I think you had better study some Greek, both the Greek in which the NT was written, and something of the current philosophies of the time. Then you might have a better understanding of what Paul was referring to here.
It's not the natural laws by which God governs the universe.
Well, you are certainly free to believe that. I don't.
Oh, that is really a stretch. Unfortunately, people of many beliefs have justified atrocities in God's name. All too many of them have been Christian. But as many or more of them denied science as supported it. In fact, studies show that on average, atheists are less violent and less prone to kill people for their beliefs than theists of any stripe are. That just data, not me promoting atheism.
Yes, and that is pretty much my point. Men have, since the beginning, worked to deny the reality of God and who He is by their great wisdom. You probably use a much looser definition of 'christian' than I do. To me, a 'christian' is one who follows the teachings of Christ. So, while some of those involved in these events that we are discussing surely self-identified themselves as 'christians', I'm not so convinced that God ever counted them among those who followed the teachings of His Son. When I read Jesus' words to his disciples about the day of judgment in which many will be crying out to him, "Lord, Lord. Did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons?" I'm fairly confident that those people who are crying out, when they lived upon the earth, identified themselves as 'christians'. The problem is that Jesus seems to hold a different understanding than they had about what it meant to follow him.
I'm sure that your data is probably correct. Atheists don't really have anything to defend. We're all nothing and will be nothing and nothing follows. What's to defend in that. I have always agreed that many who emblazon the name 'christian' over their heads are a murderous lot, but the question above still stands. Are they 'christians' as Jesus defines 'christian', or are they 'christians' as they define 'christian'. We all lie to ourselves and most often think the best of ourselves and believe that what we believe is the truth. Is it? I'm not particularly swayed by statistics that say a body of people who self-identify as 'christians' are more murderous than atheists. I just don't agree that such people are 'christians'.
When the pope in the days of the inquisitions were approving of murdering heretics, I don't define them as 'christians'. Yes, if you were to have asked them they would certainly say they were, but a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. So, if by their actions they were showing bad fruit, then they weren't good trees to start with.
That's true. And I do think that the more we learn of the world, whether it is its age, its composition, the details of biological phenomena, the interconnections of food webs, all sorts of things, it does show God's glory more and more and more. I don't believe at all in the value of ignorance.
Well, personally I value wisdom over knowledge and would rather be ignorant and wise than knowledgeable without wisdom.
Same here. I just don't think we should insert an "instantly" that is not in scripture anyway. I can see God enunciating the divine Fiat and the material world responding through whatever period of time it needs to accomplish God's will. After all, scripture also tells us God is patient.
I will allow you the right to insert or not insert as you see fit.
No, men, and women, don't say it isn't true. They say it isn't intended to be a literal number. The scriptures are filled with many symbolic numbers, and a good many students of scripture considered the number of days to be one of them millennia before any one could begin to measure the age of the earth. It didn't take knowledge of science to come to that conclusion. Science just corroborates the long-standing view that the creation story of Genesis 1 is much more like a hymn of praise to the Creator than a literal description of the event of creation. There are good symbolic reasons for the choice of one week as the time-frame of creation. And no need to insist on literal days, much less a particular number of years which is not mentioned in scripture at all.
Yes, that's what men and women say. Yes, the Scriptures are full of many symbolic numbers. Yes, if we believe science than that is what we must believe about the Genesis account. Fortunately, I don't suffer that problem.
BTW, are you sure God created the earth primarily to sustain human beings? According to scripture God created humans to sustain what he had created.
Yes, absolutely! And no, God did not create man to 'sustain' what He had created. He asked man to care for that which He created. It is sustained by Him.
Do you know how arrogant that sounds? Who are you to make judgments of people honoured for centuries as great men (& women) of God? This is what excessive skepticism comes to: complete solecism.
I'm just a person the same as you with the freedom to make decisions about others and their actions the same as you. So, you think it bad manners on my part to make judgments concerning what long dead people have believed and taught. You are free to think that.
The correct pronoun is "herself". I thought you knew that Ted.
Oh, we may have discussed your gender in some time past, but I'm old, I forget. Please accept my apologies. It wasn't written to offend. The legends don't tell us anymore about one's gender and so I just usually accept the male pronouns if I don't know which I'm responding to. Thanks for the correction.
No, you are in agreement with those who have interpreted scripture for you and given you a way to understand it. I just think your teachers were wrong and (probably inadvertently) misled you. You might try some of your skepticism on them. Why, really why, should we default to a literal interpretation of scripture at any point? And even if there are passages where a literal interpretation is justified, why is it justified in Genesis 1? I know of no satisfactory answer to that question.