Biblical Creationism and Self Deceit

[Givemeareason]

Watch the video. Where do you think Jones is wrong? Big Bang has some serious trouble with the evidence which is why it needs so many fudge factors to make the math work.

Whether the Big Bang is right or wrong has no relevance. All that is relevant is whether your idea of creation is capable of being supported. Again therein lies the deceit.

 

[Givemeareason]

True, true.
From what I've seen of the creationist's, they correctly understand that "evolution" did not occur, that God created each organism intact at every turn. Which is scriptural. But... as you have displayed, they become fanatically polarized into the topic of a seven 24 hour day creation, because of a blind faith and ignorance of the meaning of a "day" in scriptures.

The old earth folk, such as myself, who know that God created the heavens and the earth over billions of years, who then also recognize the specific 6 days then rest creation, has a deeper meaning and isn't meant to convey 24 hour periods. That is just religious fanaticism.
As much fanaticism as the evolutionists perform for us in their ridiculous non-empirical assumptions that every organism spontaneously morphed into a different species, and that it all came to be by chance. Which, is of course, so obviously false, then the "short time creationists" go wild and then crazy overboard the other way, because the evolutionists are so obviously blinded and deceived by their own religious unfounded zeal.

I have laughed at the derision on both sides of this silly argument for so long, it is so pointless...

Do you believe the Bible is the literal inspired word of God? It sounds that you dont.

 

[Smidlee]

Whether the Big Bang is right or wrong has no relevance. All that is relevant is whether your idea of creation is capable of being supported. Again therein lies the deceit.

If scientist have no trouble believing in their supernatural events I have no trouble believing the scriptures. I think Jones as a scientist did a good job supporting his creation view. I find a lot of evidence that supports creation.

 

[Givemeareason]

If scientist have no trouble believing in their supernatural events I have no trouble believing the scriptures. I think Jones as a scientist did a good job supporting his creation view.

You are admitting you have no evidence for your supposed theory. Why do you keep trying to switch the topic then?

 

[Smidlee]

You are admitting you have no evidence for your supposed theory. Why do you keep trying to switch the topic then?

Where did I write there is no evidence that support creation? That's your claim not mine.

 

[Givemeareason]

You are switching the topic again. We are discussing your idea that you propose to be a theory. Did I not quote you the first two verses you are trying to prove?

 

[Givemeareason]

The point of this thread was to illustrate the sin of pride and how it ties into self deceit. Many people, Christians included, observe what is commonly viewed as self rightiousness amongst other Christians. The promotion of biblical Creationism is an example of that.

 

[Winepress777]

Do you believe the Bible is the literal inspired word of God? It sounds that you dont.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, of course it is. We would have nothing without it.
But "literal"? That appears to be a key word in your question... I prefer these statements as to what I believe concerning the Word of God. The word you used, "literal", is at best, an ambiguous term injected by man. To loosely or generally state the word "literal", and then attempt to apply that term to a self proclaimed book of parables and proverbs and mysteries, is not my style. But I see it is the style of a lot of those Christians who believe in six twenty four hour days of creation. That isn't in the Bible. Six days, then seven, yes. But not twenty four hour periods, of course not. No true Bible student would say that. On the same difference, the evolutionists would never say that organisms morph from one specie to another except for on the same blind faith basis, except without a God to do it. Anyway, here is my take on scriptures;

(2Ti 3:15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


(Heb 4:12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Understanding scriptures will remove the stumbling blocks for both the arguing groups at odds with each other I think.

 

[Givemeareason]

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, of course it is. We would have nothing without it.
But "literal"? That appears to be a key word in your question... I prefer these statements as to what I believe concerning the Word of God. The word you used, "literal", is at best, an ambiguous term injected by man. To loosely or generally state the word "literal", and then attempt to apply that term to a self proclaimed book of parables and proverbs and mysteries, is not my style. But I see it is the style of a lot of those Christians who believe in six twenty four hour days of creation. That isn't in the Bible. Six days, then seven, yes. But not twenty four hour periods, of course not. No true Bible student would say that. On the same difference, the evolutionists would never say that organisms morph from one specie to another except for on the same blind faith basis, except without a God to do it. Anyway, here is my take on scriptures;

(2Ti 3:15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


(Heb 4:12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Understanding scriptures will remove the stumbling blocks for both the arguing groups at odds with each other I think.

Good answer. I see you are then a Theistic Evolutionist rather than a creationist. I respect your view however the problem we both have is that Christianity is being misrepresented by Creationists who are involved with deceitful arguments. It makes Christianity look bad as a result.

 

[Winepress777]

Good answer. I see you are then a Theistic Evolutionist rather than a creationist. I respect your view however the problem we both have is that Christianity is being misrepresented by Creationists who are involved with deceitful arguments. It makes Christianity look bad as a result.

I'm not an evolutionist in any sense of the word that I know of. Nothing morphed from one species into another. So a title like that means nothing in it's misrepresentation using that word. God created each and every organism. Specifically. And placed or re-placed it into the environment. Simple. That is creation, always has been "creation". No "evolution" involved. The only thing I'm aware that I find some Christians differ on, is that many seem to enjoy compressing all of the fossil record into seven 24 hours days, then making themselves look silly arguing that as "intelligent design" loL!

 

[Givemeareason]

I'm not an evolutionist in any sense of the word that I know of. Nothing morphed from one species into another. So a title like that means nothing in it's misrepresentation using that word. God created each and every organism. Specifically. And placed or re-placed it into the environment. Simple. That is creation, always has been "creation". No "evolution" involved. The only thing I'm aware that I find some Christians differ on, is that many seem to enjoy compressing all of the fossil record into seven 24 hours days, then making themselves look silly arguing that as "intelligent design" loL!

Theistic evolutionists tend to subscribe to either the day-age theory or the framework theory, both of which are allegorical interpretations of theGenesis 1creation week. Young earth creationists subscribe to a literal 24-hour day as they readGenesis 1.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html#ixzz3eNNzWzgc

Is that not a description if your belief?

 

[Givemeareason]

Evolution is a scientific concept within the field of science. Creationism is just a belief system and it is being employed in deceitful and destructive ways. It misleads many Christians and makes Christianity look bad. It should be discredited and allowed to wither and die.

 

[Winepress777]

Here are the two "theistic evolutionist" positions your link shows;

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

The first paragraph is obviously wrong.

And in the second paragraph, this part...

He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in.

...is obviously wrong also.

So I guess not.

 

[Givemeareason]

Here are the two "theistic evolutionist" positions your link shows;

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

The first paragraph is obviously wrong.

And in the second paragraph, this part...

He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in.

...is obviously wrong also.

So I guess not.

Since theistic evolution is just a belief system I am sure it can come in many forms. You are at least an adherent to one of its forms. Each of our beliefs has to be reconciled with reality to some extent or there would be no basis for believing them.

 

[Winepress777]

Since theistic evolution is just a belief system I am sure it can come in many forms. You are at least an adherent to one of its forms. Each of our beliefs has to be reconciled with reality to some extent or there would be no basis for believing them.

Fortunately, the reality of belief isn't in finding a pre-formed statement to "adhere" to It's being revealed that reality, by the Word of God, and empirical evidence. All other statements some man might put together seem to only be for packaging and presenting an argument. In an earlier post on this thread, my post exclaimed the worthlessness of this topic other than carnal head bashing. We should be out ministering to the lost, bringing them to Christ, rather than trying to prove creationism against atheists, a worthless endeavor at the very best.

 

[Givemeareason]

Fortunately, the reality of belief isn't in finding a pre-formed statement to "adhere" to It's being revealed that reality, by the Word of God, and empirical evidence. All other statements some man might put together seem to only be for packaging and presenting an argument. In an earlier post on this thread, my post exclaimed the worthlessness of this topic other than carnal head bashing. We should be out ministering to the lost, bringing them to Christ, rather than trying to prove creationism against atheists, a worthless endeavor at the very best.

I strongly disagree. It is not an either or. And it is not a matter of trying to prove creationism against atheists. It is a matter of elevating the view of Christianity in the world and a matter of eliminating a deceitful lie from Christianity such that Christians don't become disillusioned when they find out what Creationism is really promoting.

 

[Winepress777]

I strongly disagree. It is not an either or. And it is not a matter of trying to prove creationism against atheists. It is a matter of elevating the view of Christianity in the world and a matter of eliminating a deceitful lie from Christianity such that Christians don't become disillusioned when they find out what Creationism is really promoting.

How do you, as an agnostic, possibly think you have a position to elevate a Christian's view on Anything? Seriously... The fact that you think this topic is more important than the Gospel proves otherwise.
The only folk I speak to about this topic, are one's who get swept up in it because of someone else's bothersome views being pushed. I counsel to move back away from Everybody who is fanatical on this worthless topic. If I determine that person has mental and spiritual wherewithal, I'll go into details to show them what the Creation Story is all about. And I can assure you, it has nothing to do with the age of the planet, or how creatures came about.

 

[Givemeareason]

How do you, as an agnostic, possibly think you have a position to elevate a Christian's view on Anything? Seriously... The fact that you think this topic is more important than the Gospel proves otherwise.
The only folk I speak to about this topic, are one's who get swept up in it because of someone else's bothersome views being pushed. I counsel to move back away from Everybody who is fanatical on this worthless topic. If I determine that person has mental and spiritual wherewithal, I'll go into details to show them what the Creation Story is all about. And I can assure you, it has nothing to do with the age of the planet, or how creatures came about.

Because as I have widely expressed I am considering becoming Christian. And you as a Christian have no right to take the haughty view you are taking now. I would like to see Jesus elevated in the world rather than going down in a ruin of anti-intellectualism and stupidity.

 

[Givemeareason]

The Bible warns of self deception.

"We live in a world full of lies, and deceit comes from many sources. There are lying spirits who lead astray (1 Timothy 4:1); there are “evildoers and impostors” looking for dupes (2 Timothy 3:13); and, perhaps most insidious, we have ourselves to deal with. Self-deception is common in our fallen world. Our own hearts are deceitful—so much so that we easily fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9).Isaiah 44:20speaks of an idolater who is misled by his own “deluded heart.” The prophet Obadiah identifies arrogance as one of the roots of self-deception: “The pride of your heart has deceived you” (Obadiah 1:3). Human pride always blinds us to truth. It promises honor, but it delivers disgrace: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18)".
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-self-deception.html#ixzz3eIxT19EA

 

[Hakan101]

The Bible warns of self deception.

"We live in a world full of lies, and deceit comes from many sources. There are lying spirits who lead astray (1 Timothy 4:1); there are “evildoers and impostors” looking for dupes (2 Timothy 3:13); and, perhaps most insidious, we have ourselves to deal with. Self-deception is common in our fallen world. Our own hearts are deceitful—so much so that we easily fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9).Isaiah 44:20speaks of an idolater who is misled by his own “deluded heart.” The prophet Obadiah identifies arrogance as one of the roots of self-deception: “The pride of your heart has deceived you” (Obadiah 1:3). Human pride always blinds us to truth. It promises honor, but it delivers disgrace: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18)".
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-self-deception.html#ixzz3eIxT19EA

Yet there are many Christians who on prideful faith accept the idea that Genesis is the literal account of how Creation took place. And they believe a group of lying imposters of science claiming that this is true. All while they fail to confirm for themselves if they are being told the truth. They choose instead to see themselves as the persecuted people against the world while refusing to check it out themselves. And when they are shown to be wrong they close their eyes refusing to even see the evidence proving them wrong when it is right in front of them. They fail to recognize their own pride they have taken in their beliefs. They continue to argue on trying to punch holes in scientific facts while thinking they have valid arguments while failing to realize that even if all of human knowledge could be disproven it would not bring them one step closer to what they want to believe.

"The pride of your heart has deceived you." Obadiah 1:3

I think there is plenty of room to think Genesis was a literal event, and not a metaphor. Are you referring to the 6,000 year old earth thing? Cause that's been pretty tired out at this point and the Bible doesn't even definitively say that.