How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[Oncedeceived]

I know you didn't ask, but I personally don't believe Peter ever set foot in Rome.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

There is no scriptural evidence for sure.

 

[Jazer]

I drink and am not miserable or confused.

I'm doing quite well

I am refering to the people who do not ever stop drinking. They are always drunk.

 

[Non sequitur]

I am refering to the people who do not ever stop drinking. They are always drunk.

Then I guess I'm good to go.

 

[MoonLancer]

How did "give" become "put"?

Does that Arab phone ring that much?

I put money in my wallet, I give money to others.

Do you find much of a difference morally if a parent places a child in a room and puts a gun in their hand, or simply places it in front of them, with the same instruction not to use it?

Children aren't created like Adam & Eve were created -- believe me.

Where they his children? I thought all humans were the children of god according to the bible.

No, the serpent-beast told them they would be like that:

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

seems as if they both were told the truth, as this implies they did not know it to start with, otherwise they would not be a convincing argument, which it was.

Were you there?

No, its in the bible.

I don't think they knew:

1. They were going to be expelled from the Garden.
2. Adam was going to have to work against thorns and thistles.
3. Eve would bear children in pain.

... if that's what you're talking about.

If that would have been recorded, then you guys would be here saying they didn't know what that meant ... and so on down the line.

But the fact of the matter is, it's you that don't know; but you're trying to blame God.

What is that?

Anyway I find it funny your trying to excuse Gods own power in order to put mankind in a situation that requires salvation when its quit clear that with great power comes great responsibility.

God creates an innocent creature who does not know good from evil and when that creature disobeys is punished, even though they could not have known that was wrong. In addition God left them with a loaded gun knowing what would happen. Are Your your saying that this is ok?

 

[Greg1234]

"A theist says he knows everything, and by extension knows nothing. An atheist admits that he knows nothing, and therefor knows something."

A theist says he/she has faith. We have faith in texts on the design of man. We have faith in texts on radio waves. We have faith in texts on the Lunar landing. We have faith in texts on magnetic fields. We have faith in texts on outer space. We have faith in texts on the design of the pyramid.

A materialist describes himself as "without faith" and adopts an ideology which perpetuates the tenet that robotics can be assembled by chance. This is comparable to the lengths the earthist or visiblist would have to reach for today. It continues even after the mechanism for random assembly is expectedly shrugged off as impotent.

 

[Greg1234]

I like how a majority of the "research" is "personal research" and that it can't be shown or demonstrated.

Don't worry your materialism about that. Concern yourself with advancing data for Darwinism.

 

[Non sequitur]

Don't worry your materialism about that. Concern yourself with advancing data for Darwinism.

Is that like Einsteinism?

 

[Non sequitur]

A theist says he/she has faith. We have faith in texts on the design of man. We have faith in texts on radio waves. We have faith in texts on the Lunar landing. We have faith in texts on magnetic fields. We have faith in texts on outer space. We have faith in texts on the design of the pyramid.

A materialist describes himself as "without faith" and adopts an ideology which perpetuates the tenet that robotics can be assembled by chance. This is comparable to the lengths the earthist or visiblist would have to reach for today. It continues even after the mechanism for random assembly is expectedly shrugged off as impotent.

Wait, robots can't be assembled by chance?

This is completely new to me...

 

[hasone]

Is that like Einsteinism?

I'm an Einsteinist!


That means you like Einstein's hair, right? Just like Darwinism means you approve of Darwin's excellent use of sideburns in the face of male pattern baldness?

 

[MoonLancer]

and adopts an ideology which perpetuates the tenet that robotics can be assembled by chance.

This is a straw man argument. A fallacy. Materialists do NOT think this.

Also Earthist? That is not a real world. At least look up the word your using rather then using smarmy ist and ism games.

But there are some Urban dictionary words that fit Earthist

Did you mean

Intolerance of extraterrestrial species.

or

discriminatory especially on the basis of ones planet of origin

or maybe

a human with a prejudiced belief that Earth species (specifically humans) are superior to extraterrestrials

visiblist doesn't exist at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope you're not just yanking my chain with this.

Do you find much of a difference morally if a parent places a child in a room and puts a gun in their hand, or simply places it in front of them, with the same instruction not to use it?

First of all, I'm not going to get into the difference between what you guys consider 'moral', and what you guys consider 'ethical'.

I have a different definition of those two words: one includes God, and the other doesn't.

So I'm just going to dismiss that part of your question with: DOES NOT APPLY.

Second of all, let me repeat myself: Adam & Eve were NOT -- repeat: NOT -- children; or the equivalence of children; that is, in the evolutionary sense of the word.

Embedded Age Creation -- in case you have forgotten [or haven't understood yet] -- is defined as: maturity without history.

Where they his children?

Yes, but in a way I don't think even Frenchy or Split Rock understand.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam was the son of God in the sense that he was created by God.

I thought all humans were the children of god according to the bible.

You thought wrong:

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

When we get saved by placing our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, we then become the adopted children of God.

Romans 8:25 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Here is info on that:

Link

Question;
The other day in a discussion with a friend, a statement was made that the disciple Peter was crucified upside down. I have heard this before, but after searching through my Bible I cannot find any reference to this event. The person I was studying with has since called me asking where this can be found and I would like to give her the correct answer. When you get a chance could you please tell me if this was indeed Peter’s fate and in what text this came from.
Answer:
The tradition that Peter was executed began with the reference to the form of his death in John chapter 21, in which Jesus told Peter, "I assure you: When you were young, you would tie your belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when you grow older, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where dou don't want to go." John reported, (probably after Peter died) "He said this to signify by what kind of death he would glorify God." So the idea that Peter was crucified (stretch out your hands) came from John, but this does not include the location or the physical position of his crucifixion.
Eusebius (AD 325) claimed in his Ecclesiastical History that all the apostles were martyred except for John . The evidence for some of these is very spotty, but the number, variety and quality of testimony to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome is sufficient that I think we can reasonably say that most likely this is how they died.
The early church fathers are unanimous in claiming that Peter died in Rome, by crucifixion, during the persecution of Nero in AD 64. As for crucifixion upside down, that is also testified to, but the evidence is weaker for this particular form of crucifixion. The apocryphal Acts of Peter is the earliest reference to crucifixion of Peter upside down. The earliest reference to the martyrdom of Peter comes from the letter of Clement of Rome (about AD 90). He said, in his Letter to the Corinthians, "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him." Not much there as to the means or location of his death, but that it was an execution is clearly implied. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Romans about AD 110 claimed that Peter was bishop of Rome. Irenaeus of Lyon, about AD 180, agrees that Peter served in Rome. Tertullian, about AD 195 declared "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, ie. by being beheaded). Dionysius of Corinth, also about AD 200 "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" When Eusebius reported the crucifixion of Peter and the beheading of Paul in Ecclestiacial History, he was simply passing along a tradition which has been the unanimous opinion of the church for two hundred years.
Tradition has that Peter's body is contained in a crypt below St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. This is actually not all that far-fetched a claim. In fact, when the sarcophygous claimed to contain his body was studied in the 1960's (Margherita Guarducci, 1963-1968) the evidence supported that it was of a man about 60 years old who died in the first century AD. I certainly would not base my faith on this being his body, and besides, it is not clear the significance to a Christian to have the actual remains of Peter.
In conclusion, we can reasonably conclude that Peter was in fact crucified in Rome. As for his crucifixion upside down, this is much more weakly attested to in only one ancient source which is probably much less reliable that Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and many others.
John Oakes

These sources came after the NT... Well after it. My point was that there was a huge discrepincy between the events and the transcription (Long enough for Jewish mythology to work it's way into event, it's just one giant Arab Phone. I wouldn't call this evidence for extraordinary claims.)

 

[David Evarts]

Hey Hasone, Thanks for your very personal story.
I've embraced Christianity, but to do so I too had to get past some of the clearly untrue things that some told me I had to beleive, including the young earth anti-evolutionist beleifs. My personal version of Christianity includes the conclusion that I can't prove or disprove the existance of God and wasn't meant to do so, but would not embrace anything that required me to be intellectually dishonest in order to do so. I accept Christianity because the view that we are here in order to grow more like God (as defined as growing more truly good and creative) is so attractive to me and I have yet to find any other system of thought or motivation that is as consistently in tune with both the world I know and the world as I'd like it to be. I certainly do not have everything figured out and don't have any magical certainty, but I'd do my best to answer any questions you might want to pose or simply tell you that I don't know and ask if you have a possible answer. I don't think that any really true or meaningful conclusions can come from someone feeling you should accept something because they told you so. And, I think that those who start by dividing the world into us and them are probably limiting themselves from approaching many truths.
Best to you.
By the way, could I quote your note in my Facebook "Celebrating Creation by Natural Selection" group or have you post it there?

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm an Einsteinist!


That means you like Einstein's hair, right? Just like Darwinism means you approve of Darwin's excellent use of sideburns in the face of male pattern baldness?

Indeed!

 

[Non sequitur]

My personal version of Christianity includes the conclusion that I can't prove or disprove the existance of God and wasn't meant to do so, but would not embrace anything that required me to be intellectually dishonest in order to do so. I accept Christianity because the view that we are here in order to grow more like God (as defined as growing more truly good and creative) is so attractive to me and I have yet to find any other system of thought or motivation that is as consistently in tune with both the world I know and the world as I'd like it to be. I certainly do not have everything figured out and don't have any magical certainty, but I'd do my best to answer any questions you might want to pose or simply tell you that I don't know and ask if you have a possible answer. I don't think that any really true or meaningful conclusions can come from someone feeling you should accept something because they told you so. And, I think that those who start by dividing the world into us and them are probably limiting themselves from approaching many truths.

These seem unnecessary (and highly illogical) when seeking the truth in anything...

 

[Doveaman]

What is it to be an evolutionist? In your mind, I mean. What does that mean to you?

From a Christian point of view it is meaningless.

 

[Doveaman]

How can you make this claim when we don't even know who authored the Gospels.

I make that claim because I am not an atheist who choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject.

 

[hasone]

Hey Hasone, Thanks for your very personal story.
I've embraced Christianity, but to do so I too had to get past some of the clearly untrue things that some told me I had to beleive, including the young earth anti-evolutionist beleifs. My personal version of Christianity includes the conclusion that I can't prove or disprove the existance of God and wasn't meant to do so, but would not embrace anything that required me to be intellectually dishonest in order to do so. I accept Christianity because the view that we are here in order to grow more like God (as defined as growing more truly good and creative) is so attractive to me and I have yet to find any other system of thought or motivation that is as consistently in tune with both the world I know and the world as I'd like it to be. I certainly do not have everything figured out and don't have any magical certainty, but I'd do my best to answer any questions you might want to pose or simply tell you that I don't know and ask if you have a possible answer. I don't think that any really true or meaningful conclusions can come from someone feeling you should accept something because they told you so. And, I think that those who start by dividing the world into us and them are probably limiting themselves from approaching many truths.
Best to you.
By the way, could I quote your note in my Facebook "Celebrating Creation by Natural Selection" group or have you post it there?

Feel free. I aint signed up for facebook, and I don't think there are any identifying details in the post, so go hogwild. you'll probably have to note that references to forums and boards refer to christianforums.com and the evolution and creationism subsection for proper context.

Please pm me if there's any other posts you want to quote. not that i'd imagine there would be. also, my post was inspired by a post from a forums user named faith guardian in another thread, who eloquently accused a creationist of pushing people away from the faith. I'm sorry, but I can't remember which thread

As for the rest of your post - well, it sounds quite reasonable and natural, and you sound like a decent kinda guy. I might take you up on your offer and send you a PM with some questions sometime. I like learning about other people.

 

[Doveaman]

It's my contention that anyone who'll believe a myth is likely to believe anything.

I agree. Big Bang is a myth.

 

[Non sequitur]

I make that claim because I am not an atheist who choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject.

Ah. So, specifically, who authored the Gospels?

It's my contention that anyone who'll believe a myth is likely to believe anything.

I agree. Big Bang is a myth.

Interesting.

When was the Big Bang a sacred narrative that validates a religious system?

I was not aware of this new finding...