Genesis and condemnation

[NobleMouse]

I completely agree that God is the author of creation, but you have to realize that the Bible is not a science text, nor is it a history text or a geography text. The Bible is not intended to explain the physical world to us.

That is correct, the Bible is intended to explain what God wants us to know and His word is truth and has repeatedly demonstrated to be a historical text - telling us of events, places and people that really happened, really existed, and really once lived.

Did creation take place "as it is written"? In my experience, even creationists can't make sense out of the six days of creation as it is written. I have talked to one creationist who was disturbed because that Bible doesn't say that God created undersea plants, or mention when they were created. I have talked to another creationist who was baffled because plants were created before the sun was created. How do plants grow without the sun? The confusion comes from taking the details too seriously.

Creation took place according to what is written, what Jesus has said, and what OT and NT authors have written - creation was a historical narrative of places, people, and events that really happened... just as it is written - even affirmed as a commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. In my experience, scientists weren't there and only make interpretations about the past based upon their very limited knowledge and understanding of things in the present, filling in holes with assumptions and interpreting data based upon those assumptions. To the extent God has revealed the mysteries of creation we should be thankful, but we will never knows all there is to know about God and will always fall short in our faith when we insist upon explaining events by natural means. It is apparent that natural means were no more the diving force behind creation than they were when Jesus called in a loud voice for Lazarus to come out of the tomb.

 

[JackRT]

But, public institutions, it needs to be both sides fairly presented.

If we are talking of a science class there are not two sides. However if it were a philosophy class or a survey class on world religions then multiple sides could be presented, fairly I hope.

 

[Dale]

There is no proof to macro-evolution. Nobody has ever seen two of one kind produce another kind. it is one thing to have a bird produce a bird, but evolution's claims far exceed that. That is not science, that is belief. So, you are selling one belief over another belief.

The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything. There is no precedent. A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing. Furthermore, explosions have never been known to produce order. They produce chaos. Yet, your science claims the exact opposite happened with this explosion that happened without a cause. Which is more reasonable--even within the context of what science claims to promote? So, the big bang without God requires far more belief than a big bang theory with God as the cause.

When did science cross from reason to unreason? When it demanded that God, the most likely cause of everything, had to be taken out of the equation.

Creationism is also belief. That is true. Nobody can go back and prove how it all began and nobody, despite many fraudulent attempts has ever produced a missing link to show the movement from an ape to a human, for example. You have to believe one source or the other. Everyone has that choice. But, for you to say one is belief and the other is "science" is clearly wrong if you could take a step back and look at the evidence.

The study of different disciplines of science, like biology, has produced much good. I don't think science is all bad, because some scientists deceive others, just like I don't believe all Christianity is bad because some professing Christians--who may even be deceived themselves--deceive others.

Biology has taught us many things. Drug companies make a lot of money off those medicines. Some that hurt people badly are also marketed until pulled, because money talks over ethics often. Biology also helped us learn how to kill unborn babies as well. Biology participated in helping us learn how to gas people. Just because biology oversteps its bounds and just because biology often is used for evil, just like religion, doesn't mean you throw it out.

So, when you choose to teach only one belief, you are rubber stamping that belief to ignorant children who think their teacher is the source of knowledge. I know teachers and I was a teacher. They aren't the source of knowledge. But, that is what little kids think. So, when we only present one side (regardless of which is correct), we predispose them to that side.

In the public sector, tax payers, which include God-believers (which includes creationists) have an equal right to have a general creation view presented in contrast to the non-creationist viewpoint or choice to go to a publicly funded school that presents the creationist view.

In contrast, in the private sector, where people pay to have their kids privately educated by people, who in theory, share their values, they have the right to have demand that whoever is teaching their child reflects their views. They are paying and expecting that.

And, there are private schools that have nothing to do with God and they are free to promote evolution all they want. They are private institutions.

But, public institutions, it needs to be both sides fairly presented.

I don't believe that any of this is true. I'll try to reply to particulars later.


First, do you understand that more people have left Christianity because of creationism than for any other reason, except possibly sexual morality? The refusal of people who identify themselves as Christian to accept known fact is the greatest single reason that people sever their last link to Christianity. Think about that, and ask yourself, is it worth it? I don't think it is.

 

[Dale]

There is no proof to macro-evolution. Nobody has ever seen two of one kind produce another kind. it is one thing to have a bird produce a bird, but evolution's claims far exceed that. That is not science, that is belief. So, you are selling one belief over another belief.

The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything. There is no precedent. A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing. Furthermore, explosions have never been known to produce order. They produce chaos. Yet, your science claims the exact opposite happened with this explosion that happened without a cause. Which is more reasonable--even within the context of what science claims to promote? So, the big bang without God requires far more belief than a big bang theory with God as the cause.

When did science cross from reason to unreason? When it demanded that God, the most likely cause of everything, had to be taken out of the equation.

Creationism is also belief. That is true. Nobody can go back and prove how it all began and nobody, despite many fraudulent attempts has ever produced a missing link to show the movement from an ape to a human, for example. You have to believe one source or the other. Everyone has that choice. But, for you to say one is belief and the other is "science" is clearly wrong if you could take a step back and look at the evidence.

The study of different disciplines of science, like biology, has produced much good. I don't think science is all bad, because some scientists deceive others, just like I don't believe all Christianity is bad because some professing Christians--who may even be deceived themselves--deceive others.

Biology has taught us many things. Drug companies make a lot of money off those medicines. Some that hurt people badly are also marketed until pulled, because money talks over ethics often. Biology also helped us learn how to kill unborn babies as well. Biology participated in helping us learn how to gas people. Just because biology oversteps its bounds and just because biology often is used for evil, just like religion, doesn't mean you throw it out.

So, when you choose to teach only one belief, you are rubber stamping that belief to ignorant children who think their teacher is the source of knowledge. I know teachers and I was a teacher. They aren't the source of knowledge. But, that is what little kids think. So, when we only present one side (regardless of which is correct), we predispose them to that side.

In the public sector, tax payers, which include God-believers (which includes creationists) have an equal right to have a general creation view presented in contrast to the non-creationist viewpoint or choice to go to a publicly funded school that presents the creationist view.

In contrast, in the private sector, where people pay to have their kids privately educated by people, who in theory, share their values, they have the right to have demand that whoever is teaching their child reflects their views. They are paying and expecting that.

And, there are private schools that have nothing to do with God and they are free to promote evolution all they want. They are private institutions.

But, public institutions, it needs to be both sides fairly presented.

Johnny4: "The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything. There is no precedent. A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing. ... So, the big bang without God requires far more belief than a big bang theory with God as the cause."



Have you ever read what astronomers or physicists say about the Big Bang? Or even science reporters? If anyone told you that the Big Bang was conceived as an anti-God idea, they lied. No solid source on science says any such thing. They do not say that the Big Bang has no cause. What they do say is that science can go no further because the equations break down.


Do you know who first proposed the notion of a Big Bang explosion? The first cosmologist on record is Georges Lematre, a Belgian Jesuit priest. Of course, he proposed it because the evidence pointed in that direction. As I said, if anyone told you that the Big Bang came out of some anti-God philosophy, they lied.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I don't believe that any of this is true. I'll try to reply to particulars later.


First, do you understand that more people have left Christianity because of creationism than for any other reason, except possibly sexual morality? The refusal of people who identify themselves as Christian to accept known fact is the greatest single reason that people sever their last link to Christianity. Think about that, and ask yourself, is it worth it? I don't think it is.

Nice manipulative appeal. But:

(1) The Truth doesn't change because "the masses" won't accept The Truth. Jesus openly demonstrated this in John 6. If Jesus was concerned about chasing people away, He didn't have to share what He did. But, He continued to speak truth, even when many "disciples" chose to walk with Him no longer" and then He turned to the 12--who were arguably shaken themselves and asked: "Do you want to leave to?" Peter gives the weak response: "Where else would we go. we believe...." Jesus then says: "Did I not pick you, the twelve? And one of you is a devil." Would you have counseled Jesus that He was chasing people away from Christianity, too?

(2) Once you establish that your theology is going to change based on what current science--which often doesn't allow creationists to be a part of it-- (and other sources that you recognize as more legitimate than the Bible) say, what are you left with to base your faith on? There is a lot in Scripture that is unbelievable for a man of science. Do you just black out the miracles like Thomas Jefferson did and use it as a powerless code of ethics?

Johnny4: "The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything. There is no precedent. A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing. ... So, the big bang without God requires far more belief than a big bang theory with God as the cause."

Have you ever read what astronomers or physicists say about the Big Bang? Or even science reporters? If anyone told you that the Big Bang was conceived as an anti-God idea, they lied. No solid source on science says any such thing. They do not say that the Big Bang has no cause. What they do say is that science can go no further because the equations break down.

Do you know who first proposed the notion of a Big Bang explosion? The first cosmologist on record is Georges Lematre, a Belgian Jesuit priest. Of course, he proposed it because the evidence pointed in that direction. As I said, if anyone told you that the Big Bang came out of some anti-God philosophy, they lied.

Darwin also had a Christian upbringing and Darwin did not set out to disprove God with his theory of evolution, either. I don't doubt that Lematre had genuine intentions and he was trying to explain how God did it. And, God speaking could have certainly resulted in a big explosion of light that produced everything, but for it to explode into "order", God would have to be behind it making order out of what would otherwise be chaos, because a normal explosion doesn't produce order. Please conduct a scientific experiment--the way they are supposed to be done--and show me the order that results, instead of the destruction that I am used to seeing when an explosion happens.

There did the first life come from? Do you believe it just randomly happened over time and then those random smart cells eventually came to produce everything we now see that has life?

What evidence does anyone have about what they believe to have happened as long ago as today's scientists are now claiming the beginning must have happened to fit everything the way they believe it came into existence? If you are sticking to "this is science" concept, how are they legitimately testing this theory and not simply finding facts that they believe support what they already want to believe? The can't. It is simply a theory.

You are free to believe the lies they tell you. I started my life--for over 37 years--believing their lies that I was brainwashed with, since I grew up largely outside the church and stuck in public schools that treated evolution and a devoid-of-God big bang theory as if they were truth. I was brainwashed. When God woke me up, God delivered me from that. So, sorry, I'm not going back. There is no amount of worldly wisdom that is going to pull me back into the deceptions that God saved me from. God is fully capable of saving everyone who truly loves Him. He doesn't need me to reduce His Truth, so it becomes more palatable for those who want the best of both worlds.

 

[JackRT]

Nice manipulative appeal. But:

(1) The Truth doesn't change because "the masses" won't accept The Truth. Jesus openly demonstrated this in John 6. If Jesus was concerned about chasing people away, He didn't have to share what He did. But, He continued to speak truth, even when many "disciples" chose to walk with Him no longer" and then He turned to the 12--who were arguably shaken themselves and asked: "Do you want to leave to?" Peter gives the weak response: "Where else would we go. we believe...." Jesus then says: "Did I not pick you, the twelve? And one of you is a devil." Would you have counseled Jesus that He was chasing people away from Christianity, too?

(2) Once you establish that your theology is going to change based on what current science--which often doesn't allow creationists to be a part of it-- (and other sources that you recognize as more legitimate than the Bible) say, what are you left with to base your faith on? There is a lot in Scripture that is unbelievable for a man of science. Do you just black out the miracles like Thomas Jefferson did and use it as a powerless code of ethics?



Darwin also had a Christian upbringing and Darwin did not set out to disprove God with his theory of evolution, either. I don't doubt that Lematre had genuine intentions and he was trying to explain how God did it. And, God speaking could have certainly resulted in a big explosion of light that produced everything, but for it to explode into "order", God would have to be behind it making order out of what would otherwise be chaos, because a normal explosion doesn't produce order. Please conduct a scientific experiment--the way they are supposed to be done--and show me the order that results, instead of the destruction that I am used to seeing when an explosion happens.

There did the first life come from? Do you believe it just randomly happened over time and then those random smart cells eventually came to produce everything we now see that has life?

What evidence does anyone have about what they believe to have happened as long ago as today's scientists are now claiming the beginning must have happened to fit everything the way they believe it came into existence? If you are sticking to "this is science" concept, how are they legitimately testing this theory and not simply finding facts that they believe support what they already want to believe? The can't. It is simply a theory.

You are free to believe the lies they tell you. I started my life--for over 37 years--believing their lies that I was brainwashed with, since I grew up largely outside the church and stuck in public schools that treated evolution and a devoid-of-God big bang theory as if they were truth. I was brainwashed. When God woke me up, God delivered me from that. So, sorry, I'm not going back. There is no amount of worldly wisdom that is going to pull me back into the deceptions that God saved me from. God is fully capable of saving everyone who truly loves Him. He doesn't need me to reduce His Truth, so it becomes more palatable for those who want the best of both worlds.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

I'm glad they satisfy you. They don't me. I don't believe them. And, I haven't missed all the fabrications and over-imaginative stretches trying to prove something they can't prove, either.

So, you believe your science and I will believe my God and Father and His Son, my Lord Jesus Christ. They don't lie to me and they don't have to try to prove anything, like your scientists do.

 

[NobleMouse]

If we are talking of a science class there are not two sides. However if it were a philosophy class or a survey class on world religions then multiple sides could be presented, fairly I hope.

I miss seeing the picture of your dog. Hope all is well!

 

[JackRT]

I miss seeing the picture of your dog. Hope all is well!

Have a new dog now. All is well indeed.

 

[Dale]

I'm glad they satisfy you. They don't me. I don't believe them. And, I haven't missed all the fabrications and over-imaginative stretches trying to prove something they can't prove, either.

So, you believe your science and I will believe my God and Father and His Son, my Lord Jesus Christ. They don't lie to me and they don't have to try to prove anything, like your scientists do.

Why do you believe that science and Christianity are at war? It makes no sense.

 

[Dale]

Nice manipulative appeal. But:

(1) The Truth doesn't change because "the masses" won't accept The Truth. Jesus openly demonstrated this in John 6. If Jesus was concerned about chasing people away, He didn't have to share what He did. But, He continued to speak truth, even when many "disciples" chose to walk with Him no longer" and then He turned to the 12--who were arguably shaken themselves and asked: "Do you want to leave to?" Peter gives the weak response: "Where else would we go. we believe...." Jesus then says: "Did I not pick you, the twelve? And one of you is a devil." Would you have counseled Jesus that He was chasing people away from Christianity, too?

(2) Once you establish that your theology is going to change based on what current science--which often doesn't allow creationists to be a part of it-- (and other sources that you recognize as more legitimate than the Bible) say, what are you left with to base your faith on? There is a lot in Scripture that is unbelievable for a man of science. Do you just black out the miracles like Thomas Jefferson did and use it as a powerless code of ethics?



Darwin also had a Christian upbringing and Darwin did not set out to disprove God with his theory of evolution, either. I don't doubt that Lematre had genuine intentions and he was trying to explain how God did it. And, God speaking could have certainly resulted in a big explosion of light that produced everything, but for it to explode into "order", God would have to be behind it making order out of what would otherwise be chaos, because a normal explosion doesn't produce order. Please conduct a scientific experiment--the way they are supposed to be done--and show me the order that results, instead of the destruction that I am used to seeing when an explosion happens.

There did the first life come from? Do you believe it just randomly happened over time and then those random smart cells eventually came to produce everything we now see that has life?

What evidence does anyone have about what they believe to have happened as long ago as today's scientists are now claiming the beginning must have happened to fit everything the way they believe it came into existence? If you are sticking to "this is science" concept, how are they legitimately testing this theory and not simply finding facts that they believe support what they already want to believe? The can't. It is simply a theory.

You are free to believe the lies they tell you. I started my life--for over 37 years--believing their lies that I was brainwashed with, since I grew up largely outside the church and stuck in public schools that treated evolution and a devoid-of-God big bang theory as if they were truth. I was brainwashed. When God woke me up, God delivered me from that. So, sorry, I'm not going back. There is no amount of worldly wisdom that is going to pull me back into the deceptions that God saved me from. God is fully capable of saving everyone who truly loves Him. He doesn't need me to reduce His Truth, so it becomes more palatable for those who want the best of both worlds.

You don't really deserve a reply when you accuse me of being "manipulative" without cause.

Nevertheless, think about this.

Johnny4: "Darwin also had a Christian upbringing and Darwin did not set out to disprove God with his theory of evolution, either. I don't doubt that Lematre had genuine intentions and he was trying to explain how God did it. And, God speaking could have certainly resulted in a big explosion of light that produced everything, but for it to explode into "order", God would have to be behind it making order out of what would otherwise be chaos, because a normal explosion doesn't produce order. Please conduct a scientific experiment--the way they are supposed to be done--and show me the order that results, instead of the destruction that I am used to seeing when an explosion happens."



Can order arise out of chaos? I have a book to recommend, or at least mention.


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977
Ilya Prigogine
"for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures"

Unknown cat_id:



Ilya Prigogine wrote a book, Order Out of Chaos, with Isabelle Stenger.

Yes, order has been observed to arise out of disorder, with inputs of energy.

I have read Order Out of Chaos, and it certainly is interesting.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

You don't really deserve a reply when you accuse me of being "manipulative" without cause.

Nevertheless, think about this.

Johnny4: "Darwin also had a Christian upbringing and Darwin did not set out to disprove God with his theory of evolution, either. I don't doubt that Lematre had genuine intentions and he was trying to explain how God did it. And, God speaking could have certainly resulted in a big explosion of light that produced everything, but for it to explode into "order", God would have to be behind it making order out of what would otherwise be chaos, because a normal explosion doesn't produce order. Please conduct a scientific experiment--the way they are supposed to be done--and show me the order that results, instead of the destruction that I am used to seeing when an explosion happens."



Can order arise out of chaos? I have a book to recommend, or at least mention.


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977
Ilya Prigogine
"for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures"

Unknown cat_id:



Ilya Prigogine wrote a book, Order Out of Chaos, with Isabelle Stenger.

Yes, order has been observed to arise out of disorder, with inputs of energy.

I have read Order Out of Chaos, and it certainly is interesting.

It really boils down to this: if you want to believe the lies of men. Go for it. I trust God. I don't trust men. But, for you, a point you have to ponder is what can you stand on? Once you start rejecting this and that, what can you really believe? Aren't all the major promises unbelievable from man's perspective?

I would rather believe the God who woke me up. I am sure that any science that existed during the flood of Noah would have stood against the idea of the there being a flood and telling Noah how foolish he was. Noah still believed God, not men.

God has no reason to lie. Man lies routinely and for a variety of motives. I have endured way too many examples to list them, including in your science textbooks that I was once brainwashed into believing as being true. God provides a hope and a future for me that man couldn't and won't even approach.

So, again, you can choose, too. I already did and no amount of purpose-driven pseudo-scientific "evidence" is going to change my mind. God already did, when I had been believing the lies your science offers.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Why do you believe that science and Christianity are at war? It makes no sense.

Science as an honest study is not at war with Christianity. What much of science has become, is at war with God and many of the "thought leaders" even refuse to accept that God exists. If that isn't completely illogical, I don't know what is. So, while rejecting the most obvious conclusions, they convince you to accept their other conclusions as logical.

When God is taken out of any equation, something takes His place. It is called a false god.

Science, used properly, can be an incredible explorative study into what God has created. When science oversteps its bounds, it loses its value. When science pulls God out of the equation in what cannot be explained, and openly rejects the obvious, it loses its value. When science creates lies to protect its beliefs, it loses its value--and I understand that goes both ways. But, sadly, most people don't know how to accept good science without also accepting the lies of bad science because they are often interwoven and presented as if they are all true. Then, you are forced to memorize and learn these things (also called brainwashing). Then, in many places, whether you can do what you want to do depends on your willingness to believe and incorporate those lies into your practice. That can be called mandatory indoctrination and control. I understand private facilities have the ability to make those choices. I don't agree that public facilities have that right. They just take it. And, then who don't want it taken, fight for it. Isn't that how you would describe war?

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no proof to macro-evolution.

It's been directly observed. Even "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families. But now, they say it's "not real evolution."

They say it's only real evolution if it takes so long that no one could live long enough to observe it.

Nobody has ever seen two of one kind produce another kind.

Since no creationist is willing to present a testable definition of "kind", that's a meaningless sentence.

it is one thing to have a bird produce a bird, but evolution's claims far exceed that.

It includes common descent of all organisms on Earth. The evidence includes genetics, observed evolution, numerous examples of transitional forms, and so on. There is an abundance of evidence for it.

That is not science, that is belief.

No you're wrong. Science is all about evidence. Belief would be like your conviction that there is no such evidence. It's based on what you don't know. That is the major difference between science and creationism.

The big bang suggests that without cause nothing suddenly exploded and produced everything.

Nope. No wonder you hate science. You don't know anything about it.

A Bible-believing Christian says God produced everything from nothing.

I believe God created the universe from nothing. However, a Christian will readily admit that God created living things from previously-created things. It's in the Bible.

Furthermore, explosions have never been known to produce order.

A supernova explosion will convert clouds of gas into ordered solar systems. Our own is such a case. Would you like to learn how we know?

They produce chaos.

There is order in chaos.

The Order in Chaos Theory – Universal Intelligence – Medium

Feigenbaum originally related the first constant to the period-doubling bifurcations in the logistic map, but also showed it to hold for all one-dimensional maps with a single quadratic maximum. As a consequence of this generality, every chaotic system that corresponds to this description will bifurcate at the same rate. It was discovered in 1978.
Feigenbaum constants - Wikipedia

Yet, your science claims the exact opposite happened with this explosion that happened without a cause.

It wasn't an explosion. "Big Bang" is a term invented by a critic of the theory.

And no, public schools are not required to teach that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle or that it was dug up out of a huge sea by a god with a bucket.

Or whatever religious notion someone follows.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

It's been directly observed. Even "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research now admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families. But now, they say it's "not real evolution."

They say it's only real evolution if it takes so long that no one could live long enough to observe it.



Since no creationist is willing to present a testable definition of "kind", that's a meaningless sentence.



It includes common descent of all organisms on Earth. The evidence includes genetics, observed evolution, numerous examples of transitional forms, and so on. There is an abundance of evidence for it.



No you're wrong. Science is all about evidence. Belief would be like your conviction that there is no such evidence. It's based on what you don't know. That is the major difference between science and creationism.



Nope. No wonder you hate science. You don't know anything about it.



I believe God created the universe from nothing. However, a Christian will readily admit that God created living things from previously-created things. It's in the Bible.



A supernova explosion will convert clouds of gas into ordered solar systems. Our own is such a case. Would you like to learn how we know?



There is order in chaos.

The Order in Chaos Theory – Universal Intelligence – Medium

Feigenbaum originally related the first constant to the period-doubling bifurcations in the logistic map, but also showed it to hold for all one-dimensional maps with a single quadratic maximum. As a consequence of this generality, every chaotic system that corresponds to this description will bifurcate at the same rate. It was discovered in 1978.
Feigenbaum constants - Wikipedia



It wasn't an explosion. "Big Bang" is a term invented by a critic of the theory.

And no, public schools are not required to teach that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle or that it was dug up out of a huge sea by a god with a bucket.

Or whatever religious notion someone follows.

You believe what you want to believe about God. I will believe what I know about God. We will be held accountable for what we choose to believe. I'm putting all my eggs in the basket of belief in the One who woke me up when He didn't have to. You have zero chance of changing my mind with man-made "evidence". I had been brainwashed by your version of science, but that won't happen again. It's really that simple.

 

[The Barbarian]

You believe what you want to believe about God. I will believe what I know about God.

You believe what you want to believe. You just put yourself above other Christians.

We will be held accountable for what we choose to believe.

Jesus makes it clear what will determine our eternal home. And what we think about the way God created things is not one of them. Instead of adding new, non-scriptural requirements, just accept it God's way.

You have zero chance of changing my mind with man-made "evidence".

Fortunately, God doesn't care what you think of creation, so it won't matter.

You've been brainwashed by your new doctrines, but that won't send you to hell. It's really that simple.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

You believe what you want to believe. You just put yourself above other Christians.



Jesus makes it clear what will determine our eternal home. And what we think about the way God created things is not one of them. Instead of adding new, non-scriptural requirements, just accept it God's way.



Fortunately, God doesn't care what you think of creation, so it won't matter.

You've been brainwashed by your new doctrines, but that won't send you to hell. It's really that simple.

Again, and for the final time, go ahead and put your faith in man. I don't mind being called foolish for believing what God said. And, if I am wrong, it won't cost me before God, only with men. I wouldn't be so sure that if you are wrong, it won't cost you with God. God doesn't take kindly to being called a liar.

 

[NobleMouse]

Again, and for the final time, go ahead and put your faith in man. I don't mind being called foolish for believing what God said. And, if I am wrong, it won't cost me before God, only with men. I wouldn't be so sure that if you are wrong, it won't cost you with God. God doesn't take kindly to being called a liar.

If you are conversing with The Barbarian , I would recommend stopping immediately and adding him to your ignored member list (though you are free to do as you wish). The Barbarian is a a heretic and will twist and destroy scripture to fit the man-made faith of evolution as well as the naturalistic assumptions of secular science... clearly this is his ultimate source of authority rather than God's word.

As you know, Christianity is not a blind-faith-check-your-brain-at-the-door religion. The reasonable and rational person will easily find evidence supporting the truth of God's word and it is because God IS the source of all wisdom and truth. Genesis is part of God's word to us and is affirmed by Jesus as well as every OT & NT author, prophet and apostle. God made it a commandment that we remember the Sabbath and make it holy because on the 7th day God rested from all of His creation and made it holy. This was God, writing on stone tablets and giving it to Moses. This is not just some strange obscure idea from YEC's or 7 Day Adventists, or whatever other nonsense idea Barbarian tries to insist - it's what God told us in His word. What God chose to reveal to us in Genesis may not be exhaustive, but it IS true and it IS accurate.

God bless you for your faith!

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, and for the final time, go ahead and put your faith in man.

If you didn't put your faith in men who revised Genesis to their new doctrine, this wouldn't be an issue for you.

I don't mind being called foolish for believing what God said.

Instead, you believe what men told you.

And, if I am wrong, it won't cost me before God, only with men.

That's right. God doesn't care what you think of the way He created things. That's not what determines your salvation.

I wouldn't be so sure that if you are wrong, it won't cost you with God. God doesn't take kindly to being called a liar.

You don't intend to call Him a liar. You've just been convinced to believe what men told you, rather than what He tells you.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

If you didn't put your faith in men who revised Genesis to their new doctrine, this wouldn't be an issue for you.



Instead, you believe what men told you.



That's right. God doesn't care what you think of the way He created things. That's not what determines your salvation.



You don't intend to call Him a liar. You've just been convinced to believe what men told you, rather than what He tells you.

Be careful who and what you believe. It may lead to eternal destruction.