Is God a liar?

[Colter]

So you too would deny this --

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven

========================

You have stated previously that you are in agreement with Hoghead1 in his own denial of basic Bible doctrine - it appears this is yet another point of agreement that the two of you have.



You don't have to agree with me -- I am just asking you to state your opinion. So far you seem to argue that you do not agree with my statement about Christian beliefs.



In this case - I am making the argument that the Bible can be trusted and blind-faith evolutionism cannot. In this "is God a liar" thread both you and Hoghead1 appear to agree in your condemnation of various parts of the Bible. OH has chimed in agreeing with you about the Genesis account.

I find that "interesting" given that Darwin and Dawkins also condemn the Genesis account.



According to what? -- the Bible?

Are you saying that you now believe the Bible???




Is it your claim that all humans are "incarnated" from some prior existence and so this "mother + father ==> incarnated children" idea is just the way that evolutionism says humans are procreated??

Really?




Do you believe in "some other incarnation" doctrine - that is not the one in the actual Bible?

do you imagine that the 325 council rejected the "born of a virgin" Bible fact?



Do you have some AD 325 faction that denied the virgin birth of Christ that you think is affirmed by the Council of Nicea??

I said Jesus incarnated not everyone!

 

[Colter]

Evolution is not a religion, it's not blind faith like belief in the creation story of Genesis. There are many Christians who believe in old earth evolution of life. But it is true that, Christianity as a social club of believers of various stripes, has denominations that would deny and disfellowship members who don't adhere to their particular doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

I said Jesus incarnated not everyone!

So you have Jesus with a human mother and father born as are all humans - no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - and then insert your own version of incarnation? What does your version look like?

The same thing as all human birth - only you wish it - as incarnation??

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is not a religion,

Until you notice that there is not one single thing known about it "EXCEPT" that "it should not be taught in high school" - as per the statement of their own best and brightest.

it's not blind faith like belief

It is blind faith that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba over a sufficiently long and talented period of time - filled with just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

You have admitted to resorting to Othanial-Marsh like "stories" -- arranging fossils "for emotional effect" as did Marsh with the now infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - due to the story's "emotional effect" in presentation.


Darwin admitted to the contradiction between Christianity and evolutionism.

You and hoghead1 both demonstrate this point - in your repeated condemnations of the Bible as you cling to faith in evolutionism.

Meanwhile what does "real science" tell us - with its real-life observations of 50,000 generations "observed in nature" -- proving that evolutionism is a dead-end.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW -- your answer to this thread (as well as hoghead1's) has been that "The Bible is a liar" and that "God did not write the Bible" --- and in your case you add "And Urantia is the correct text -- the Bible is full of errors"

As you know full well - no Christian on this board can go there.

Rather -- the Christians here stick with this --
Today at 7:45 PM #580

You make Darwin's point with almost every post-- when he argued that the Bible is a lie - and evolutionism is the real doctrine on origins -- just as your own Urantia claims.

Thankfully for you - Open Heart will support you on at least some of that "Evolution -- not the Bible" idea.

James Barr also agrees with you in his claims that the Bible text does dictate a 7 day creation week - but like you -- he also believes the Bible to be in error - and not to be authored by God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is not a religion, it's not blind faith like belief in the creation story of Genesis.

Depends on what you mean, evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. The former is perfectly compatible with the Genesis account and the latter is blind faith.

There are many Christians who believe in old earth evolution of life. But it is true that, Christianity as a social club of believers of various stripes, has denominations that would deny and disfellowship members who don't adhere to their particular doctrine.

Not over evolutionary biology or natural history they don't. Most seminaries and denominations are so compromised there is very little difference between what they believe and secular sources say.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Colter]

So you have Jesus with a human mother and father born as are all humans - no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - and then insert your own version of incarnation? What does your version look like?

The same thing as all human birth - only you wish it - as incarnation??

Why do you have to use terms like "you wish it?" What is your problem with people who don't think exactly like you think?????

The version I believe is very simple, Joseph and Mary were married, their first child was conceived. In a miracle of miracles, one understood only on paradise, the Son of God left his place in heaven and became that child. I assume that occurred at conception in the same way our personality comes from the Father, but it was miraculous. He was both human and divine. He was raised like any other Jewish child in his day. He had other siblings. As he grew up he became aware of his nature, origin and destiny.

 

[Colter]

Until you notice that there is not one single thing known about it "EXCEPT" that "it should not be taught in high school" - as per the statement of their own best and brightest.



It is blind faith that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba over a sufficiently long and talented period of time - filled with just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

You have admitted to resorting to Othanial-Marsh like "stories" -- arranging fossils "for emotional effect" as did Marsh with the now infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - due to the story's "emotional effect" in presentation.


Darwin admitted to the contradiction between Christianity and evolutionism.

You and hoghead1 both demonstrate this point - in your repeated condemnations of the Bible as you cling to faith in evolutionism.

Meanwhile what does "real science" tell us - with its real-life observations of 50,000 generations "observed in nature" -- proving that evolutionism is a dead-end.

You say there is not one single thing known about evolution? That is a ridiculously dishonest statement!

You are stuck using a horse and some mold that had no inherent evolutionary capacity. You are rebutting someone else's argument about an ameba and a horse.

You are stuck on Darwin, one of many men who studied and wrote about the evolution of life. I'm not defending Darwin.

You are being dishonest. I have never admitted arranging fossils for emotional effect. I have presented pictorial graphs from the Internet with actual diverse humanoid fossils on timelines by dates.

The Hebrews YEC creation story was written in an age when there was no science. They were speculating when creating a traditional story for the common people.

 

[Colter]

BTW -- your answer to this thread (as well as hoghead1's) has been that "The Bible is a liar" and that "God did not write the Bible" --- and in your case you add "And Urantia is the correct text -- the Bible is full of errors"

As you know full well - no Christian on this board can go there.

Rather -- the Christians here stick with this --
Today at 7:45 PM #580

You make Darwin's point with almost every post-- when he argued that the Bible is a lie - and evolutionism is the real doctrine on origins -- just as your own Urantia claims.

Thankfully for you - Open Heart will support you on at least some of that "Evolution -- not the Bible" idea.

James Barr also agrees with you in his claims that the Bible text does dictate a 7 day creation week - but like you -- he also believes the Bible to be in error - and not to be authored by God.

Religion and its church killed Christ, they hated his message of Love. The same religion wrote the Bible books by gathering what others had written and claiming God wrote them.

You should take the inconsistencies up with the men of the church instead of the facts disclosed by the earth.

 

[Hoghead1]

Depends on what you mean, evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. The former is perfectly compatible with the Genesis account and the latter is blind faith.



Not over evolutionary biology or natural history they don't. Most seminaries and denominations are so compromised there is very little difference between what they believe and secular sources say.

Have a nice day
Mark

Most of the mainline seminaries realize that evolution is a solid scientific teaching and therefore effort should be made to incorporate it into theology.

 

[mark kennedy]

Most of the mainline seminaries realize that evolution is a solid scientific teaching and therefore effort should be made to incorporate it into theology.

I know but they have abandoned the doctrines and teachings of the church for 2,000 years in order to do that. I don't care what you call it, emerging, modernist, post modernist or what have you. God either created something in the beginning or it's no different then Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. God can't be called Creator if you limit God to exclusively naturalistic means. The Incarnation, new birth, resurrection and oh yea...final judgment...not really prone to naturalistic assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Aman777]

I know but they have abandoned the doctrines and teachings of the church for 2,000 years in order to do that. I don't care what you call it, emerging, modernist, post modernist or what have you. God either created something in the beginning or it's no different then Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. God can't be called Creator if you limit God to exclusively naturalistic means. The Incarnation, new birth, resurrection and oh yea...final judgment...not really prone to naturalistic assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

Amen. I've found that your opposition is a liberal modernist, who refuses to tell us how to be saved and denies the literal Truth of Scripture. What seems like magic is simply God's superior intelligence. God knows that creating is as simple as changing energy into matter, as He did before the first Day. It's kinda like changing electricity into power to move cars, but total magic to ancient men. In the end, we will learn ALL of God's unchanging Truth. God Bless you

 

[BobRyan]

Most of the mainline seminaries realize that evolution is a solid scientific teaching and therefore effort should be made to incorporate it into theology.

And they are dying -- growth going to zero then negative.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW -- your answer to this thread (as well as hoghead1's) has been that "The Bible is a liar" and that "God did not write the Bible" --- and in your case you add "And Urantia is the correct text -- the Bible is full of errors"

As you know full well - no Christian on this board can go there.

Rather -- the Christians here stick with this --
Today at 7:45 PM #580

You make Darwin's point with almost every post-- when he argued that the Bible is a lie - and evolutionism is the real doctrine on origins -- just as your own Urantia claims.

Thankfully for you - Open Heart will support you on at least some of that "Evolution -- not the Bible" idea.

James Barr also agrees with you in his claims that the Bible text does dictate a 7 day creation week - but like you -- he also believes the Bible to be in error - and not to be authored by God.

Religion and its church killed Christ,

Christians did not kill Christ - your attack is on the Bible and Christians.

they hated his message of Love. The same religion wrote the Bible books by gathering what others had written and claiming God wrote them.

Just a story that you "made up" in your attack against the Christian Bible?

You should take the inconsistencies up with the men of the church instead of the facts disclosed by the earth.

"observations in nature" show us that in 50,000 generations - NO CHANGE of kinds at all -- bacteria remain bacteria!

 

[BobRyan]

I said Jesus incarnated not everyone!

So you have Jesus with a human mother and father born as are all humans - no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - and then insert your own version of incarnation? What does your version look like?

The same thing as all human birth - only you wish it - as incarnation??

Why do you have to use terms like "you wish it?" What is your problem with people who don't think exactly like you think?????

The version I believe is very simple, Joseph and Mary were married, their first child was conceived.

That is "your story" it is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that before they are married - while merely engaged - before they are husband and wife - Mary conceives the child - and Joseph knowing that it is not his - considers dissolving the engagement 'quietly'.

You "bring your own details" to the story as if we would "trust you" to make stuff up - but not trust the Word of God to tell us the truth.

My question for you is - why do you even imagine that such an approach would work with Christians???

Your "imagination" has you arguing for a "spirit child" similar to the Mormon story for birth of humans from spirits that previously lived in heaven - but born via normal human pro-creation.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution is not a religion,

Until you notice that there is not one single thing known about it "EXCEPT" that "it should not be taught in high school" - as per the statement of their own best and brightest.

it's not blind faith like belief

It is blind faith that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba over a sufficiently long and talented period of time - filled with just-so stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science".

You have admitted to resorting to Othanial-Marsh like "stories" -- arranging fossils "for emotional effect" as did Marsh with the now infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - due to the story's "emotional effect" in presentation.


Darwin admitted to the contradiction between Christianity and evolutionism.

You and hoghead1 both demonstrate this point - in your repeated condemnations of the Bible as you cling to faith in evolutionism.

Meanwhile what does "real science" tell us - with its real-life observations of 50,000 generations "observed in nature" -- proving that evolutionism is a dead-end.

You say there is not one single thing known about evolution? That is a ridiculously dishonest statement!

Comes from your own diehard evolutionists in the example you quote.

from one of your own atheist scientists - a high priest in the religion of evolutionism.

=====================================================

Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.

Patterson noted this --


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


================================================


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creation, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

=============================
"Details matter".

You can't simply "imagine all news to be good-news for evolutionism" to wish-it-away.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

I know but they have abandoned the doctrines and teachings of the church for 2,000 years in order to do that. I don't care what you call it, emerging, modernist, post modernist or what have you. God either created something in the beginning or it's no different then Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. God can't be called Creator if you limit God to exclusively naturalistic means. The Incarnation, new birth, resurrection and oh yea...final judgment...not really prone to naturalistic assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

It is not an either-or situation, either God or evolution. For example, I believe evolution would be impossible without God. I also think God works in and through nature, not over and against it. Not really prone to naturalistic assumptions ? I think you are jumping the gun here. That depends on how you view nature and also how you view God. If you view God as wholly supernatural, then yes, there is a problem. But there are other options. I view God as supra-natural.
The emphasis in contemporary theology is on creativity and a healthy skepticism for tradition. That is because the two world wars and major scientific discoveries have led most fields to rethink their basic concept of reality. The same is true in theology. Many traditional concepts have proven to be outmoded. There is no doubt about that.
For me to discuss matters further, I'd have to know specifically what teachings your are referring to.

 

[BobRyan]

As for Colin Patterson - I have always referred to him as a blind faith atheist evolutionist - a diehard evolutionist scientist -- never as anything else ---

"details matter". He laments the religion he is stuck with.

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
...
You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

In your response we can see that you merely pick and choose what suits your argument when you attempt to appeal to some odd detail that you in fact never identify.

What does atheism have to do with whether a scientific theory is valid?

outside of junk-science? nothing. Take for example atheists in Math, chemistry, physics, observable dendrology etc. The fact that they do not inject their religion into those sciences means we will never see scientists in those fields offering this lament -

=============

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
=======================================


That is not the sort of lament we have in "real science" over the past 150 years.

Neither is this --


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

========================================


I am a Christian that chooses to "Believe the Bible" rather than "deny the Bible" placing the junk-science-religion of evolutionism ahead of the Bible.

So then - some details held by Bible believing Christians - that even atheists will admit to --

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================
Bible-deniers tend to also be science-deniers when speaking of those who cling to blind-faith evolutionism while attacking the Word of God and denying observations in science.

So - please be serious about what you are asking for a second.

Shall we explain why "a pile of dirt is in fact NOT going to turn into a rabbit - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so-stories"???

Shall we explain why "prokaryotes never turn into eukaryotes no matter how many millions of generations we observe them?"

shall we explain why "the Eurey Miller experiment utterly failed to produce viable amino acid building blocks - due to results having randomly distributed chiral orientation of the product amino acids"??

shall we observe that "junk science confirmed frauds fill the history of junk-science evolutionism over the past 150 years"??

shall we observe that "Osborn is praised for lying to, and hiding truth from his readers -- to this very day - over at TalkOrigins"??

shall we observe that "the high-priests of evolutionism - their own well-known scientists, professors, authors LAMENT the distinctively religious and anti-knowledge nature of their own field of study"??

shall we observe that "Othaniel Marsh' junk-science hoax and confirmed fraud horse series is STILL on display at the Smithsonian over 50 years after being publicaly admitted as a fraud?"?? (We know WHY they do that - it is for emotional "effect" - which is the basis of their speculative arguments all along).

shall we observe that this is the sort of junk-religion that is not worth adopting -- with its explicit risk of getting you into the Rev 20 lake of fire?? We need to "explain that"??

This list is wayyy too long -- would fill up several threads.

 

[BobRyan]

It is not an either-or situation, either God or evolution.

It is for people that are Christian and believe the Bible including the virgin birth that is described in the Bible - and also know the difference between junk-science-evolutionism and actual science.

 

[Hoghead1]

Depends on what you mean, evolution is defined scientifically as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwinian evolution is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes. The former is perfectly compatible with the Genesis account and the latter is blind faith.



Not over evolutionary biology or natural history they don't. Most seminaries and denominations are so compromised there is very little difference between what they believe and secular sources say.

Have a nice day
Mark

Well, why shouldn't seminaries listen to the secular authorities, the scientists? Theology should be working in harmony with modern science, not over and against it. Any time in the past, the church has bucked science, it has come up with egg on its face.
Also accepting the Genesis account would be considered blind faith, since you have no scientific evidence that God created in just six days and mountains of hard evidence to the contrary. Evolution, on the other hand, has mountains of hard evidence behind it and presents a cosmology much different from that found in Scripture. After all, since the 16the century, the biblical cosmology has been debunked by teh scientific community, Christians have accepted these scientific advances, and they still have faith in Scripture. As Calvin observed, God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy. I agree. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of a prescientific culture. As I have said many times, God works with the grain, not against it. God can only move forward as fast as we are ready. Hence, it would be ridiculous to assume God gave the Israelis advanced scientific knowledge of any sort.