Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[juvenissun]

How do you go about getting all people to agree with the doctrines of one unified religion?

For example, there are so many denominations of Christianity it is hard to keep track of them and this is because these people don't agree with the other denominations doctrines.

I don't know. But it happened many times in history.
On this regard, history does not repeat itself. It is a wonderful fact, and it should be a wake up call to many people who don't believe the Bible.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

For one thing, a Creationist believes the doctrine of original sin. a fetus is a sinful person.
As far as I know, only Christians recognize that. Muslims accept the Book of Genesis. But they do not believe the doctrine of original sin.

Theistic evolutionists like to call themselves Christians. But I am not sure they recognize the same origin of sin.

Creationism should be defined by a wider scope of content. Otherwise, there are probably hundreds of religions could be included in Creationism.

That would be why Catholics baptize infants, not because they are guilty of anything except being human. But as I said in my reply most folks, including atheist use a wider definition of Creationist than the one suggested in this reply - which narrows the field a lot. So if we are going to discuss such things in large company it would be important to understand what the words we are using mean, especially if it is possible the meaning assumed is not common to everyone participating.

Forgive me for interjecting myself in the dialogue between two people who clearly seemed to be missing each other in this regard with "creationist". Carry on.

 

[crjmurray]

Satan can not reject the existence of God. You can.
I also can. But I "chose" not to. That is why God loves me more.

A kid may choose to walk out of home. But that does not mean the kid is more powerful than his mom and dad. Satan can not get you when you are home. But he certainly can when you walked out the home.

So, there is a hymn called : Come Home.

You're so humble.

 

[juvenissun]

You're so humble.

Wealth on the earth, you get it, and then you lose it.
Wealth in the Heaven, you get it, it permanently stay.
It is stupid for being humble on eternal wealth.

 

[juvenissun]

Creationism is a religious belief (no matter what the religion is called) so is therefore subject to the vagaries of the human disposition, people will believe what they want to believe and disbelieve what they don't want to believe, people believing or disbelieving anything changes absolutely nothing, religious people have this strange idea that because they believe something is true it somehow miraculously becomes true.

In this forum, the "Creationism" is based on the content of Genesis 1-11.
It is MORE than just "god creates".

 

[Astrophile]

No problem. But I forgot why did I ask you that. I dug a few pages back but could not find why did it happen.
If you want to, then please remind me about it.

Dogma Hunter wrote:

I'd love to read your actual dissertation.

You replied:

You won't be able to read through the first page. So, no, thanks.

If you insist, then take the first step: what is "illite"?

I explained what 'illite' is, and what it is used for. Do you want to continue?

 

[juvenissun]

Dogma Hunter wrote:
You replied:
I explained what 'illite' is, and what it is used for. Do you want to continue?

OK, thanks.
It is easy for me to continue. But I like to know what do you want to talk about, so I can better orient the content toward it.

Now, illite, how about the origin of illite? This is really complicated. So you better let me know what you like to talk about. Otherwise, you will probably be lost very quickly.

 

[Black Dog]

Not all religious people who believed that god creates are Creationists. Creationism has a much wider content.

I see your point. Is there another term used on this forum which covers a god created planet and life?

 

[Black Dog]

I don't know. But it happened many times in history.
On this regard, history does not repeat itself. It is a wonderful fact, and it should be a wake up call to many people who don't believe the Bible.

With the increased flow of information, I think that will be highly unlikely to happen again, except in a totalitarian society.

 

[Nithavela]

Your best bet is to install a totalitarian government and kill of the minorities, one by one, until only your religion of choice is left. Then you can start killing them based on something else, like hair color or favorite food. The endgame is of course to be the last guy who kills the next to last guy, but it doesn't pay to plan too far into the future.

Once you are the only one left (and supposing that you don't have a split personality) you have reached ultimate unity, and thus, ultimate strength.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Creationism is a religious belief (no matter what the religion is called) so is therefore subject to the vagaries of the human disposition, people will believe what they want to believe and disbelieve what they don't want to believe, people believing or disbelieving anything changes absolutely nothing, religious people have this strange idea that because they believe something is true it somehow miraculously becomes true.

This post seems to be describing what is often called "blind faith" and while it might be what some Christians profess to having, in actuality Christian faith is not blind whether any particular Christian can correctly express that idea or not. Our faith is a gift from God, which He offers to all - including atheist, in fact all mankind at all times and everywhere. The difference is in our individual reception of that gift and our response to it - which for Christians is a unique, and also should be the most proper, response to His Gift for all.

My point for interjecting here earlier was that the obvious commonly accepted understanding of Creationism involves a deity, whereas at least one Christian poster here was talking about a far more restrictive definition that would exclude anything but Christianity (or perhaps also Judaism but not sure if that part was clear). So in discussing something like that concept it would be important that both sides understand each other and not assume there is agreement on words like "Creationism". I agree the narrow definition described elsewhere in this thread and apparently held by at least one Christian poster here is not common.

Having said that, am not sure why anyone, Christian or otherwise would need to adopt the snide attitude of the above reply. Would also like to point out that a "belief" that something is true as it would apply to a theory, is not the same as knowing something to be true. We could talk about a theory being well supported by the evidence (or not), we could talk about gaps in the evidence for a theory(or it having none), and we could talk about a theory being more (or less) likely to accurately explain reality as we currently understand it. But we can never say we know or in this same sense believe a theory is true, because in science at least, at least real science and not someone pretending to have a position that stands against Christianity, saying or believing a theory to be true means it is no longer a theory.

The Christian avoids the atheist dilemma in making statement about what is to be "believed" by saying our faith is a gift from God which allows us (all of us) to believe the truths He has revealed to mankind when that gift is received (and to the extent that it is received) by each person. So if we wanted to talk about "blindness" we could turn this accusation around and say someone talking about a theory as if it was in fact a known truth is actually basing that position on a very blind faith that the theory is true in their minds and not just what it is in reality, a theory. And that is true whether it currently seems the theory is a particularly good one or not.

 

[juvenissun]

I see your point. Is there another term used on this forum which covers a god created planet and life?

I don't know.
Most concepts of god included that a god can create something. So, that alone does not deserve a special term for it.
A "creationism" should include the action of creation, and also the purpose/consequence of creation.

 

[juvenissun]

With the increased flow of information, I think that will be highly unlikely to happen again, except in a totalitarian society.

Yes, I think that is the most important key feature.
Just FYI, this is predicted in the Bible. And the idea is: When we see the Spring, the Summer is near.

 

[Nithavela]

With an increased flow of information comes an increased flow of white noise. Buy this! Read that! This superstar might be pregnant! Try this awesome new diet! Quick, your sports team has reached the quarterfinals!

Ever read brave new world?

 

[Onearm]

The Christian avoids the atheist dilemma in making statement about what is to be "believed" by saying our faith is a gift from God which allows us (all of us) to believe the truths He has revealed to mankind when that gift is received (and to the extent that it is received) by each person. So if we wanted to talk about "blindness" we could turn this accusation around and say someone talking about a theory as if it was in fact a known truth is actually basing that position on a very blind faith that the theory is true in their minds and not just what it is in reality, a theory. And that is true whether it currently seems the theory is a particularly good one or not.

Meaningless word salad.

Atheism is the default position, you are an atheist in regards to all the other religions, you are not afraid of their Gods? you don't in fact give them a second thought then you have the nerve to tell people who do not believe in your God that they will be sorry,
will you be sorry that you don't believe in theirs? you all have waterproof skins and you are splashing each other with water.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point for interjecting here earlier was that the obvious commonly accepted understanding of Creationism involves a deity, whereas at least one Christian poster here was talking about a far more restrictive definition that would exclude anything but Christianity (or perhaps also Judaism but not sure if that part was clear). So in discussing something like that concept it would be important that both sides understand each other and not assume there is agreement on words like "Creationism". I agree the narrow definition described elsewhere in this thread and apparently held by at least one Christian poster here is not common.

Doesn't change the fact that creationism is believed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it. Even worse, many forms of creationism are directly contradicted by the evidence. That is "blind faith", at best.

But we can never say we know or in this same sense believe a theory is true, because in science at least, at least real science and not someone pretending to have a position that stands against Christianity, saying or believing a theory to be true means it is no longer a theory.

What we can say is that scientific theories make specific and testable hypotheses. If those hypotheses are supported by subsequent evidence, then you have evidence to support the theory.

Creationism, on the other hand, is just the opposite. Where creationism does make predictions that differ from standard scientific theories it has been falsified. The current strains of creationism have tried to argue that the supernatural can't be tested, so science shouldn't be applied. This is just another way of saying that they have no evidence or testable predictions.

Unsupported beliefs and well supported theories are not the same thing.

The Christian avoids the atheist dilemma in making statement about what is to be "believed" by saying our faith is a gift from God which allows us (all of us) to believe the truths He has revealed to mankind when that gift is received (and to the extent that it is received) by each person. So if we wanted to talk about "blindness" we could turn this accusation around and say someone talking about a theory as if it was in fact a known truth is actually basing that position on a very blind faith that the theory is true in their minds and not just what it is in reality, a theory. And that is true whether it currently seems the theory is a particularly good one or not.

The claim that faith is a gift from God is based on blind faith. That is not comparable to a well supported scientific theory.

 

[Black Dog]

Yes, I think that is the most important key feature.
Just FYI, this is predicted in the Bible. And the idea is: When we see the Spring, the Summer is near.

Well, I think you're reading something into the bible there, but then I'm an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, thanks.
It is easy for me to continue. But I like to know what do you want to talk about, so I can better orient the content toward it.

Now, illite, how about the origin of illite? This is really complicated.

One of my books about rocks and minerals says that illite 'appears to be derived from the weathering of muscovite and feldspar'. It 'is found in sedimentary rocks and soils. It is the most abundant clay mineral in shales ... and clays.'

Illite is a constituent of the London Clay of the lower Thames Valley and of the Mercia Mudstone of the English Midlands. The illite crystallinity index 'has been used as an indicator of metamorphic grade in clay-bearing metamorphic rocks.'

So you better let me know what you like to talk about. Otherwise, you will probably be lost very quickly.

I think that you have lost me already. Dogma Hunter said that he wanted to read your dissertation. You first asked what illite is. When I answered that question you asked about the origin of illite. I have tried to answer that question, and have now pretty well come to the end of my knowledge about illite and the other clay minerals. Is any of this relevant to your dissertation? Is your dissertation about the origin of illite? If it is, then I should probably learn more if you told us about the dissertation. If you are going to ask more questions, then you are probably right; I shall be lost very quickly.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I think you're reading something into the bible there, but then I'm an atheist.

The Bible is a book for one to read into it. As long as what you read makes sense to you, it is worthwhile to consider it seriously.