attending a local SBC and both y'all believe along the same lines that preacher does. Strangely enough Jimmy Swaggart and my local SBC preacher's ideas line up pretty well. I understand Jimmy is Assembly of God.
What kind of mining did you do, and where...? I’m in Southern Colorado and there’s big mining history out here...especially coal. C.F.&I. ruled the roost out here for over a hundred years. I’ve been to many of the sites of former coal mining camps out here. The history of it all fascinates me.
What kind of mining did you do, and where...? I’m in Southern Colorado and there’s big mining history out here...especially coal. C.F.&I. ruled the roost out here for over a hundred years. I’ve been to many of the sites of former coal mining camps out here. The history of it all fascinates me.
Didn't the companies murder a bunch of on strike miners out there over a hundred years ago?
What kind of mining did you do, and where...? I’m in Southern Colorado and there’s big mining history out here...especially coal. C.F.&I. ruled the roost out here for over a hundred years. I’ve been to many of the sites of former coal mining camps out here. The history of it all fascinates me.
Didn't the companies murder a bunch of on strike miners out there over a hundred years ago?
What kind of mining did you do, and where...? I’m in Southern Colorado and there’s big mining history out here...especially coal. C.F.&I. ruled the roost out here for over a hundred years. I’ve been to many of the sites of former coal mining camps out here. The history of it all fascinates me.
I don’t want to talk to much about it, but..... started copper underground in Arizona, then copper underground in British Columbia, then underground lead and zinc in Missouri.... then copper mining in Indonesia, then finished out as what I would call a “trouble shooter” based in Denver.
I don’t want to talk to much about it, but..... started copper underground in Arizona, then copper underground in British Columbia, then underground lead and zinc in Missouri.... then copper mining in Indonesia, then finished out as what I would call a “trouble shooter” based in Denver. Did a lot of traveling over the years....
Where on earth are believers in Christ oppressors?
There are plenty of places Christians are killed and oppressed.
I think you are getting Christians mixed up with Muzzies.
How many times a day do we sound the horn for you to kneel and pray. Or drop what we are doing to kneel in the street, or forcing you to pray in church or school or making your wife wear a head covering or stoning you for crimes you do or for killing a sacred cow to eat?
What stores do we force closure of on Sunday?
Come now Jag. Can you deny the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klan, the enslavement and murder of the Indigenous Peoples of South America, Martin of Tours destroying holy sites, temples, and consecrated trees, Marcellus of Syria destroying the temples of apposing faiths. Ancient History? How about the Srebrenika Massacre?
That Christians no longer commonly practice oppression of nonbelievers is much more a matter of politics than of doctrine. Heck, plenty of Christians right here on this board regularly call for genocide of Muslims.
What kind of mining did you do, and where...? I’m in Southern Colorado and there’s big mining history out here...especially coal. C.F.&I. ruled the roost out here for over a hundred years. I’ve been to many of the sites of former coal mining camps out here. The history of it all fascinates me.
Include Uranium, Gold, Copper,Beryl, Sulfur, Red Beryl total tonnage far exceeding coal. if you include Utah, Wyoming
lots of stories about the spirits that live in those old mines,, some of the underground gold tunnels in Utah are 20 miles long. The Titans maybe. or maybe its just the subconscious of the mind as in Nietzche or Zoroaster or was that Zorro
Ringman, the ocean is not a closed system and there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater. Both physical and biological processes The salt in your shaker was formerly dissolved in the ocean, and precipitated in shallow seas to form salt beds, some of which are hundreds and thousands of feet thick. Like the salt beds used to store radioactive waste at the WIPP site. Or the salt beds that formed salt domes beneath Louisiana and Texas. Same with the gypsum in your sheetrock, formerly calcium sulfate dissolved in seawater that precipitated in shallow seas. And all the limestone previously mentioned, as well as limestone all over the world came from dissolved ions in seawater, either fixed by shelled organisms or sometimes precipitated in shallow seas.
In other words, the sea is not a closed system where the ions from dissolved rocks just accumulate. There are many processes that remove the ions from solution. These materials accumulate in sediments, are lithified into rock formations thousands of feet thick, and are eroded and recycled.
And like I said before, if this has to be explained to you, you have no business taking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Here's the problem with your " there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater". The chemicals are not in equilibrium. They are still increasing. Why is that?
Can you deny the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klan, the enslavement and murder of the Indigenous Peoples of South America, Martin of Tours destroying holy sites, temples, and consecrated trees, Marcellus of Syria destroying the temples of apposing faiths. Ancient History? How about the Srebrenika Massacre?.
I will address a couple. The Crusades were Europeans taking back their counties from the Muzzies. There were only seventeen witches killed in the United States before real Christians took control. In Europe there were hundreds. Maybe even thousands. The Inquisition was a result of some secularist taking over the Catholic Church. They were not Christians. The Klan was not and is not Christian. They were and are Democrats.
Ringman, the ocean is not a closed system and there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater. Both physical and biological processes The salt in your shaker was formerly dissolved in the ocean, and precipitated in shallow seas to form salt beds, some of which are hundreds and thousands of feet thick. Like the salt beds used to store radioactive waste at the WIPP site. Or the salt beds that formed salt domes beneath Louisiana and Texas. Same with the gypsum in your sheetrock, formerly calcium sulfate dissolved in seawater that precipitated in shallow seas. And all the limestone previously mentioned, as well as limestone all over the world came from dissolved ions in seawater, either fixed by shelled organisms or sometimes precipitated in shallow seas.
In other words, the sea is not a closed system where the ions from dissolved rocks just accumulate. There are many processes that remove the ions from solution. These materials accumulate in sediments, are lithified into rock formations thousands of feet thick, and are eroded and recycled.
And like I said before, if this has to be explained to you, you have no business taking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Here's the problem with your " there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater". The chemicals are not in equilibrium. They are still increasing. Why is that?
It really is true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Once again ringman, which chemicals are you talking about, how are they being measured, and where are they being measured. And please cite your sources. For once.
Ringman, taking the holy land back wasn't the genocide of the Lang wy doc (sp) in france by the pope. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" 6 million dualists who wouldn't bow to the Christianity. " anyone who didn't was deemed a witch.
God, being Infinite shows His Power with the universe. There are three heavens. Our atmosphere, space, and beyond is "the third heaven." Of course infinite is beyond our comprehension.
Ringman, do you still need me to explain where the "chemicals in the ocean" end up? Do you know where the salt in your salt shaker comes from?
I guess I was not clear enough. I want you to tell me why if the earth and ocean is billions of years old and chemicals have been eroding into the ocean for eons, why is it not so laden life can not exist. Try to answer that, please.
Here already did. You were just too uneducated to understand the answer.
That Christians no longer commonly practice oppression of nonbelievers is much more a matter of politics than of doctrine. Heck, plenty of Christians right here on this board regularly call for genocide of Muslims.
Yes, There's this member name jaguartx who called for that and the oppressive treatment of blacks on a regular basis. He claims to be a Christian, but it's pretty hard to tell based on his rhetoric.
Can you deny the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klan, the enslavement and murder of the Indigenous Peoples of South America, Martin of Tours destroying holy sites, temples, and consecrated trees, Marcellus of Syria destroying the temples of apposing faiths. Ancient History? How about the Srebrenika Massacre?.
I will address a couple. The Crusades were Europeans taking back their counties from the Muzzies. There were only seventeen witches killed in the United States before real Christians took control. In Europe there were hundreds. Maybe even thousands. The Inquisition was a result of some secularist taking over the Catholic Church. They were not Christians. The Klan was not and is not Christian. They were and are Democrats.
Over 100,000 "witches" killed in Germany alone, all killed by "good Christians".
Ringman, taking the holy land back wasn't the genocide of the Lang wy doc (sp) in france by the pope. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" 6 million dualists who wouldn't bow to the Christianity. " anyone who didn't was deemed a witch.
you have Charlemagne and your time frame mixed up
Even though some termed them Crusades.
I think you are referring to the Albigensian Crusade, which was Christians killing Christians over dogma.
…. ...….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
...
Which god spoke to you? I know of several Muslims who had the same experience but they said it was Allah.
It was Jesus.... I was contemplating the cross.....one of the things He said was “...if you were the only one,I would have died for you...”
No doubt.
I’ll wager that none of the Muslims you know said that. In fact, as I recall, at least one Muslim you referred to previously lied to you. Probably lying to you again.
But, you are free to doubt, disbelieve ..... remember, these are your choices.
Ringman, taking the holy land back wasn't the genocide of the Lang wy doc (sp) in france by the pope. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" 6 million dualists who wouldn't bow to the Christianity. " anyone who didn't was deemed a witch.
you have Charlemagne and your time frame mixed up
Even though some termed them Crusades.
I think you are referring to the Albigensian Crusade, which was Christians killing Christians over dogma.
yes that crusade Cathars/dualists.,
the other crusade (holy land) was establishment of trade routes and their protections, invention of banking system including letters of credit.
Pope Urban the 2nd launched the crusade with the promise that the crusaders sins would be forgiven. He promised the remission of sins. And the landowners and knights charged off to do the first crusade and they raped and pillaged their way all through Europe, all the way to Constantinople, and all the way to the Holy Land because, after all, their sins were forgiven.
…. ...….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
...
Which god spoke to you? I know of several Muslims who had the same experience but they said it was Allah.
It was Jesus.... I was contemplating the cross.....one of the things He said was “...if you were the only one,I would have died for you...”
No doubt.
I’ll wager that none of the Muslims you know said that. In fact, as I recall, at least one Muslim you referred to previously lied to you. Probably lying to you again.
But, you are free to doubt, disbelieve ..... remember, these are your choices.
So you're willing to gamble that the Muslim is wrong. Just remember it's your salvation that you are betting on.
How do you know that you weren't actually talking with the devil, and that he was working against Allah to condemn your soul to hell? Think about it, why would Jesus say that he would be wiling to die for you when he wasn't a willing participant the first time around?
Pope Urban the 2nd launched the crusade with the promise that the crusaders sins would be forgiven. He promised the remission of sins. And the landowners and knights charged off to do the first crusade and they raped and pillaged their way all through Europe, all the way to Constantinople, and all the way to the Holy Land because, after all, their sins were forgiven.
yes and crusades cost money regardless of any mantel of purity or god directed motive.
Where on earth are believers in Christ oppressors?
There are plenty of places Christians are killed and oppressed.
I think you are getting Christians mixed up with Muzzies.
How many times a day do we sound the horn for you to kneel and pray. Or drop what we are doing to kneel in the street, or forcing you to pray in church or school or making your wife wear a head covering or stoning you for crimes you do or for killing a sacred cow to eat?
What stores do we force closure of on Sunday?
Come now Jag. Can you deny the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Klan, the enslavement and murder of the Indigenous Peoples of South America, Martin of Tours destroying holy sites, temples, and consecrated trees, Marcellus of Syria destroying the temples of apposing faiths. Ancient History? How about the Srebrenika Massacre?
That Christians no longer commonly practice oppression of nonbelievers is much more a matter of politics than of doctrine. Heck, plenty of Christians right here on this board regularly call for genocide of Muslims.
Exodus 22:18 (roughly, “You will not allow a witch to live”)
…. ...….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
...
Which god spoke to you? I know of several Muslims who had the same experience but they said it was Allah.
It was Jesus.... I was contemplating the cross.....one of the things He said was “...if you were the only one,I would have died for you...”
No doubt.
I’ll wager that none of the Muslims you know said that. In fact, as I recall, at least one Muslim you referred to previously lied to you. Probably lying to you again.
But, you are free to doubt, disbelieve ..... remember, these are your choices.
So you're willing to gamble that the Muslim is wrong. Just remember it's your salvation that you are betting on.
Well, your question poses that the issue is a gamble. It is not a gamble for me.
It may be a gamble for you as you are apparently uncertain about where the truth lies.
Islam is an evil religion. It was created by Muhammad as a fanatical religion dedicated to world conquest and the imposition of a Sharia based tyranny. Christians and Jews who surrendered could live as inferiors. Others were given a choice of conversion to Islam or death.
Islam is an evil religion. It was created by Muhammad as a fanatical religion dedicated to world conquest and the imposition of a Sharia based tyranny. Christians and Jews who surrendered could live as inferiors. Others were given a choice of conversion to Islam or death.
And it's handy to ignore what evils Christianity has produced.
I don’t understand how people can deny science when it conflicts with the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible may have wise and inspired, but they had no knowledge of science and the scientific method which allows the determination of facts. It’s better to leave science to scientists and let God handle other stuff.
I never called Klan members Christians or the Crusaders. Did HE?
Otoh, if attacked by China or Russia and the US loses to them wil history books proclaim the Christians great defeat?
Are you aware of the moslems attacks on Christians on their journeys to the holy land?
If Christians routinely attacked your family on your way to the supermarket would you feel entitled to attack them back?
As far as believers taking down Jericho, they and the land was made and owned by GOD. For whatever reason (of sin) HE turned HIS ire against them and gave them over to HIS people. This nation would do well to remember those lessons in the Bible, as would people like you, before its too late.
You might look around objectively and see how far we've fallen since kicking HIM out of school.
I think we've fallen pretty darn far, even though we now have color tv and colder a/c.
The difference is that Islam is evil at the core. While Christianity was created for good and misused by evil men.
Islam had been attacking the West for 500 years before the Crusades. The Crusades were in response to Muslim attacks with the goal of regaining the holy lands for Christians. What those who criticize the Crusades don’t understand is that was how war was conducted at that time.
Ringman, the ocean is not a closed system and there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater. Both physical and biological processes The salt in your shaker was formerly dissolved in the ocean, and precipitated in shallow seas to form salt beds, some of which are hundreds and thousands of feet thick. Like the salt beds used to store radioactive waste at the WIPP site. Or the salt beds that formed salt domes beneath Louisiana and Texas. Same with the gypsum in your sheetrock, formerly calcium sulfate dissolved in seawater that precipitated in shallow seas. And all the limestone previously mentioned, as well as limestone all over the world came from dissolved ions in seawater, either fixed by shelled organisms or sometimes precipitated in shallow seas.
In other words, the sea is not a closed system where the ions from dissolved rocks just accumulate. There are many processes that remove the ions from solution. These materials accumulate in sediments, are lithified into rock formations thousands of feet thick, and are eroded and recycled.
And like I said before, if this has to be explained to you, you have no business taking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Here's the problem with your " there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater". The chemicals are not in equilibrium. They are still increasing. Why is that?
It really is true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Once again ringman, which chemicals are you talking about, how are they being measured, and where are they being measured. And please cite your sources. For once.
You discovered you lost so you try to discredit me.
I remember from other posts you want the last word. Therefore I will give you the opportunity.
…. ...….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
...
Which god spoke to you? I know of several Muslims who had the same experience but they said it was Allah.
Check out the book Jesus and Mohammed. The author came in second in a class of 6,000. He earned a pH.D. in world religions. He switched from being an Imam to Christianity. I am willing to bet he knows more than you about both spiritual leaders.
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times.
Originally Posted by antlers
And your opinion on ‘why’ that change occurred is different from that of others.
Originally Posted by DBT
It's not an opinion. History tells us that ideas and beliefs change over time.
It ‘is’ an opinion. Your opinion that the nature and character of God between the OT and NT changed due to “Greek thought and influence” differs from the opinions of others on this matter. And your opinion that that change was due to “beliefs change over time” differs from the opinions of others on this matter...especially when the time period in question was ‘just’ a few decades...from Jesus’ ministry, to the appearance of the earliest New Testament documents in the first century. Some are of the opinion that if someone will die for you...then they are ‘for’ you...and ‘that’ can certainly influence someone’s thoughts and beliefs, and lead to the change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT.
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT is there for anyone to see and read. That is not an opinion.
The bible tells us that God is eternal and unchanging, verses provided, so that is not an opinion.
So we are presented with a distinct change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT, yet we are told that god is unchanging.
There lies the problem, what the bible itself says, which is not an opinion.
Your use of 'opinion' is no more than a means of defense.
…. ...….. it was not long after that that God spoke to me… actually called me by name. Now, THAT was an experience!
...
Which god spoke to you? I know of several Muslims who had the same experience but they said it was Allah.
Check out the book Jesus and Mohammed. The author came in second in a class of 6,000. He earned a pH.D. in world religions. He switched from being an Imam to Christianity. I am willing to bet he knows more than you about both spiritual leaders.
Unbelievers only look at the physical (science) to know more. The spiritual is too hard to feel or see, having been so ignored for their eternity.
Check out the book Jesus and Mohammed. The author came in second in a class of 6,000. He earned a pH.D. in world religions. He switched from being an Imam to Christianity .
Unbelievers only look at the physical (science) to know more. The spiritual is too hard to feel or see, having been so ignored for their eternity.
What is spiritual about a PhD..?
Islam to Jesus is like switching shares from Apple to Microsoft.
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Are you aware of the moslems attacks on Christians on their journeys to the holy land?
Since Jesus is supposed to dwell in each and every christian making them a temple, what value or need is there to visit a holy land apart from the lucrative tourism dollar?
Ringman, the ocean is not a closed system and there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater. Both physical and biological processes The salt in your shaker was formerly dissolved in the ocean, and precipitated in shallow seas to form salt beds, some of which are hundreds and thousands of feet thick. Like the salt beds used to store radioactive waste at the WIPP site. Or the salt beds that formed salt domes beneath Louisiana and Texas. Same with the gypsum in your sheetrock, formerly calcium sulfate dissolved in seawater that precipitated in shallow seas. And all the limestone previously mentioned, as well as limestone all over the world came from dissolved ions in seawater, either fixed by shelled organisms or sometimes precipitated in shallow seas.
In other words, the sea is not a closed system where the ions from dissolved rocks just accumulate. There are many processes that remove the ions from solution. These materials accumulate in sediments, are lithified into rock formations thousands of feet thick, and are eroded and recycled.
And like I said before, if this has to be explained to you, you have no business taking about "chemicals in the ocean."
Here's the problem with your " there are many mechanisms that remove ions from solution in seawater". The chemicals are not in equilibrium. They are still increasing. Why is that?
It really is true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Once again ringman, which chemicals are you talking about, how are they being measured, and where are they being measured. And please cite your sources. For once.
You discovered you lost so you try to discredit me.
I remember from other posts you want the last word. Therefore I will give you the opportunity.
Ringman, that's hilarious. All I did was ask you for specifics to support your contention. If you don't have them, man up and admit it.
And answer this one--is there anything anyone could post here that would change your mind about the history of the earth?
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT is there for anyone to see and read.
Yep. And the issue all along has been ‘why’ the change. Your opinion for the change is different from my opinion for the change.
Originally Posted by DBT
So we are presented with a distinct change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT...
Yep. And the issue is ‘still’, as it has been all along, ‘why’ the change. Your opinion for the change is different from my opinion for the change.
Originally Posted by DBT
That is not an opinion.
It is an opinion.
So when you choose not to believe, the fact becomes an opinion? Is that your opinion, or are you going to say that's my opinion? That's a handy lifestyle choice to adopt.
The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT is there for anyone to see and read.
Yep. And the issue all along has been ‘why’ the change. Your opinion for the change is different from my opinion for the change.
Originally Posted by DBT
So we are presented with a distinct change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT...
Yep. And the issue is ‘still’, as it has been all along, ‘why’ the change. Your opinion for the change is different from my opinion for the change.
Originally Posted by DBT
That is not an opinion.
It is an opinion.
Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy? The contradiction is there for anyone to see and read.
There is a divide between those that actually see it as it is and those that deny it....believers who filter information through the lense of their faith.
Apologies ahead of time as I have to be brief and then sign off..... a drive-by .... sort of.
Anyway, I think it was you that made comment regarding the why of all the millennia of the dealings of God and Man. That's probably not how worded it, but I will go on as if it was.
It seems to me that Man may indeed be on some sort of stage. I would not be surprised if there are not millions if not billions of "angels" who are very interested observers of how God is dealing with Man. Seems that 1/3 of the angels rebelled and were cast out.... perhaps God is serving more than one purpose when dealing with Man. He is demonstrating His character to them in ways perhaps never done before. IDK
He is demonstrating who He is and the What and WHY of his actions. We on earth can see from one perspective and the heavenly hosts see from a different perspective. As has been noted, His ways are not our ways and His purposes are not clearly understood by us.
So, postulate that there is more going on and there is a "stage" aspect concerning the life and times of Man.
Now, switch gears for a moment..... maybe there is NOT a difference in the "nature" or "character" of God.... OT vs New Testament.
Thinks dispensations for a bit.... Scholars will characterize the Dispensation of the Law as the 5th Dispensation. A dispensation simply meaning that for a season, God dealt with Man in certain ways for certain purposes as He brings about the culmination of Creation.
The Dispensation of the Law had its purpose..... and now we are in the Dispensation of Grace. God did not change at all. He may be dealing with Man in different ways as He demonstrates who He is and what His purposes are.
For those that don't know, there is ample evidence in the Old Testament that reveals the character of God and that character as revealed in the OT is identical to what is revealed in the NT. The idea is the God does not and has not changed, but He deals with Man in different ways... the dispensations were different.... God was not different ....all leading up to Jesus' death on the cross and the Dispensation of Grace.
Anyway, a difficult subject for a Campfire post..... must be brief and that is the nature of the "Fire. Also, trying to explain dispensations to non-Christians is problematic.
Also, this will make no sense whatsoever to the non-Christians who may read it. To those I say.... do your study.
Here is a link to a introduction to Dispensational thinking and interpretation. Will only make sense to Christians.
My own view is that I have never read any discourse on Dispensations that I am really comfortable with. Many articles on dispensations end up with teachings on the Rapture and Millennial Reign that I am not sure about.
Ordering genocide and killing for sometimes trivial reasons contradicts the new testament definition of a God of love. The former is simply not compatible with the latter, not logically, not morally, not ethically.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Damn... I didnt know that.. Thats like Odin giving other smaller Gods rule over different tribes. Thor - Norway Balder - Sweden Heimdal - Denmark Tyr - Iceland
So.. Yahwe is just a sub God, given rule of a tribe. Then the Christians God, is just a sub-sub-sub God of the true God.
Yet, claiming theirs is the right one... and killing others in the name of love.
Apparently the O.T. and N.T. God is about 'free-will', Yet monotheistic control freak Jews and christians went about the countryside systematically destroying temples and shrines belonging to folks who worshiped other deities.
Clearly they were not content unless they had a theocratic monopoly on faith, by having everyone worship their brand of God under duress.
If you were to use Hebrew to communicate an indefinite period of time or a long period of time that had a beginning and an ending, what words would you use?
I'm not surprised you don't post your answer. It's always the same for those who reject God infallible Word and accept man's fallible word. [/quote]
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
1. first off, I dropped out of this thread because of some health issues (2 surgeries and 3 trips to the ER) so you can shut your smug mouth......brother. 2. My firm belief is that the Word of God is infallible and I preach from God's Infallible Word 3 times each week. So, you are wrong again. But I do hold greatly that your inflated ego is very fallible. 3. I'm not a macroevolutionist, so you are wrong again. 4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible that has quite a few unfortunate issues ( 1 they addressed 1 yr after the original printing). None of these issues, however, affect the message of the gospel; there are, though, some bad translation issues in it because they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew. 5. If I were a Hebrew, in particular if I was a very educated man named Moses, from roughly 3400-3500 years ago, I would write it in Hebrew just as it appears in the Hebrew language Bible if I wanted to express long "days". Look it up. It is readily available online. 6. You still haven't answered, as far as I know, how all that happened in one day. Not to mention how, in 1 day, Adam was created and enjoyed fellowship with God, had time to observe and name all the animals on the earth, found time to become lonely, had time to have surgery and recover from surgery in order for Eve to be fashioned by God from His rib.........and time to sleep that night. Basically, all that happened in about 12-16 hours? (at least 8 he was asleep). Or, how all the animals sprang from the earth and reproduced after their own kind multiple times in 24 hours..........I know of no mammal with a gestation period of 6 hours. * I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
7. And, again, with your answer you presume to accuse me, a very conservative Baptist preacher of being an evolutionist by staw manning me the argument "leaving no room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One." I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!!
8. I believe in the literal infallible Word of God. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Apparently the O.T. and N.T. God is about 'free-will', Yet monotheistic control freak Jews and christians went about the countryside systematically destroying temples and shrines belonging to folks who worshiped other deities.
Clearly they were not content unless they had a theocratic monopoly on faith, by having everyone worship their brand of God under duress.
The Jewish nation was a covenant nation and, therefore, judged as a nation. They were (are) a chosen people and must hold to the covenant they agreed to with God. If they didn't like the covenant, they shouldn't have agreed to it. Hebrews that came along later could choose to live under the covenant or not. But, if they wanted the blessings that came with the covenant, they they must be part of the covenant. Also, they were free to leave and go live wherever and worship whatever gods they wanted to. God didn't force them to worship Him, but outlined the blessings and/or penalties that came with the choices they made.
Now, if you want to condemn the Catholic Church for the heresies committed during the middle ages and for the Inquisition, have at it. I have no problem with that because they were wrong for it......and needed a Reformation.....lol.
* I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
As this statement applies to Ringman, you would be wrong.
No, Ant, he is espousing his own literal translation of the word "day" as being 24 hours only...... Yet, he is bringing up something "extra-biblical" to explain the literal words describing what happened on the days the plants, animals, and man were created.
He wants it literal in one place, but figurative in others. (actually, his "own definition of literal")
I hold to a literal understanding of the whole chapter. But, it's the literal Hebrew, not the literal KJV.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
The decline of society is caused by many factors, economic, market saturation, business decline leading to shortage of jobs, a sense of hoplessness, turn to drugs, steal to feed the habit, homelessness, overpopulation, social friction, race tension, class, the haves and the have nots, poor education, etc, etc....religion being only a part of the overall picture. Plus the US has a higher percentage of believers than Australia, for example, yet appears to have greater problems.
Yeah, we got a lot more suffering among people now days wearing nikes, eating rotten road kill from their fridge while watching color TV while sitting under an AC than folks did along the European coast living off the fat of the sea with their motorized fishing boats while dodging polio, the plagues, mosquitoes, tetanus, potato famines and Barbary Coast bleck slavers a thousand years ago.
We got it so bad roving bands of poor starving bleck utes scavenge for green meat and donuts through the alley dumpsters all day unless they see a chick with nice tenners and a cell phone they can attack.
Sheesh.
So much for your claims that Christianity will solve all of societies problems. More Black claim to be Christian than whites. Same for Latinos.
...today, a larger share of African Americans than whites say they are Christian. And, of all major U.S. racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the most likely to identify as Protestant.
Nearly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) identify as Christian, according to Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study. By comparison, seven-in-ten Americans overall (71%) say they are Christian, including 70% of whites, 77% of Latinos and just 34% of Asian Americans. Meanwhile, about seven-in-ten blacks are Protestant, compared with less than half of the public overall (47%), including 48% of whites, roughly a quarter of Latinos and 17% of Asian Americans.
Anybody can claim to be a Christian. The lifestyle one lives either confirms that he actually has faith or actually does not.
james 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
take a look at the list of folks that are not going to heaven (aren't born again).... Do you think 79% of black Americans ( or white Americans) are living a godly lifestyle? Hint...Hint... no.
Gal 5:19-20 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Cor 6:9-11 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Hope your health issues are much better. Do you believe that followers of Jesus are still ‘under the law’...?
thanks, but I am still not well. I go back to MD (from the 2nd surgery) in 9 days and hopefully get some good news. I've had 3 consecutive weeks of ER visits after the 2nd surgery. I missed 3 weeks in the pulpit and am likely to miss 12 weeks from my secular job. I've been able to preach the past 2 Sundays.
I'm going to assume you mean the 10 Commandments and not the Jewish covenant laws. We are definitely not under the Jewish covenant law.
As to the 10 Commandments, The answer is "yes and no".
The OT 10 Commandments are written as the "letter of the Law" and the motivation for keeping them is from obedience to escape punishment and "because God said so".
Christians are under the 2 Great Commandments given by Jesus. These 2 commandments sum up the 10 Laws into 2 Laws. And, a couple of things to point out.... (1) the motivation for keeping the law changes to love for Jesus Christ instead of just stark obedience to escape punishment. (2) If a NT believer breaks the 10 commandments, he has sinned, so, yes, the 10 Commandments are still relevant in the Age of Grace. (3) The 2 Commandments of Jesus hold us to a higher standard than the 10 Commandments actually do.
I preached a sermon a good maybe a year or so ago called "Is the Law Relevant in the Age of Grace". I could post it to you in a PM if you like.
Apparently the O.T. and N.T. God is about 'free-will', Yet monotheistic control freak Jews and christians went about the countryside systematically destroying temples and shrines belonging to folks who worshiped other deities.
Clearly they were not content unless they had a theocratic monopoly on faith, by having everyone worship their brand of God under duress.
...... ....
Now, if you want to condemn the Catholic Church for the heresies committed during the middle ages and for the Inquisition, have at it. I have no problem with that because they were wrong for it......and needed a Reformation.....lol.
Middle Ages?... try rolling the film way back to 4th century, where Martin of Tours with support of the state/Emperor went about the land in a draconian way systematically innihilating other people's choice and ways of worship.
Pastor Jimmy Evans figures from scripture saying that within the generation that Israel regained their homeland the Lord would return again. Now, as far as I can determine, from scripture, a generation is 70 to 80 years. Jimmy Evans has figured the date of Wormwood, the huge asteroid revealed in Revelation those left behind in the tribulation will have to deal with, to be Friday April 13, 2029 iirc.That will occur, evidently, after or near the end of tribulation, then the millenium of Christs rule will begin, with Satan and his minions in the dungeon in chains, and when the earth will be renewed. Now, so Jimmy subtracts 7 years of tribulation from the May 13, 2029 and that puts Christs return about May 2022.
1 Thes 5:9-11 God has not appointed us to wrath, meaning the believers will not face the tribulation. The tribulation is Gods Wrath. The age of grace will have the door closed and then begins Gods wrath, the tribulation.
Joel 3
..... Rouse the warriors! Let all the fighting men draw near and attack. 10 Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.....
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
Oh, so they are not really Scotsmen because you say they are not.
Pastor Jimmy Evans figures from scripture saying that within the generation that Israel regained their homeland the Lord would return again. Now, as far as I can determine, from scripture, a generation is 70 to 80 years. Jimmy Evans has figured the date of Wormwood, the huge asteroid revealed in Revelation those left behind in the tribulation will have to deal with, to be Friday April 13, 2029 iirc.That will occur, evidently, after or near the end of tribulation, then the millenium of Christs rule will begin, with Satan and his minions in the dungeon in chains, and when the earth will be renewed. Now, so Jimmy subtracts 7 years of tribulation from the May 13, 2029 and that puts Christs return about May 2022.
1 Thes 5:9-11 God has not appointed us to wrath, meaning the believers will not face the tribulation. The tribulation is Gods Wrath. The age of grace will have the door closed and then begins Gods wrath, the tribulation.
Joel 3
That would be cool. I wish we knew for sure, because I need to have thumb joint replacement surgery on my right thumb, I had my left one done in May and it's doing nicely. (It is the surgery I had in June that is wonky). I would not want to have that surgery done if Jesus is coming back next year because it'd be needless suffering with no payoff.
I could plainly see how this could easily happen if the democrats win this year.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
Oh, so they are not really Scotsmen because you say they are not.
Savage_Hunter, thanks for posting your response to my question. I’m often curious about the opinions that some others have regarding this matter. Heal up.
Voodoo is a religion, and includes may Catholic elements, more than you probably imagine. As for claiming to be religion, but not really being so, .....you should look in the mirror.
You got that right. Jesus' (Yeshua's) teachings which weren't new ideas at all have had so much of other belief systems stitched onto them it resembles a religious Frankenstein monster.
Interesting comment. Why would you say that Jesus’ teachings were not new ideas? I have an opinion on this, but I would like to hear your viewpoint.
Also.... you went on to say that Jesus’ teachings had “other belief systems” stitched on to them. I am wondering about that. Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
I am really busy today but I'll give you a quick answer and more later. Jesus also called Yeshua and John the Baptist taught salvation through repentance which is the theme attached to salvation from front to back Genesis to Revelation. Read it and you cannot escape that Paul contradicted Jesus. Yes he did. The Roman version of Christianity attached all kinds of Paganism to their church and most protestants retained it. Start with Easter, Christmas, infant baptism, and I could go on and on. Just read Jesus' message that survived the editing and you will understand that most Christianity does not follow him and in fact would probably kill him again if he were to come back and tell them the truth as he did to the Jewish leaders of his day. The only place for an honest man is a grave in most places in this world.
I'm sorry, but you missed a verse that totally disproves your point. Paul did indeed also preach repentance. Passionately.
He (Paul) preached that God "but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).
You can't place your faith in Christ until you have repented....... Repentance is a change of the mind, heart, and will. 1. you change your mind when you believe the gospel and that Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh and that He was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the grave. 2. you change your heart when you choose to trust Him as your Savior. 3. you change your will when you choose to obey Him as Lord.
If you haven't had that change, you cannot believe in Him.
4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible... .. they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. ...
Mostly from Latin?
My understanding of AKJV is NT was translated from Greek, OT was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic, the Apocrypha translated from the Greek and Latin.
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
... And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew.
Ive had Christians argue blue in the face that unicorns are real because their version of Bible uses that term.
Depends on how you interpret the evidence, I would think.
Lots of evidence on Evolution to interpret...study with open eyes and a critical mind.
Not so much on Creation. Closed minds reading an open book.
Hmmm. So, even if you start from the premise that God was able to create the world, he couldn't have created it in a way that appeared to have evolved? I choose not to underestimate Him.
More likely Evolution is how humans understand how God created this world we live in.
“The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that ‘if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me’.” ― Christopher Hitchens
good point. Progressive theistic creation of species. with each creation day lasting millions and millions of years, God would have a chance to create many life forms that came and went or remained.
This is actually what I feel is the answer. I'm certainly not a macroevolutionist or a young-earther.
4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible... .. they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. ...
Mostly from Latin?
My understanding of AKJV is NT was translated from Greek, OT was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic, the Apocrypha translated from the Greek and Latin.
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
... And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew.
Ive had Christians argue blue in the face that unicorns are real because their version of Bible uses that term.
1. "Mostly" may be a little strong, but They relied heavily on Latin, moreso than New American Standard. NAS is the most accurate word for word translation. 2. The understanding of Koine greek is light-years better 300 years after the KJV was put into translation. There are tons more documents to get a better understanding of word meanings in the 19th and 20th Century than in the 1600s. 3. Unicorn meant unicorn to the KJV writers. and there is no such thing. There are other errors, but I'd just make a lot of folks angry with me and call me a heretic.
Pastor Jimmy Evans figures from scripture saying that within the generation that Israel regained their homeland the Lord would return again. Now, as far as I can determine, from scripture, a generation is 70 to 80 years. Jimmy Evans has figured the date of Wormwood, the huge asteroid revealed in Revelation those left behind in the tribulation will have to deal with, to be Friday April 13, 2029 iirc.That will occur, evidently, after or near the end of tribulation, then the millenium of Christs rule will begin, with Satan and his minions in the dungeon in chains, and when the earth will be renewed. Now, so Jimmy subtracts 7 years of tribulation from the May 13, 2029 and that puts Christs return about May 2022.
1 Thes 5:9-11 God has not appointed us to wrath, meaning the believers will not face the tribulation. The tribulation is Gods Wrath. The age of grace will have the door closed and then begins Gods wrath, the tribulation.
Joel 3
That would be cool. I wish we knew for sure, because I need to have thumb joint replacement surgery on my right thumb, I had my left one done in May and it's doing nicely. (It is the surgery I had in June that is wonky). I would not want to have that surgery done if Jesus is coming back next year because it'd be needless suffering with no payoff.
I could plainly see how this could easily happen if the democrats win this year.
Well, as you know, smart asses love to say that even Jesus said He doesnt know when, before dropping it at that, forgetting to say He was referring to the day and hour and forgetting that He said you could look around and see the signs, as you can look at the buds on the fig and tell when spring approaches.
If we take Bible time as our measure, there was 2000 years from Adam to Abraham.
Then 2000 years from Abraham to Jesus Christ.
Now we are just about 2000 years since Christ was here. We know this because of the time King Herod reigned. If the Lord is getting HIS work done in 6000 years in Heaven, as He refers to possibly having done on Earth, as it is in Heaven, HE could be set to return between now and 2018.
* I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
As this statement applies to Ringman, you would be wrong.
I'd say that it was meant to be a literal account of creation. It was believed to be literal. The ancient thinkers/writers had no idea of the scope and scale of the world, yet alone the Universe.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
It's more complicated than what can be said in this forum. It is clear that the tribe of Israel borrowed ideas and beliefs from surrounding cultures and modified them in order to build their own religion and identity as a people. There is an evolution of belief on the nature of Yahweh from the early period, tribal god of war to universal creator.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
[quote=Ringman]If you were to use Hebrew to communicate an indefinite period of time or a long period of time that had a beginning and an ending, what words would you use?
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
I'm not surprised you don't post your answer. It's always the same for those who reject God infallible Word and accept man's fallible word.
I asked you a question. I expected you to answer. I wouldn't answer the question for you. How could I know what you would say?
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
I find it interesting how you claim the right to judge who is, or is not a Christian.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
It's more complicated than what can be said in this forum. It is clear that the tribe of Israel borrowed ideas and beliefs from surrounding cultures and modified them in order to build their own religion and identity as a people. There is an evolution of belief on the nature of Yahweh from the early period, tribal god of war to universal creator.
The Hebrew God wasn't invented by Moses or Abraham. He existed and was worshiped by numerous people groups prior to Abraham. Noah passed down to his sons and they passed down.
Concerning these Canaanite people groups, most of them were all related and many of those people groups worshiped "the god of Abraham" which is the same God that was God before Abraham. There were "God believers" from many people groups. The early descendants of Ishmael worshiped the same God as the Hebrews, so it would be surprising if they didn't use the same "common" name of God, "El" or "Elohim".
So, I don't know if anyone can say that the Hebrews "borrowed" these or if they simply shared them in common from a point in time and then various religions changed over time.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
Why would it be about who happens to believe this or that rather than what is true regardless of who believes this or that?
There is an undeniable change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
I find it interesting how you claim the right to judge who is, or is not a Christian.
Who do you think you are, God?
No, but I am related, albeit by adoption. I didn't determine that Marcion was a heretic, his peers in the church did. But, as I study his teachings and compare them to the Bible, he greatly contradicts the Word of God that he professed to believe and teach......... so that makes him a heretic.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
Why would it be about who happens to believe this or that rather than what is true regardless of who believes this or that?
There is an undeniable change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
It's more complicated than what can be said in this forum. It is clear that the tribe of Israel borrowed ideas and beliefs from surrounding cultures and modified them in order to build their own religion and identity as a people. There is an evolution of belief on the nature of Yahweh from the early period, tribal god of war to universal creator.
The Hebrew God wasn't invented by Moses or Abraham. He existed and was worshiped by numerous people groups prior to Abraham. Noah passed down to his sons and they passed down.
Concerning these Canaanite people groups, most of them were all related and many of those people groups worshiped "the god of Abraham" which is the same God that was God before Abraham. There were "God believers" from many people groups. The early descendants of Ishmael worshiped the same God as the Hebrews, so it would be surprising if they didn't use the same "common" name of God, "El" or "Elohim".
So, I don't know if anyone can say that the Hebrews "borrowed" these or if they simply shared them in common from a point in time and then various religions changed over time.
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Originally Posted by DBT
The evolution of Yahweh as the god of the tribe of Israel.
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' [b] Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
It's more complicated than what can be said in this forum. It is clear that the tribe of Israel borrowed ideas and beliefs from surrounding cultures and modified them in order to build their own religion and identity as a people. There is an evolution of belief on the nature of Yahweh from the early period, tribal god of war to universal creator.
The Hebrew God wasn't invented by Moses or Abraham. He existed and was worshiped by numerous people groups prior to Abraham. Noah passed down to his sons and they passed down.
Concerning these Canaanite people groups, most of them were all related and many of those people groups worshiped "the god of Abraham" which is the same God that was God before Abraham. There were "God believers" from many people groups. The early descendants of Ishmael worshiped the same God as the Hebrews, so it would be surprising if they didn't use the same "common" name of God, "El" or "Elohim".
So, I don't know if anyone can say that the Hebrews "borrowed" these or if they simply shared them in common from a point in time and then various religions changed over time.
We only have the words of Hebrew writers to tell us that their god exists.
Other people believed in other gods. Before the tribe of Israel formed their theology, there was no belief in the God of Abraham.
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
to be fair, many or most of those convert to "Theistic evolutionists".
''Although the Bible, and specifically the Book of Exodus, presents Yahweh as the god of the Israelites, there are many passages which make clear that this deity was also worshipped by other peoples in Canaan. Amzallag notes that the Edomites, Kenites, Moabites, and Midianites all worshipped Yahweh to one degree or another and that there is evidence the Edomites who operated the mines at Timnah converted an earlier Egyptian temple of Hathor to the worship of Yahweh.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity).
The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel’s development in Canaan.'' Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon
''The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel’ (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:
When the Most High [El] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god. Yahweh, as the actual name of the supreme being, seems to have remained in use until the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. ''
Most people have a misunderstanding about the names of God. God utilizes progressive revelation. IOW, As you travel thru the centuries, God is revealing Himself more and more fully and in various situations until the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ.
The reason "Yahweh" is not found in Genesis, is because God had not yet revealed Himself as Yahweh until God spoke to Moses at the Burning Bush episode. He revealed that He would deliver Israel, but they must become "His people" under the covenant.
Exodus 6 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he will let them go, and [b]under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.” 2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; 3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.
Yahweh is the covenant Name of God. Prior to that, He was know as El or Elohim and the many compound names found throughout the Bible.
It's more complicated than what can be said in this forum. It is clear that the tribe of Israel borrowed ideas and beliefs from surrounding cultures and modified them in order to build their own religion and identity as a people. There is an evolution of belief on the nature of Yahweh from the early period, tribal god of war to universal creator.
The Hebrew God wasn't invented by Moses or Abraham. He existed and was worshiped by numerous people groups prior to Abraham. Noah passed down to his sons and they passed down.
Concerning these Canaanite people groups, most of them were all related and many of those people groups worshiped "the god of Abraham" which is the same God that was God before Abraham. There were "God believers" from many people groups. The early descendants of Ishmael worshiped the same God as the Hebrews, so it would be surprising if they didn't use the same "common" name of God, "El" or "Elohim".
So, I don't know if anyone can say that the Hebrews "borrowed" these or if they simply shared them in common from a point in time and then various religions changed over time.
The way you talk about Noah, it appears you hold a literal interpretation of the flood story.
We DO know that the earth is billions of years old. Radioactive decay and half-lives are FACTS. They can be proven over and over again. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are FACTS. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods are FACTS. The logic of the quack pseudoscientific creation ‘scientists’...or rather the lack of it...on this matter is like them saying ‘there is no proof’ that linear accelerators work in treating cancer. Or that ‘there is no proof’ that controlled nuclear fission can produce usable energy, etc. Science makes their lives better and easier, every single day. From the clean water that they routinely have piped into their home, to the safe and plentiful food that they routinely consume, to the reliable transportation that they routinely depend on, etc.. ALL of it is due to science. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they give Sunday school answers and explanations and rebuttals to real world questions and discussions. In my opinion, these people discredit Christianity when they demand things are a certain way, even though we have FACTUAL evidence otherwise. I see no problem with believing in God...and in particular trying to follow Jesus’ teachings...while at the same time understanding FACTS and TRUTHS regarding the world in which we live. In my opinion, these people clearly have a problem doing that.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
- St. Augustine 354 – 430 AD
thank you for posting that. It was on my to-do list.
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
1. first off, I dropped out of this thread because of some health issues (2 surgeries and 3 trips to the ER) so you can shut your smug mouth......brother. 2. My firm belief is that the Word of God is infallible and I preach from God's Infallible Word 3 times each week. So, you are wrong again. But I do hold greatly that your inflated ego is very fallible. 3. I'm not a macroevolutionist, so you are wrong again. 4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible that has quite a few unfortunate issues ( 1 they addressed 1 yr after the original printing). None of these issues, however, affect the message of the gospel; there are, though, some bad translation issues in it because they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew. 5. If I were a Hebrew, in particular if I was a very educated man named Moses, from roughly 3400-3500 years ago, I would write it in Hebrew just as it appears in the Hebrew language Bible if I wanted to express long "days". Look it up. It is readily available online. 6. You still haven't answered, as far as I know, how all that happened in one day. Not to mention how, in 1 day, Adam was created and enjoyed fellowship with God, had time to observe and name all the animals on the earth, found time to become lonely, had time to have surgery and recover from surgery in order for Eve to be fashioned by God from His rib.........and time to sleep that night. Basically, all that happened in about 12-16 hours? (at least 8 he was asleep). Or, how all the animals sprang from the earth and reproduced after their own kind multiple times in 24 hours..........I know of no mammal with a gestation period of 6 hours. * I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
7. And, again, with your answer you presume to accuse me, a very conservative Baptist preacher of being an evolutionist by staw manning me the argument "leaving no room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One." I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!!
8. I believe in the literal infallible Word of God. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sorry about your ailments. Adam sinned and God cursed the entire universe. You continue to display a lack of beleif in Infinte. In Psalms we read (I paraphrase), "God spoke and it stood..." I am sorry to hear you have a Master of Divinity Degree. What I have seen in every case except one is arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness. To answer your question #6 see "God spoke..." Many times in Genesis 1 He says, "And God said.... and it was..." God does not need time, we do. You add to God's Word when you posted Adam became lonely. God's Word actually says, "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone..."
How long does it take Infinite to put His creature to sleep? How long does it take Infinte to take a rib from him and heal him? (See Jesus' miracles.) How long does it take Infinite to create the woman from that rib? The answer....drum roll.... quicker than I typed this.
Adam didn't have to name all the animal that are available today. He named the original created kinds.
And unlike you, I believe the Words in Gensis are to be understood as communicating literal historical events in regular solar days established in Genesis 1:14.
You've formulated it like this before, and have already been corrected. Once again, evolution is, scientifically speaking, the prevailing theory of biodiversity. In ordinary parlance, however, it's also a fact, since it's as well established a theory as is scientifically possible.
If evolutionism is so strong, why is it every year Ph.D. evolutionist convert to creationism? It's because both sides use the same evidence and eventually some of the scientists get over their brain washing.
to be fair, many or most of those convert to "Theistic evolutionists".
Dayom. Im just trying to find out whether its possible for GOD to have let some die and restored them to life again to tell us of the wonders or misery they experienced.
Darn. Unreal. Just as i was asking you guys that, something i have wondered for years, HE revealed the answer to me. I do know the story of the rich man who died and wanted to come back and warn his brother.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
Why would it be about who happens to believe this or that rather than what is true regardless of who believes this or that?
There is an undeniable change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT.
actually, no.
It's there for anyone to see, Yahweh being described as a god of war in the OT and a God of Love in the NT.
The two are simply not compatible. Not logically. Not ethically. Not conceptually.
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
God destroys the wicked with Death as final punishment.. [ as in dead for eternity]...OK, so where does eternal torment in flames fit in..?
You kill someone then torture /torment them forever after that.. 🤔
Originally Posted by WhiteTail48
“Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched.” Mark 9:43
“Where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark 9:44
Hellfire is mentioned in Mark 9:47
The O.T. does not describe hell/hades as being flame filled eternal torment, so I take it to be a N.T. christian cult ploy /construct to frighten people into believing.
or did God give hell a total make over?
It seems that Christian doctrine is not compatible with Judaism.
That's what Marcion thought. He didn't see how it was possible the God of the OT and NT were the same God.
of course, Marcion was a heretic, not a believer, so I wouldn't put much stake in what he believed.
Why would it be about who happens to believe this or that rather than what is true regardless of who believes this or that?
There is an undeniable change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT.
actually, no.
It's there for anyone to see, Yahweh being described as a god of war in the OT and a God of Love in the NT.
The two are simply not compatible. Not logically. Not ethically. Not conceptually.
yet..... Jeremiah 31:3 The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness. Matt 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "
And, no, salvation was not garnered by keeping the 10 Commandments in the OT. OT saints and NT saints are each saved by faith, so the method of salvation did not change.
God is not merely a God of Justice/Judgement in the OT and a God of Grace/Mercy in the NT. The Justice/Judgement and grace/mercy of God are demonstrated in the OT and NT. I can give you numerous examples of grace in the OT and Judgement in the NT.
God has not changed, but if you don't want to take my word for it, take His..... Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
1. first off, I dropped out of this thread because of some health issues (2 surgeries and 3 trips to the ER) so you can shut your smug mouth......brother. 2. My firm belief is that the Word of God is infallible and I preach from God's Infallible Word 3 times each week. So, you are wrong again. But I do hold greatly that your inflated ego is very fallible. 3. I'm not a macroevolutionist, so you are wrong again. 4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible that has quite a few unfortunate issues ( 1 they addressed 1 yr after the original printing). None of these issues, however, affect the message of the gospel; there are, though, some bad translation issues in it because they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew. 5. If I were a Hebrew, in particular if I was a very educated man named Moses, from roughly 3400-3500 years ago, I would write it in Hebrew just as it appears in the Hebrew language Bible if I wanted to express long "days". Look it up. It is readily available online. 6. You still haven't answered, as far as I know, how all that happened in one day. Not to mention how, in 1 day, Adam was created and enjoyed fellowship with God, had time to observe and name all the animals on the earth, found time to become lonely, had time to have surgery and recover from surgery in order for Eve to be fashioned by God from His rib.........and time to sleep that night. Basically, all that happened in about 12-16 hours? (at least 8 he was asleep). Or, how all the animals sprang from the earth and reproduced after their own kind multiple times in 24 hours..........I know of no mammal with a gestation period of 6 hours. * I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
7. And, again, with your answer you presume to accuse me, a very conservative Baptist preacher of being an evolutionist by staw manning me the argument "leaving no room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One." I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!!
8. I believe in the literal infallible Word of God. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sorry about your ailments. Adam sinned and God cursed the entire universe. You continue to display a lack of beleif in Infinte. In Psalms we read (I paraphrase), "God spoke and it stood..." I am sorry to hear you have a Master of Divinity Degree. What I have seen in every case except one is arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness. To answer your question #6 see "God spoke..." Many times in Genesis 1 He says, "And God said.... and it was..." God does not need time, we do. You add to God's Word when you posted Adam became lonely. God's Word actually says, "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone..."
How long does it take Infinite to put His creature to sleep? How long does it take Infinte to take a rib from him and heal him? (See Jesus' miracles.) How long does it take Infinite to create the woman from that rib? The answer....drum roll.... quicker than I typed this.
Adam didn't have to name all the animal that are available today. He named the original created kinds.
And unlike you, I believe the Words in Gensis are to be understood as communicating literal historical events in regular solar days established in Genesis 1:14.
You are such a strawman telling me (falsely) what I believe. I believe the Bible is the Inspired and innerrent Word of God and it is communicating literal historical events. I can't help it if you don't understand that "yom" in Hebrew does not necessarily mean 24 hours. I can't help it that your wrong assertion of the Hebrew words translated as morning and evening could also mean beginning of one time period and ending of another time period. You believe what you believe and that is fine, but only a jerk would continue to wrongly state things that I neither believe nor have I stated as though I do/have.
On these days, I'm Not talking about how long it takes God......\
How long did it take Adam to observe and name all of the animals? If he took 2 minutes to observe each one and then give them a descriptive name? how many animals, birds, reptiles, insects at 2 minutes each? how long would that take?
Your smugness about me displaying a lack of belief in Infinite is so misplaced just because I don't hold the same (wrong) viewpoint you possess. Your automatic assumption that a Master of Divinity Degree produces arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness merely shows your ignorance. You talk a lot but understand not for that which you speak. God's Word told me to study to show myself approved, so I went to Seminary. Are you suggesting that I should come sit on your couch and learn from you, the Master? How much Hebrew can you teach me? And, for your information, I went to a conservative school and my professors were conservative and my pastor is/was conservative. In fact, my pastor was a young earther and chided me for my beliefs. We had to agree to disagree when I showed him all the times his "24 hour day" term was used in the Bible to mean longer time periods and the times mornings and evenings were translated different. My "old earth" views come from studying Scripture and original languages, not from someone force feeding me or from my own preconcieved notions.
You are the one adding to the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God created the earth "to appear old". Nowhere does it say He sped up the seed/plant growth cycle, the gestation cycle of animals, etc to fit your interpretation of how all of those things happened in a 24 hour day. This is your explanation and it is not supported by verse. But why would God use a ruse to fool us anyway?
Do a little research and word study of the word "yom" in the Bible and see how many times it means something other than 24 hours.
sorry, stepped away to eat supper and watch "The Stalking Moon" with my wife. (Gregory Peck movie) And, it's now time for bed.
But to answer your question, the Hebrew words "adamah" and "erets" can mean mean either ground, land, region, or the whole earth. I can see where some would believe that it was a regional flood and I can see how some would believe it is a worldwide flood.
But, as I read Genesis 6-7, I believe it is the whole earth.
If that makes you want to make fun of me, feel free, lol, I likely deserve some ribbing....... Maybe Ringman will let me go to heaven for believing in a literal worldwide flood.
sorry, stepped away to eat supper and watch "The Stalking Moon" with my wife. (Gregory Peck movie) And, it's now time for bed.
But to answer your question, the Hebrew words "adamah" and "erets" can mean mean either ground, land, region, or the whole earth. I can see where some would believe that it was a regional flood and I can see how some would believe it is a worldwide flood.
But, as I read Genesis 6-7, I believe it is the whole earth.
If that makes you want to make fun of me, feel free, lol, I likely deserve some ribbing....... Maybe Ringman will let me go to heaven for believing in a literal worldwide flood.
SH, thanks for academic, and honest response.
The reason I asked I'm just trying to peg your location on the spectrum of beliefs disconnected from reality due to religion.
So far I have you at, Micro, but no macro evolution, Literal world wide flood, but days in Genesis are not literal, so you are not necessarily a young earth creationist. Please correct me where I'm wrong regarding your beliefs.
Based on your understanding of reality, how old is the earth, and how old is the local presentation of this Universe?
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
1. first off, I dropped out of this thread because of some health issues (2 surgeries and 3 trips to the ER) so you can shut your smug mouth......brother. 2. My firm belief is that the Word of God is infallible and I preach from God's Infallible Word 3 times each week. So, you are wrong again. But I do hold greatly that your inflated ego is very fallible. 3. I'm not a macroevolutionist, so you are wrong again. 4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible that has quite a few unfortunate issues ( 1 they addressed 1 yr after the original printing). None of these issues, however, affect the message of the gospel; there are, though, some bad translation issues in it because they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew. 5. If I were a Hebrew, in particular if I was a very educated man named Moses, from roughly 3400-3500 years ago, I would write it in Hebrew just as it appears in the Hebrew language Bible if I wanted to express long "days". Look it up. It is readily available online. 6. You still haven't answered, as far as I know, how all that happened in one day. Not to mention how, in 1 day, Adam was created and enjoyed fellowship with God, had time to observe and name all the animals on the earth, found time to become lonely, had time to have surgery and recover from surgery in order for Eve to be fashioned by God from His rib.........and time to sleep that night. Basically, all that happened in about 12-16 hours? (at least 8 he was asleep). Or, how all the animals sprang from the earth and reproduced after their own kind multiple times in 24 hours..........I know of no mammal with a gestation period of 6 hours. * I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
7. And, again, with your answer you presume to accuse me, a very conservative Baptist preacher of being an evolutionist by staw manning me the argument "leaving no room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One." I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!!
8. I believe in the literal infallible Word of God. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sorry about your ailments. Adam sinned and God cursed the entire universe. You continue to display a lack of beleif in Infinte. In Psalms we read (I paraphrase), "God spoke and it stood..." I am sorry to hear you have a Master of Divinity Degree. What I have seen in every case except one is arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness. To answer your question #6 see "God spoke..." Many times in Genesis 1 He says, "And God said.... and it was..." God does not need time, we do. You add to God's Word when you posted Adam became lonely. God's Word actually says, "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone..."
How long does it take Infinite to put His creature to sleep? How long does it take Infinte to take a rib from him and heal him? (See Jesus' miracles.) How long does it take Infinite to create the woman from that rib? The answer....drum roll.... quicker than I typed this.
Adam didn't have to name all the animal that are available today. He named the original created kinds.
And unlike you, I believe the Words in Gensis are to be understood as communicating literal historical events in regular solar days established in Genesis 1:14.
You are such a strawman telling me (falsely) what I believe. I believe the Bible is the Inspired and innerrent Word of God and it is communicating literal historical events. I can't help it if you don't understand that "yom" in Hebrew does not necessarily mean 24 hours. I can't help it that your wrong assertion of the Hebrew words translated as morning and evening could also mean beginning of one time period and ending of another time period. You believe what you believe and that is fine, but only a jerk would continue to wrongly state things that I neither believe nor have I stated as though I do/have.
On these days, I'm Not talking about how long it takes God......\
How long did it take Adam to observe and name all of the animals? If he took 2 minutes to observe each one and then give them a descriptive name? how many animals, birds, reptiles, insects at 2 minutes each? how long would that take?
Your smugness about me displaying a lack of belief in Infinite is so misplaced just because I don't hold the same (wrong) viewpoint you possess. Your automatic assumption that a Master of Divinity Degree produces arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness merely shows your ignorance. You talk a lot but understand not for that which you speak. God's Word told me to study to show myself approved, so I went to Seminary. Are you suggesting that I should come sit on your couch and learn from you, the Master? How much Hebrew can you teach me? And, for your information, I went to a conservative school and my professors were conservative and my pastor is/was conservative. In fact, my pastor was a young earther and chided me for my beliefs. We had to agree to disagree when I showed him all the times his "24 hour day" term was used in the Bible to mean longer time periods and the times mornings and evenings were translated different. My "old earth" views come from studying Scripture and original languages, not from someone force feeding me or from my own preconcieved notions.
You are the one adding to the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God created the earth "to appear old". Nowhere does it say He sped up the seed/plant growth cycle, the gestation cycle of animals, etc to fit your interpretation of how all of those things happened in a 24 hour day. This is your explanation and it is not supported by verse. But why would God use a ruse to fool us anyway?
Do a little research and word study of the word "yom" in the Bible and see how many times it means something other than 24 hours.
Do you believe God wrote The Ten Commandments? What does He mean in six days He made everything?
sorry, stepped away to eat supper and watch "The Stalking Moon" with my wife. (Gregory Peck movie) And, it's now time for bed.
But to answer your question, the Hebrew words "adamah" and "erets" can mean mean either ground, land, region, or the whole earth. I can see where some would believe that it was a regional flood and I can see how some would believe it is a worldwide flood.
But, as I read Genesis 6-7, I believe it is the whole earth.
If that makes you want to make fun of me, feel free, lol, I likely deserve some ribbing....... Maybe Ringman will let me go to heaven for believing in a literal worldwide flood.
SH, thanks for academic, and honest response.
The reason I asked I'm just trying to peg your location on the spectrum of beliefs disconnected from reality due to religion.
So far I have you at, Micro, but no macro evolution, Literal world wide flood, but days in Genesis are not literal, so you are not necessarily a young earth creationist. Please correct me where I'm wrong regarding your beliefs.
Based on your understanding of reality, how old is the earth, and how old is the local presentation of this Universe?
I am a Christian that has the equivalent of a masters in biology, chemistry, and pharmaceutics. I also have a masters of theology. In a debate I could intelligently argue as a young earthier, an old earther, a theistic evolutionists, or regular evolutionist and you would be unable to guess which I was.
My beliefs. Old (ancient) earther. Definitely not young earth. I’d find it easier to believe in theistic evolution than a young earth model. But I will repeat that I am not a proponent of theistic evolution. Divine creation. Progressive creation over billions of years. Creation began many billions of years ago. Worldwide flood.
I am very conservative. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Man’s interpretations of it, however, are not necessarily. I believe in a literal reading of scripture except in the rare places where it is obvious it is figurative.
I believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and the only way to be saved. Salvation comes via repentance, faith, and lordship. You can’t have one without the other two.
I believe young earthers were/are so eager to disprove evolutionists that they backed themselves into a ridiculous position that the Bible does not demand or even support and they make the Christian message in the Bible appear foolish.
The early church was not young earthers.
I believe the KJV only crowd are pretty silly at times. I have actually known people that would not donate to my mission trips to help buy bibles to take to China unless the were Chinese kjv bibles. How ignorant!!!!
I believe in a pretribulation rapture and that revelation can be understood in a figurative language but literal sense. Further, it is not talking about 1st century events but future eschatological events. Jesus will literally return and destroy the beast and his followers and set up His millennial kingdom.
I believe that all believers will be judged and rewarded at the bema seat of Christ and the lost of all the ages will be judged at the great white throne.
I believe every knee will eventually bow and confess that Jesus Christ is lord after all. But it will be too late for the lost.
I don’t believe the Bible is a science book but I believe there is a lot of good science in it that was sctually ahead of its time.
Most young earthers don’t like discussing creation with me and some stupidly question my salvation because they know kjv but have no understanding of Hebrew. Admittedly I am not an expert though but I do know how to study it.
Hope that helps. Btw, I know you and I don’t agree, but I have no reservations about talking with you.
Do you believe God wrote The Ten Commandments? What does He mean in six days He made everything?
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
Gen 1:9-13 9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
So, in a 24 hr stretch of time..... 1. God caused dry land to appear. 2. God caused plants to grow (actually sprout from the earth, so it began as a seed...... not a mature plant) 3. The seed sprouted and grew to maturity. 4. The mature plants produced new seeds and/or fruits. 5. Multiple generations grew and covered the earth.
All of that in 24 hours?
If you understood Infinite Intelligent Energy you would not ask such a limited question. This sure does not leave room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One.
1. first off, I dropped out of this thread because of some health issues (2 surgeries and 3 trips to the ER) so you can shut your smug mouth......brother. 2. My firm belief is that the Word of God is infallible and I preach from God's Infallible Word 3 times each week. So, you are wrong again. But I do hold greatly that your inflated ego is very fallible. 3. I'm not a macroevolutionist, so you are wrong again. 4. I have a Master of Divinity Degree, so I don't have to depend on the KJV Bible that has quite a few unfortunate issues ( 1 they addressed 1 yr after the original printing). None of these issues, however, affect the message of the gospel; there are, though, some bad translation issues in it because they mostly translated from Latin, which would make it a translation from a translation instead of mostly relying on the original Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Hebrew. They also translated often from classical Greek instead of Koine quite a few times. And, they inserted names of fairytale animals that never existed because they did not understand the Greek word for the animal in the Hebrew. 5. If I were a Hebrew, in particular if I was a very educated man named Moses, from roughly 3400-3500 years ago, I would write it in Hebrew just as it appears in the Hebrew language Bible if I wanted to express long "days". Look it up. It is readily available online. 6. You still haven't answered, as far as I know, how all that happened in one day. Not to mention how, in 1 day, Adam was created and enjoyed fellowship with God, had time to observe and name all the animals on the earth, found time to become lonely, had time to have surgery and recover from surgery in order for Eve to be fashioned by God from His rib.........and time to sleep that night. Basically, all that happened in about 12-16 hours? (at least 8 he was asleep). Or, how all the animals sprang from the earth and reproduced after their own kind multiple times in 24 hours..........I know of no mammal with a gestation period of 6 hours. * I don't think you believe that the wording of Genesis 1 is literal. Only the couple of words that you want to be your version of literal.
7. And, again, with your answer you presume to accuse me, a very conservative Baptist preacher of being an evolutionist by staw manning me the argument "leaving no room for water life to produce land life. There is no compatibility with evolution and Genesis One." I AM NOT AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MACROEVOLUTION!!!!!!
8. I believe in the literal infallible Word of God. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Sorry about your ailments. Adam sinned and God cursed the entire universe. You continue to display a lack of beleif in Infinte. In Psalms we read (I paraphrase), "God spoke and it stood..." I am sorry to hear you have a Master of Divinity Degree. What I have seen in every case except one is arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness. To answer your question #6 see "God spoke..." Many times in Genesis 1 He says, "And God said.... and it was..." God does not need time, we do. You add to God's Word when you posted Adam became lonely. God's Word actually says, "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone..."
How long does it take Infinite to put His creature to sleep? How long does it take Infinte to take a rib from him and heal him? (See Jesus' miracles.) How long does it take Infinite to create the woman from that rib? The answer....drum roll.... quicker than I typed this.
Adam didn't have to name all the animal that are available today. He named the original created kinds.
And unlike you, I believe the Words in Gensis are to be understood as communicating literal historical events in regular solar days established in Genesis 1:14.
You are such a strawman telling me (falsely) what I believe. I believe the Bible is the Inspired and innerrent Word of God and it is communicating literal historical events. I can't help it if you don't understand that "yom" in Hebrew does not necessarily mean 24 hours. I can't help it that your wrong assertion of the Hebrew words translated as morning and evening could also mean beginning of one time period and ending of another time period. You believe what you believe and that is fine, but only a jerk would continue to wrongly state things that I neither believe nor have I stated as though I do/have.
On these days, I'm Not talking about how long it takes God......\
How long did it take Adam to observe and name all of the animals? If he took 2 minutes to observe each one and then give them a descriptive name? how many animals, birds, reptiles, insects at 2 minutes each? how long would that take?
Your smugness about me displaying a lack of belief in Infinite is so misplaced just because I don't hold the same (wrong) viewpoint you possess. Your automatic assumption that a Master of Divinity Degree produces arrogance and rejection of God's Infiniteness merely shows your ignorance. You talk a lot but understand not for that which you speak. God's Word told me to study to show myself approved, so I went to Seminary. Are you suggesting that I should come sit on your couch and learn from you, the Master? How much Hebrew can you teach me? And, for your information, I went to a conservative school and my professors were conservative and my pastor is/was conservative. In fact, my pastor was a young earther and chided me for my beliefs. We had to agree to disagree when I showed him all the times his "24 hour day" term was used in the Bible to mean longer time periods and the times mornings and evenings were translated different. My "old earth" views come from studying Scripture and original languages, not from someone force feeding me or from my own preconcieved notions.
You are the one adding to the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that God created the earth "to appear old". Nowhere does it say He sped up the seed/plant growth cycle, the gestation cycle of animals, etc to fit your interpretation of how all of those things happened in a 24 hour day. This is your explanation and it is not supported by verse. But why would God use a ruse to fool us anyway?
Do a little research and word study of the word "yom" in the Bible and see how many times it means something other than 24 hours.
Do you believe God wrote The Ten Commandments? What does He mean in six days He made everything?
yet..... Jeremiah 31:3 The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness. Matt 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "
And, no, salvation was not garnered by keeping the 10 Commandments in the OT. OT saints and NT saints are each saved by faith, so the method of salvation did not change.
God is not merely a God of Justice/Judgement in the OT and a God of Grace/Mercy in the NT. The Justice/Judgement and grace/mercy of God are demonstrated in the OT and NT. I can give you numerous examples of grace in the OT and Judgement in the NT.
God has not changed, but if you don't want to take my word for it, take His..... Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Sure there are verses that speak of love and verses that describe Yahweh as a god of war, but there is a marked shift in the new testament toward love, tolerance and 'love your enemies' which is not the tone of the OT.
God is love. - 1 John 4:8
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' - 1 Corinthians 13;
As opposed to;
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
''The Lord is a man of war'' - Exodus 15:3.
"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies." - Isaiah 42:13
Do you think the average reader can depend on 1 John 2:27? We are told the Holy Spirit will guide us so that we don't need a teacher.
If teachers weren’t necessary the spiritual gift of teaching wouldn’t be necessary. So I would say that if Holy Spirit gifted people to teach they need to be teaching. And those that need knowledge should submit themselves to their pastor/teacher.
I believe young earthers were/are so eager to disprove evolutionists that they backed themselves into a ridiculous position that the Bible does not demand or even support and they make the Christian message in the Bible appear foolish.
1. type in the word "love" in the search and read the passages in the OT that show God's love.... then do the same with "grace" and "mercy". 2. Next, type in the word "wrath" and read the verses in the NT that deal with the wrath of God and the wrath of the Lamb.
I think it will open your eyes to the fact that God has not changed.
I believe young earthers were/are so eager to disprove evolutionists that they backed themselves into a ridiculous position that the Bible does not demand or even support and they make the Christian message in the Bible appear foolish.
Bingo!
It’s easy for some people to love their religion more than they do the people for whom the religion was given. And they even sometimes end up hurting people with the religion that was given for people, and they wonder why people don’t want to get involved with their religion. So many people give up on religion or give up on church because they ran into some church people...some religious people...who seemed to love their religion or their church more than they loved them...! And they accept zero responsibility in the matter.
and that is one of the reasons we find the church in the mess that it's in today.
Yet there is dispute between pastors on matters of theology.
which is why the Bible demands that Christians study Scripture to make sure that a teacher's message does not contradict Scripture.
Then what's the point of teachers?
People are predisposed to either perceive the truth (the message of salvation) rightly or falsely. Beyond childhood, folks don't need a human teacher (in the sense of someone with authority over what's right to believe), per se, on these matters.
It’s easy for some people to love their religion more than they do the people for whom the religion was given. And they even sometimes end up hurting people with the religion that was given for people, and they wonder why people don’t want to get involved with their religion. So many people give up on religion or give up on church because they ran into some church people...some religious people...who seemed to love their religion or their church more than they loved them...! And they accept zero responsibility in the matter.
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
And that is one of the reasons we find the church in the mess that it's in today.
People see right through it. And consequently they want nothing to do with it. And I can’t blame em’.
Yet there is dispute between pastors on matters of theology.
which is why the Bible demands that Christians study Scripture to make sure that a teacher's message does not contradict Scripture.
Then what's the point of teachers?
People are predisposed to either perceive the truth (the message of salvation) rightly or falsely, and beyond childhood, don't need a human teacher, per se.
Scripture says that teachers are to teach the Word. Believers are to listen, but to "fact check" their message with Scripture to make sure their message is true. Paul commended the Bereans for doing just that.
I'm a pastor, but there are other teachers I listen to, but I don't automatically believe everything that anyone says. If it contradicts Scripture, I will discount it.
Teaching/Preaching is the exercise of taking God's Word and applying its principles to today's world in an effort to inspire, exhort, reprove, warn, and enlighten believers. The job of the teacher is to lift the Words of Scripture off the pages of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the heart and mind of the believer/hearer.
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
- John 10:14-16
not arguing, hawkeye, just sharing what the Bible says about the duties of the teacher and the responsibilities of the listener.
I'll be leaving in about an hour to go do my teaching gig at church, but I tell my congregation to fact check me in their own Bible study time.
But, again, if God didn't think believers needed teachers, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have gifted people to teach.
“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
- John 10:14-16
not arguing, hawkeye, just sharing what the Bible says about the duties of the teacher and the responsibilities of the listener.
I'll be leaving in about an hour to go do my teaching gig at church, but I tell my congregation to fact check me in their own Bible study time.
But, again, if God didn't think believers needed teachers, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have gifted people to teach.
later.
But those in the sheepfold can perceive which are false (wolves in sheep's clothing) and which are true teachers.
Why would it be about who happens to believe this or that rather than what is true regardless of who believes this or that?
There is an undeniable change in the nature and character of God between the OT and NT.
actually, no.
Excelent answer! [/quote]
——————————
I NEVER wrote that, Ringman, and you know it. Your good buddy, DBT wrote both of the above.
Ringman, are you that confused or just that devious?
A few pages back, DBT wrote: “ It has nothing to do with opinion, mine or anyone who reads the bible objectively. The change in the nature and character of God between the OT and the NT is quite evident and has been noted from early times. There are verses in the OT, as I'm sue you know, that state 'god of war' and a creator of trouble and strife. I don't make that up, it is there for anyone to see.”
The living God I worship has an unchanging nature, always has, always will.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I do not change.
Psalms 102:25-27 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish but you will remain. They will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the SAME and your years have no end.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Our living God is unchangeable, sure, and steadfast.
Yet there is dispute between pastors on matters of theology.
which is why the Bible demands that Christians study Scripture to make sure that a teacher's message does not contradict Scripture.
Then what's the point of teachers?
People are predisposed to either perceive the truth (the message of salvation) rightly or falsely. Beyond childhood, folks don't need a human teacher (in the sense of someone with authority over what's right to believe), per se, on these matters.
Yet there is dispute between pastors on matters of theology.
which is why the Bible demands that Christians study Scripture to make sure that a teacher's message does not contradict Scripture.
Then what's the point of teachers?
People are predisposed to either perceive the truth (the message of salvation) rightly or falsely, and beyond childhood, don't need a human teacher, per se.
Scripture says that teachers are to teach the Word. Believers are to listen, but to "fact check" their message with Scripture to make sure their message is true. Paul commended the Bereans for doing just that.
I'm a pastor, but there are other teachers I listen to, but I don't automatically believe everything that anyone says. If it contradicts Scripture, I will discount it.
Teaching/Preaching is the exercise of taking God's Word and applying its principles to today's world in an effort to inspire, exhort, reprove, warn, and enlighten believers. The job of the teacher is to lift the Words of Scripture off the pages of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the heart and mind of the believer/hearer.
You can't help but contradict yourself almost everytime you post. You choose falible men's opinion over God's clear Word.
Yet there is dispute between pastors on matters of theology.
which is why the Bible demands that Christians study Scripture to make sure that a teacher's message does not contradict Scripture.
Then what's the point of teachers?
People are predisposed to either perceive the truth (the message of salvation) rightly or falsely, and beyond childhood, don't need a human teacher, per se.
Scripture says that teachers are to teach the Word. Believers are to listen, but to "fact check" their message with Scripture to make sure their message is true. Paul commended the Bereans for doing just that.
I'm a pastor, but there are other teachers I listen to, but I don't automatically believe everything that anyone says. If it contradicts Scripture, I will discount it.
Teaching/Preaching is the exercise of taking God's Word and applying its principles to today's world in an effort to inspire, exhort, reprove, warn, and enlighten believers. The job of the teacher is to lift the Words of Scripture off the pages of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the heart and mind of the believer/hearer.
You can't help but contradict yourself almost everytime you post. You choose falible men's opinion over God's clear Word.
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
..It’s easy for some people to love their religion more than they do the people for whom the religion was given. And they even sometimes end up hurting people with the religion that was given for people, and they wonder why people don’t want to get involved with their religion. So many people give up on religion or give up on church because they ran into some church people...some religious people...who seemed to love their religion or their church more than they loved them...! And they accept zero responsibility in the matter.
and that is one of the reasons we find the church in the mess that it's in today.
The church was well and truelly a serious mess by the time of Constantine. Christians were fueding- bordering on civil war over differences of opinion concerning Jesus.
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
It’s easy for some people to love their religion more than they do the people for whom the religion was given. And they even sometimes end up hurting people with the religion that was given for people, and they wonder why people don’t want to get involved with their religion. So many people give up on religion or give up on church because they ran into some church people...some religious people...who seemed to love their religion or their church more than they loved them...! And they accept zero responsibility in the matter.
Originally Posted by Savage_Hunter
And that is one of the reasons we find the church in the mess that it's in today.
People see right through it. And consequently they want nothing to do with it. And I can’t blame em’.
Many love and worship their church or religion more than HE or HIS word. So sad.
I was appalled once when watching the previous pope on TV when he said "You must worship the church". Unreal.
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
Go back and review if you like.
I posted early on this thread that turning this into New vs Old Testament debate has been done before.
You are right that they lived in violent times, but that is no excuse for claiming that God told them to commit genocide.
“Wrath of God” is central and interwoven in Biblical teachings. There is a awful lot of that in the Bible.
And this is not prophecy nor foretelling: Exodus 12:29-30: At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
Go back and review if you like.
I posted early on this thread that turning this into New vs Old Testament debate has been done before.
You are right that they lived in violent times, but that is no excuse for claiming that God told them to commit genocide.
“Wrath of God” is central and interwoven in Biblical teachings. There is a awful lot of that in the Bible.
And this is not prophecy nor foretelling: Exodus 12:29-30: At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Re: Psalm 137:9....Do you think that God told ”them” to commit genocide?
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
Revelation 6:16 and they *said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
Revelation 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
Revelation 14:19 So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God.
Revelation 15:7 Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever.
Revelation 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath.
Revelation 19:15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.
Colossians 3:6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
1. type in the word "love" in the search and read the passages in the OT that show God's love.... then do the same with "grace" and "mercy". 2. Next, type in the word "wrath" and read the verses in the NT that deal with the wrath of God and the wrath of the Lamb.
I think it will open your eyes to the fact that God has not changed.
That doesnt resolve the problem that is being presented by descriptions of Love, a God of Love on the one hand and a god of war on the other.
The two descriptions are not compatible. You can't be a man of war, a warrior, and a man of peace, refusing to kill or participate in war at the same time without contradiction or hypocrisy.
Self defense is of course a different issue, ie, being compelled against your better nature.
God as an absolute power, omnipotent, is not compelled to act against his own nature.
The contradiction between a God of Love and a god of war is recorded in the bible.
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
Go back and review if you like.
I posted early on this thread that turning this into New vs Old Testament debate has been done before.
You are right that they lived in violent times, but that is no excuse for claiming that God told them to commit genocide.
“Wrath of God” is central and interwoven in Biblical teachings. There is a awful lot of that in the Bible.
And this is not prophecy nor foretelling: Exodus 12:29-30: At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Re: Psalm 137:9....Do you think that God told ”them” to commit genocide?
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
Go back and review if you like.
I posted early on this thread that turning this into New vs Old Testament debate has been done before.
You are right that they lived in violent times, but that is no excuse for claiming that God told them to commit genocide.
“Wrath of God” is central and interwoven in Biblical teachings. There is a awful lot of that in the Bible.
And this is not prophecy nor foretelling: Exodus 12:29-30: At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Re: Psalm 137:9....Do you think that God told ”them” to commit genocide?
If not God...then who?
Been quite awhile since I looked at this, but.....
My view is that an oppressed people, people who had been victimized by Babylon for a loooong time...finally conquered .....And those who were victorious..... not the the Jewish people.... rejoiced in their victory and were “happy” in their vengeance.
Think for a moment..... can one come up with similar situations and circumstances in the last 120 years?
I once shared a hospital room with an old Australian who had been involved with fighting the Japanese. He still hated them and was pretty well ok with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This is likely a simple foretelling of Babylon’s ruin.
You seem to be assuming that God told them to do the evil deeds. Why would one conclude that?
Do a word study on love in the OT. It will surprise you
Also do a study on Jesus and his judgement and wrath. It will greatly surprise you.
Wrath in the New Testament is a pale shadow compared to wrath in the Old Testament.
Psalm 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We went through this before. You must have missed it. As I recall that discussion..... This is a prophecy.... a foretelling .... Of the fall and subsequent destruction of Babylon. When an oppressed people have victory over a hated enemy..... as was common in those days, they get atrociously violent. “Happy are they who,,,,”. This is the result of warfare and violent times. They were indeed “happy” in their vengeance.
Your implication that it is “wrath” of God is simply in error. It is a description of event that were to come....
Go back and review if you like.
I posted early on this thread that turning this into New vs Old Testament debate has been done before.
You are right that they lived in violent times, but that is no excuse for claiming that God told them to commit genocide.
“Wrath of God” is central and interwoven in Biblical teachings. There is a awful lot of that in the Bible.
And this is not prophecy nor foretelling: Exodus 12:29-30: At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Re: Psalm 137:9....Do you think that God told ”them” to commit genocide?
If not God...then who?
Been quite awhile since I looked at this, but.....
My view is that an oppressed people, people who had been victimized by Babylon for a loooong time...finally conquered .....And those who were victorious..... not the the Jewish people.... rejoiced in their victory and were “happy” in their vengeance.
Think for a moment..... can one come up with similar situations and circumstances in the last 120 years?
I once shared a hospital room with an old Australian who had been involved with fighting the Japanese. He still hated them and was pretty well ok with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This is likely a simple foretelling of Babylon’s ruin.
You seem to be assuming that God told them to do the evil deeds. Why would one conclude that?
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Jesus gives us a new ethic. The OT law is no longer the moral compass. The old covenant itself has been fulfilled and ended...the entire system of laws that defined the relationship with God and His people, is no longer in effect. God gave us something better in Jesus.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Gen Westmoreland had a similar idea about China, iirc.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
There are numerous commentaries on the why and wherefores of 1 Samuel 15. They are easy to discover, but I fear they will make no sense to you.
I once heard a most brief explanation of the Old Testament, went something like this: God really hates sin, He will not allow sin “in the camp.” He is serious about sin and will not allow it in Heaven. But, He loves and has made a way for us to be with Him. One cannot read the Old Testament and conclude that “sin” is not a serious matter before God. There is indeed judgment and wrath against sin.
Also, please note Proverbs 16:2.
“All the ways of a man are clean and innocent in his own eyes (and he may see nothing wrong with his actions), But the Lord weighs and examines the motives and intents (of the heart and knows the truth)”
The OT and the Law relieve us of this error.......
I've been busy today. Concerning evolution, Jesus vs Paul, works vs faith, hell, whether or not Jesus was God, and salvation, have we come to a consensus? I'm not posing this question to the atheists or agnostics. We believers have to get our business straight first or they are understandably going to stand off and make fun of us. Once we get straight maybe we can then get about the task of saving them.
HE said all men are liars. Ive found that to be the case also. I didnt say you were the only one. All men are liars, not GOD.
Book it. Sorry you dont like it or agree with it.
Come on, tell us another lie and say you never lied.
I made no claims that are not written in the bible. I provided quotes to back everything that I said. I merely pointed out what the bible describes about the nature of love and the nature of its god. They are not my words or my claims. If there is a lie, it has nothing to do with what I said. It is there for anyone to see and read. It's undeniable.
I've been busy today. Concerning evolution, Jesus vs Paul, works vs faith, hell, whether or not Jesus was God, and salvation, have we come to a consensus? I'm not posing this question to the atheists or agnostics. We believers have to get our business straight first or they are understandably going to stand off and make fun of us. Once we get straight maybe we can then get about the task of saving them.
Hard to afaic with the way HE put things in the Bible by speaking in parables.
In fact, HE said the churches should all be in agreement. I dont see how unless the Bible were to consist of only one verse 3:16.
I dont even see how HE could expect different takes on it. I dont see how HE coulf be serious about it.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted.
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts" is not the word of God?
I don't think so either, but there are some very religious people in my family that are going to be quite surprised to hear that.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted.
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts" is not the word of God?
I don't think so either, but there are some very religious people in my family that are going to be quite surprised to hear that.
I am not sure you understand. If one of the gospels records what the Pharisees said to Jesus, do you understand that God is not being quoted....Jesus is not being quoted.... the words of the Pharisees are being recorded?
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted. javascript:quickReply(15065930,1,0)
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts" is not the word of God?
I don't think so either, but there are some very religious people in my family that are going to be quite surprised to hear that.
I am not sure you understand. If one of the gospels records what the Pharisees said to Jesus, do you understand that God is not being quoted....Jesus is not being quoted.... the words of the Pharisees are being recorded?
I am very sure you do not understand who the "Lord of Hosts" is when he is being quoted.
I've been busy today. Concerning evolution, Jesus vs Paul, works vs faith, hell, whether or not Jesus was God, and salvation, have we come to a consensus? I'm not posing this question to the atheists or agnostics. We believers have to get our business straight first or they are understandably going to stand off and make fun of us. Once we get straight maybe we can then get about the task of saving them.
you keep saying that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus. That Paul said repentance was unnecessary. Yet I gave you a specific verse where Paul preached that everyone must repent.
you are like a democrat that keeps stating wrong things often enough so that people will start to believe it.
Paul preached repentance just as John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, and all the apostles preached.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted. javascript:quickReply(15065930,1,0)
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts" is not the word of God?
I don't think so either, but there are some very religious people in my family that are going to be quite surprised to hear that.
I am not sure you understand. If one of the gospels records what the Pharisees said to Jesus, do you understand that God is not being quoted....Jesus is not being quoted.... the words of the Pharisees are being recorded?
I am very sure you do not understand who the "Lord of Hosts" is when he is being quoted.
I've been busy today. Concerning evolution, Jesus vs Paul, works vs faith, hell, whether or not Jesus was God, and salvation, have we come to a consensus? I'm not posing this question to the atheists or agnostics. We believers have to get our business straight first or they are understandably going to stand off and make fun of us. Once we get straight maybe we can then get about the task of saving them.
This seems to be have a parallel in the political world. The Democrats (non-believers) contribute nothing towards solving political (moral) problems, while the Republicans (believers) dicker among themselves as to how to practically address the political (moral) issues of the day. With no united front against the Democrats, the Republicans lose much of their potential effectiveness. Likewise with Christians. There is at minimum a conservative wing of Christianity and a moderate wing, and it is difficult to iron out those differences. That does not mean that both wings are completely wrong.
I am assuming that the Bible is quoting God who told them to do those evil deeds... Samuel 15:3 ESV Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
Well, no, assuming that the Bible always quotes God is not right. I have read Jewish writings that use passages from Job to support certain of their theologies. Interestingly, they use quotes from Job’s friends.... clearly not from God. The use statements from Job’s friends .... it is not God speaking nor being quoted. javascript:quickReply(15065930,1,0)
"Thus says the Lord of Hosts" is not the word of God?
I don't think so either, but there are some very religious people in my family that are going to be quite surprised to hear that.
I am not sure you understand. If one of the gospels records what the Pharisees said to Jesus, do you understand that God is not being quoted....Jesus is not being quoted.... the words of the Pharisees are being recorded?
I am very sure you do not understand who the "Lord of Hosts" is when he is being quoted.
Once again, you would be wrong.
I still get amused when we see presumably non-Christians doing their own peculiar brand of biblical interpretation.
But, at least you are here and do step into the batter’s box.
You really don't understand that it is OK for God to order genocide? OK as long as someone else gives the order or does the bidding? Just fine if the Lord of Hosts is not God? And somehow he is allowed to do something that God would not do himself?
Here's a question for Bible believers. In what state of imaturity or maturity were Adam and Eve created?
Adam was born like you or I. Adam's species was created by the command of God, "Let the waters bring forth every creature that hath life." Then God separated Adam from amongst other members of his species, breathed a soul into him, and made Eve from his rib.
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."
Eve could have started as a zygote or a fully mature young woman. The Bible doesn't say. What is your speculation on that?
Here's a question for Bible believers. In what state of imaturity or maturity were Adam and Eve created?
Adam was born like you or I. Adam's species was created by the command of God, "Let the waters bring forth every creature that hath life." Then God separated Adam from amongst other members of his species, breathed a soul into him, and made Eve from his rib.
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."
Eve could have started as a zygote or a fully mature young woman. The Bible doesn't say. What is your speculation on that?
I don't speculate. I take God at His Word. He created Adam mature and later made Eve mature from his rib. After all God told them to be fruitful and multiply. Did God mean eighteen or twenty years later?
I expect this is correct. And then Lucifer, the most beautiful angel, who was as charming and magnificent and wonderful as when he comes again and decieves many of the men on earth, took her and beguiled her. And satans seed was begotten in her long pain of birthing Cain and Able.
Take care, friends, and tell your children, if you're here when he comes and decieves most again, with his beauty and seeming perfection and, as others are already doing among us, performing of miracles and claiming to be the son of man, the Father, that you pinch yourself and know, that if you feel that pain, that its him, and he really isnt HIM.
You really don't understand that it is OK for God to order genocide? OK as long as someone else gives the order or does the bidding? Just fine if the Lord of Hosts is not God? And somehow he is allowed to do something that God would not do himself?
God Forbid.
I am trying to see if you understand that just because “words” were spoken and recorded in the Bible.... that those words may not be words, teachings or directives from God.
If you cannot read Psalm 137:9 and see that it is prophecy and not a directive then you have a need of further study and skill.
Edit to add: there is difference between a prophecy.... a foretelling of future events... and a directive from God.
Exodus 12:29-30 ESV At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
Exodus 12:29-30 ESV At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians. And there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.
You are avoiding the issue.
Let me put it to you again..... do you believe that Psalm 137:9 is a directive from God? If so, to whom was it directed?
I think there’s a lotta stuff we’re not gonna know on this side of heaven. The Bible tells us nuthin’ about certain things we might be curious about, and it’s inconclusive about others. We disagree with one another on a lot, but many of us agree with one another on a lot too...especially on the main tenets of the faith. Different people see certain aspects of things differently, whether it’s politics, economics, or religion. Conservatives do NOT agree on all aspects of politics, and economists do NOT agree on all aspects of the economy. Big deal. So what. Not a problem.
People in the churches and social groups don't accept the clear teaching of God's Word. Adam sinned and God reacted by cursing the intire universe at that time. 1,656 years later God told Noah, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land...." Later God told Abraham He was going to destroy Sodam and Gamorah. Later God told General Joshua to kill every man, woman, child, and their pets and livestock because they anoyed God. Somehow death glorifies God. Remember Jesus told Peter what kind of death he would experience to glorify God. Later God tells us He will send a consumming fire on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The God of the Bible is NOT the Sunday school or catechism god we were taught about as kids. He does genocide!
People in the churches and social groups don't accept the clear teaching of God's Word. Adam sinned and God reacted by cursing the intire universe at that time. 1,656 years later God told Noah, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land...." Later God told Abraham He was going to destroy Sodam and Gamorah. Later God told General Joshua to kill every man, woman, child, and their pets and livestock because they anoyed God. Somehow death glorifies God. Remember Jesus told Peter what kind of death he would experience to glorify God. Later God tells us He will send a consumming fire on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The God of the Bible is NOT the Sunday school or catechism god we were taught about as kids. He does genocide!
Yes, indeed, a god of war in the old testament tranformed into a god of Love in the new testament. Two different versions of 'god' - and there lies the contradiction.
You really don't understand that it is OK for God to order genocide? OK as long as someone else gives the order or does the bidding? Just fine if the Lord of Hosts is not God? And somehow he is allowed to do something that God would not do himself?
God Forbid.
I am trying to see if you understand that just because “words” were spoken and recorded in the Bible.... that those words may not be words, teachings or directives from God.
If you cannot read Psalm 137:9 and see that it is prophecy and not a directive then you have a need of further study and skill.
Edit to add: there is difference between a prophecy.... a foretelling of future events... and a directive from God.
It is one of those Psalms where the Jews are asking God to kick some butt. Do some of that genocide he is always talking about.
You have yet to explain how something that has already happened last night at midnight is a prophecy.
Here is another one that is not prophecy: Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.
I think there’s a lotta stuff we’re not gonna know on this side of heaven. The Bible tells us nuthin’ about certain things we might be curious about, and it’s inconclusive about others. We disagree with one another on a lot, but many of us agree with one another on a lot too...especially on the main tenets of the faith. Different people see certain aspects of things differently, whether it’s politics, economics, or religion. Conservatives do NOT agree on all aspects of politics, and economists do NOT agree on all aspects of the economy. Big deal. So what. Not a problem.
Amen. In fact, no one but HE understands everything correctly in the Bible except HE, least no one will boast.
So intillegently and all encompassingly written it may purposefully mean and be truth to one person and still be correct truth to someone else who has a different interpretation or understanding.
You really don't understand that it is OK for God to order genocide? OK as long as someone else gives the order or does the bidding? Just fine if the Lord of Hosts is not God? And somehow he is allowed to do something that God would not do himself?
God Forbid.
I am trying to see if you understand that just because “words” were spoken and recorded in the Bible.... that those words may not be words, teachings or directives from God.
If you cannot read Psalm 137:9 and see that it is prophecy and not a directive then you have a need of further study and skill.
Edit to add: there is difference between a prophecy.... a foretelling of future events... and a directive from God.
It is one of those Psalms where the Jews are asking God to kick some butt. Do some of that genocide he is always talking about.
You have yet to explain how something that has already happened last night at midnight is a prophecy.
Here is another one that is not prophecy: Genesis 19:24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.
As I surmised. You don’t have a good understanding of what a “prophecy” is and you are also unable to discern the difference between a prophecy and a command or directive from God.
No wonder you understand very little. However, you are still hanging in there and I applaud that.
You really don't understand that it is OK for God to order genocide? OK as long as someone else gives the order or does the bidding? Just fine if the Lord of Hosts is not God? And somehow he is allowed to do something that God would not do himself?
God Forbid.
I am trying to see if you understand that just because “words” were spoken and recorded in the Bible.... that those words may not be words, teachings or directives from God.
If you cannot read Psalm 137:9 and see that it is prophecy and not a directive then you have a need of further study and skill.
Edit to add: there is difference between a prophecy.... a foretelling of future events... and a directive from God.
It is one of those Psalms where the Jews are asking God to kick some butt. Do some of that genocide he is always talking about.
Rather like some conservatives are wanting for lieberals from Trump, and Jews wanted from their savior for Bablyon.
Sorry Doc, I'm not smart enough to keep up with the quick Bible quotes. I'm simple. my Faith is simple. I bore you folks with my simple belief.
ahhem, Sin separates man from God, the wages of sin is death, God loves us all, God does not like that.
The only "fix" was for God to come down on earth in human form. Tell it like it is, for His "reward", He was scorned, and crusified on a rude Cross to pay for the sins of all the world.
I can not think of a better Christmas present, can anyone?
Sorry Doc, I'm not smart enough to keep up with the quick Bible quotes. I'm simple. my Faith is simple. I bore you folks with my simple belief.
ahhem, Sin separates man from God, the wages of sin is death, God loves us all, God does not like that.
The only "fix" was for God to come down on earth in human form. Tell it like it is, for His "reward", He was scorned, and crusified on a rude Cross to pay for the sins of all the world.
I can not think of a better Christmas present, can anyone?
You and me both, pal. I know a few scriptures and wish i was a Bible concept genius like TF and Ringman.
This extra long thread has taken a turn for the better.
I was starting to think that maybe the thread could be relabelled:
"So, which of the 4000+ religions do you theists believe in?"
You know, it is amazing isnt it, how atheists never start a thread asking such? You could get a great thread asking your like minded buds to ask each other about how stupid so many scriptures are, and even quoting them. I expect Starman would be like a hog in a wallow of slop, amazing and thrilling some like you?
Hey, i have an idea. Go for it. Ask Rick if he will allow it? Thanks for the idea 9mm. You go bro. Good luck.
To me, one thing matters, take The Lord God Jesus into your heart, our hearts, take Him up on the greatest bargain in the world. How He suffered to pay for the sins we enjoy. Not just the physical pain, the mental anguish of enduring dyeing that we might live.
Amazing isnt it how HIS word is simple enough for guys like you and me, mere children in the message HE gives and yet it provides us with enough meat for salvation while stimulating deeper reserch, investigating, knowledge and discoveries for those with more infinite mental capacity.
It answers the question i had as a kid as to why my grandmother never tired of reading what to me was a boring book. She was seeing new revelations and drawing more knowledge with each reading.
Indeed, Faith starts like a mustard seed, then grows.
Faith has produced 4000+ religions.
How many based on the Bible?
My comment was made in reference to the nature of faith. As with every religion that has ever been believed, every version of God or gods worshiped, the bible is a product of faith,.
There's a book that says all other gods are false, Christians can't prove such claim, just like they can't prove a virgin birth, Water into wine, walking on water or a cadaver coming to life and flying into the clouds..
But if you say it enough times it makes it true, just like telling kids about Santa, soon they all start believing in flying Reindeer pulling a sleigh.
Amazing isnt it how HIS word is simple enough for guys like you and me, mere children in the message HE gives and yet it provides us with enough meat for salvation while stimulating deeper reserch, investigating, knowledge and discoveries for those with more infinite mental capacity.
It answers the question i had as a kid as to why my grandmother never tired of reading what to me was a boring book. She was seeing new revelations and drawing more knowledge with each reading.
If we had Word directly from Him rather than old scrolls written by anonymous authors there would be far more clarity and very little, if any, dispute.
DBT, The CF has members that claim God has actually spoken to them.
They should be able to tell readers what kind of accent he has,.. middle eastern like? ... or like in Paramount pictures Ten Commandments.?
I tend to rank such alongside sceptical claims of having seen Jesus, virgin Mary, etc.
Sadly, it's been proven the old men on the CF can't even recall what they said or did last year, yet they go about telling what happened 2000- 3000 yrs ago, based on primitive oral hand me down fables scant on detail and differing in accounts by unknown authors and varyingly translated from foreign languages of antiquity. *** Knowing what humans are like when it comes to agenda driven story telling, it's reasonable to say the christian narrative is based in large part on a formula of conjecture/supposition, exaggeration, superstition and just pure fiction inserted over two millenia.