Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

[Plan 9]

Read the whole review at http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19970109028R@p1

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

Yet, you have no problem reading an atheist and quoting him your OP.

 

[Crusadar]

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

[/font]
Yet, you have no problem reading an atheist and quoting him your OP.

....... I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

 

[Plan 9]

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.



....... I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

You know, I had previously thought you were simply contentious and rude, but if you can't define a phrase in your own OP (and even suggest that I pray in order to learn its definition), or understand that it speaks against God outright and that by posting it, you help his atheistic cause, I'm now drawn to the theory that you're just not not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[lucaspa]

Some of us do need to work you know. Just out of curiosity, for an assistant professor at NYMC, how is it that you have so much time to spare? Don’t you have classes to teach, lectures to prepare for, papers to grade, research to do – or maybe something else better to do with your time then waste it on us bible believing literalists?

I don't consider saving people from losing their faith a waste of time.

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred.

Nice try at changing the subject. But it won't work. We are still dealing with the fact that "what the Bible says" is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's either wishful thinking or apostasy. I was being kind and going for wishful thinking.

lucaspa: Christians have long acknowledged that, if God really did create, then Creation is also a book of God.

Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?

No. Didn't say that at all. This is what you are trying to say Different book. Different messages. What we can do is look at the book of Creation and learn how God created. Genesis tells us the who and why of Creation. God's Book of Creation tells us how He created.

The fact that God did really create is shown by creation being the result of an instantaneous command.

But that isn't what it shows. If it really had shown that we wouldn't be having this disagreement. And creationism wouldn't have been falsified by Christians almost 200 years ago.

It would seem you are much more inclined to believe man’s interpretation of a fallen creation than that which is inspired by God.

Genesis 3 does not say all creation was changed. That's your man-made theory. Snakes lost legs, childbirth became painful, it was hard to grow crops. That's it. God never said that what He put into Creation got changed. If you rely on the Bible, then you can't add things to it that aren't there.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

There's no worship of the creation here. Simply saying that God really did create.

The great book of creation, and where can I find salvation in this great book he refers to – for I to want to believe.

You are going to try to ride this distraction as long as possible, aren't you? The idea that you get salvation from Creation is yours. Not mine. I'm not going to let you lose sight of that. I'm simply saying that Creation is also from God and by God. You keep trying to dodge that, but you can't, can you?

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

Here you have the refutation of your idea above. Didn't pay attention, did you?

One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows.

LOL! Not what Pope Pius said, is it? The other tells us how God created. But you seem to be denying your own position: "Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?" You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!

So, since you find the Book of God's Creation so spiritually reliable, why do you reject the Book when it tells you how God created?

So, you are 1) denying the existence of the second book on false criteria and 2) making up a false theology and trying to pawn that off as "God's word".

And which book tells us the message of salvation given to us by God our creator? Show me the message of salvation in the fossil record as you claim your sacred theory of evolution does.

I never claimed it did. But you did. See your quote above.

Just as I figure. It shows rather a record of the assumed Bolivians in Oblivions of years of the earth with nothing but evidence of death, diseases, maiming, struggling, destruction thorns and all manners of suffering. Where is the God of love that the Bible teaches in all of this?

Where is the God of love that let the Hebrews languish in slavery for hundreds of years? How many Hebrews died of disease, maiming, and struggle during that slavery? How many died in the Conquest of Canaan? Where is the God of love that inflicted the Plague of the Firstborn on the Egyptians? How about the suffering from the Babylonian Captivity? How many Christians were martyred by the Romans in order to bring the gospel? God uses death and suffering all the time for His purposes.

I think you should look to the Bible more.

No I deny your schizophrenic attempt to reconcile evolutionary hogwash as the process in which God would use.

Why? It's no more cruel than the processes God has used in the Bible.

for if I were still pleasers of men I would not be bond servant of Christ would I?

I'm going to be kind and not get into that claim. This is simply too self-serving in this context and there is no way to check the claim. I would think that a servant of Christ would be a bit more humble about the position, but hey, I only look at Christ washing the feet of the disciples. What do I know?

However you would impress me very much if you are able to reconcile the evolutionary process with scripture by answering why we are even given the option of praying for relief from pain and suffering if they are the process God uses?

Simple.
1. Is death bad? You seem to think so, maybe inflammed by your fear of death. But death is just part of life. Not a "bad" think you make it out to be. After all, don't you think you will be united with God after death? Then why is death bad?
2. God never promised us relief from pain. Pain and suffering are part of what makes us what we are. If we are to have meaningful lives, then God can't shield us and make it so we never get hurt. What happens to us must be real, not make-believe and all made nicey-nice for us. I truly love my daughters, but I am not showing my love for them if I shield them from all pain and suffering. I am simply being a control freak. Your god seems to be a control freak. I personally am glad that God is not.
3. Evolution happens to populations, praying for relief is for individuals. And the pain and suffering we are praying for relief from has nothing to do with selection. If I pray for relief of the pain of grief for the loss of a loved one, that has nothing to do with whether I am lucky enough to have genes that are beneficial to the population.

I presume you are impressed now.

 

[Crusadar]

Some of us do need to work you know. Just out of curiosity, for an assistant professor at NYMC, how is it that you have so much time to spare? Don’t you have classes to teach, lectures to prepare for, papers to grade, research to do – or maybe something else better to do with your time then waste it on us bible believing literalists?

lucaspa said: I don't consider saving people from losing their faith a waste of time.

Still I wonder just how do you have so much time to spare to make 14.89 posts a day when I can’t even make one posting a week? This is on your own time I hope – I mean it would jeopardize your career if you were to use school property and school time to promote your religious views – as it almost did mine.

So have you saved any one from losing their faith lately? And what is it that you use to witness to people who are non believers lucaspa – the book of creation? I thought that was what the word of God was for?

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred.

Nice try at changing the subject. But it won't work.

The subject was can we trust what the word of God says when it touches on morality and salvation or anything else? Where is the consistency if you cannot trust the very foundation where the cause of moral decay and the need for salvation is rooted? You seem to think we can’t hence your subscription into the evolutionary propaganda.

We are still dealing with the fact that "what the Bible says" is what you say it says. That's not authority.

Actually what we are really dealing with is what you are saying that the Bible clearly does not say. The Word of God is the final authority in and of itself. You cannot give authority where there is already authority to begin with.

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” Luke 4:4

Now how much I would pay for that which can sustain me forever! Actually it is free, but you have to believe in it you know.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrew 4:12

Nowhere in this verse does it say anything about my words, or the word of man.

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3

Now imagine that, the power of the Word of God able to bring forth things out of nothing. I would shudder in awe of anyone who can do that.

It's either wishful thinking or apostasy. I was being kind and going for wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is to say the least about evolutionism, an abandonment of faith and trust in the authority of the Word of God it clearly shows.

Christians have long acknowledged that, if God really did create, then Creation is also a book of God.

The fact that God did really create is shown by creation being the result of an instantaneous command.
But that isn't what it shows.

Scripture says otherwise:

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Romans 1:20

It would be illogical to say that since we are without excuse how thus can we use God’s method of creation as in that of evolution also to deny His existence? It is however your word against the word of God. I’ll let you figure which has more authority.

If it really had shown that we wouldn't be having this disagreement. And creationism wouldn't have been falsified by Christians almost 200 years ago.

If scripture is the word of God, can it really be falsified by those followers who have simply compromised His word? Did you ever think that it may have been the truth that is the reason why it has been compromised, and thus confirming what scripture says, that many are indeed called but only few are chosen.

I suppose you do have reasons for your insistence that creationism has been falsified by so called “Christians”. It is however simply your own delusion, as real science does support God creating as Scripture tells us. Scripture however tells us that these “Christians” have simply fallen into disbelief or have simply sought something much more to their liking to justify themselves before men rather than God - after all it was a time when man was beginning to advance in understanding the things that God has made – but then the gumption of some to attribute it all to have been the result of a blind process.

As Karl Popper, a science philosopher and evolutionist states in his autobiography “Unended Quest.”

“This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.”

What Popper seems to be saying is that evolution not only became an alternative to Biblical Creationism, it provided a purely naturalistic explanation of origins without invoking God. What would be the implication if one could justify not needing God as the source of life? A justification in doing what anyone wishes to do without worrying about future retribution? In denying that God created as scripture tells us we are in fact denying life, which is God, as He is the only source of life and without Him we are dead – physically and spiritually.

It would seem you are much more inclined to believe man’s interpretation of a fallen creation than that which is inspired by God.

Genesis 3 does not say all creation was changed. That's your man-made theory. Snakes lost legs, childbirth became painful, it was hard to grow crops. That's it. God never said that what He put into Creation got changed. If you rely on the Bible, then you can't add things to it that aren't there.

There is no doubt that creation has changed as we are reminded of this everyday, as the whole creation has been groaning and travailing in pain as Roman 8:22 tell us.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

There's no worship of the creation here. Simply saying that God really did create.

Um hum, through a process that does not require Him and claiming that it was the way He created. I would rather think that Augustine was referring to an instantaneous creation. However you forget he was simply a man of God and nothing more.

The great book of creation, and where can I find salvation in this great book he refers to – for I to want to believe.

You are going to try to ride this distraction as long as possible, aren't you? The idea that you get salvation from Creation is yours. Not mine. I'm not going to let you lose sight of that. I'm simply saying that Creation is also from God and by God. You keep trying to dodge that, but you can't, can you?

So I see, there is no message of salvation in the fossil record – could all those fossil be a clue perhaps of what happens when men turn away from God and seek not His provision of salvation – as He has brought His judgment upon man once and will again. So now that the ride is over, just how does one come to Christ simply by looking at God’s fallen creation?

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

Here you have the refutation of your idea above. Didn't pay attention, did you?

One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows.

LOL! Not what Pope Pius said, is it?

Now really, who are we going to believe in lucaspa, the almighty “dead” pope or the living Word of God? Of course we already know the answer to that question don’t we.

But you seem to be denying your own position:

And what position might that be? That creation points to God or that it points to message of salvation?

"Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?"

You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!

And how do you suppose I did that?

So, since you find the Book of God's Creation so spiritually reliable, why do you reject the Book when it tells you how God created?

What book are you referring to that tells of how God created? I know of no such book except perhaps the one you obviously made up.

So, you are 1) denying the existence of the second book on false criteria and 2) making up a false theology and trying to pawn that off as "God's word".

And which book tells us the message of salvation given to us by God our creator? Show me the message of salvation in the fossil record as you claim your sacred theory of evolution does.

And besides there is no denial, for there is no such book – how can you deny something that does not occur nor exist as that of evolution?

I never claimed it did. But you did. See your quote above.

Of course you only claim God wrote a second book – something in which the first book mentions nothing of. Now I wonder who is really bearing false witness to God here?

 

[Crusadar]

Just as I figure. It shows rather a record of the assumed Bolivians in Oblivions of years of the earth with nothing but evidence of death, diseases, maiming, struggling, destruction thorns and all manners of suffering. Where is the God of love that the Bible teaches in all of this?

Where is the God of love that let the Hebrews languish in slavery for hundreds of years?

The same place He was when He created the universe as according to scripture and knowing all along that He would one day die to for His creation.

How many Hebrews died of disease, maiming, and struggle during that slavery?

The same place He was when He made them into a mighty nation despite their status of being former slaves –their struggle however was not senseless as true character and trust is derived not from times of prosperity and joy but from being broken and humiliated.

How many died in the Conquest of Canaan?

As many as is needed to show that those who opposed the will of God nor does not worship Him as the one true God will in the end receive the same fate.

Where is the God of love that inflicted the Plague of the Firstborn on the Egyptians?

The same place when the Egyptians killed all the Hebrew male children, who I would say God deals justice in his own way.

How about the suffering from the Babylonian Captivity?

What about it? Israel's rejection of God perhaps?

How many Christians were martyred by the Romans in order to bring the gospel?

And yet the more the were slaughtered, the more that believed.

God uses death and suffering all the time for His purposes.

Not as a creative process but as consequence of sin. Pain and suffering is only meaningful if it is curative and as a reversal of a wrong choice.

I think you should look to the Bible more.

My suggestion exact.

No I deny your schizophrenic attempt to reconcile evolutionary hogwash as the process in which God would use.

Why? It's no more cruel than the processes God has used in the Bible.

If you would read your scripture correctly you will note that every instance had a reason and it was that man was the cause of his own demise – whereas the process of evolution is intentional. Where is the meaning of atonement when death and suffering has been going on for billions of years?

for if I were still pleasers of men I would not be bond servant of Christ would I?

I'm going to be kind and not get into that claim. This is simply too self-serving in this context and there is no way to check the claim.

I am wondering if you could have simply cut and paste an appropriate response here lucaspa - after all it is what you seem to do best.

I would think that a servant of Christ would be a bit more humble about the position, but hey, I only look at Christ washing the feet of the disciples.

And I wonder how many times Jesus rebuked those who were supposedly men of God. He wasn’t too humble then was He – as the reason was they have perverted the Word of God with the word of man – just as theistic evolutionists have done. It is just a shame we cannot see into the heart of men – but Christ can and He is taking note.

What do I know?

Obviously not much, but then neither do I – only what the love of God reveals to me.

However you would impress me very much if you are able to reconcile the evolutionary process with scripture by answering why we are even given the option of praying for relief from pain and suffering if they are the process God uses?

Simple.

Is it really that simple?

Is death bad? You seem to think so, maybe inflammed by your fear of death. But death is just part of life. Not a "bad" think you make it out to be. After all, don't you think you will be united with God after death? Then why is death bad?

Is death apart of life lucaspa, after all God is life - can God than also die? So where scripture says that death was brought into the world by the man Adam it was obviously only spiritual death right? Wait a minute I thought Scripture tells us that the soul cannot die, only the body so where does the Bible say we will die spiritually in Genesis? Isn’t spiritual death only separation from God? If that were true which one does man fear most, physical or spiritual death since man does not know if he is spiritually dead, only when he witnesses physical death as he sees this everyday all around him? So what good is a promise of spiritual life when it is physical death that man fears most?

And also if the shedding of blood (through death) already existed before Adam and Eve what was the significance of saying that bloodshed was the only way for the forgiveness of sin? Is that not what the whole gospel is about, atonement with the blood and death of Christ? But according to the fossil record, death has been occurring for ages, so where is the logic in using something that means nothing?

And me fear death? As a true believer why should I, for have you not read:

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:38-39

God never promised us relief from pain. Pain and suffering are part of what makes us what we are.

I wonder how much the word of God really plays a part in your own life? However it does say something quite different:

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John 14:13

So where in this scripture passage does it say that prayer for relief from pain and suffering is prohibited. I really wonder what Christians who are afflicted with cancer pray for – a quick and speedy death perhaps? And I suppose you never pray for any relief from pain and suffering do you, you’re a better man than I am if you can bare the pains of growing old or when a child becomes sick.

And still why does God promise a new heaven and a new earth where death and suffering will be no more when it is the very things He used in creating this one? If God really took this long in creating this world – I wonder how long we would have to wait to see this new world that He has promised us – another few billion years?

If we are to have meaningful lives, then God can't shield us and make it so we never get hurt. What happens to us must be real, not make-believe and all made nicey-nice for us.

If we are to have any meaning at all in life we must come to the realization that death and suffering is not a part of the process of creation a loving God uses but as a consequence of man’s rebellion and thus seek Christ – as He is the only one who gives us life and gives it abundantly.

I truly love my daughters, but I am not showing my love for them if I shield them from all pain and suffering.

I don’t doubt that you do, just as I my own children – which is why they need to experience pain and suffering as it builds their character – but not because such happen to be part of the creative process of a demented sadistic creator, but as a reminder that it was the direct consequence of sin.

I am simply being a control freak. Your god seems to be a control freak. I personally am glad that God is not.

Now you are bordering the absurd. You do mean the God of the Bible right? And yes God is in total control, of my life and I wouldn’t have it any other way. So how much control does He have over your life?

Evolution happens to populations,

There is no proof that evolution happens at all is there? Otherwise we would not be in disagreement would we?

praying for relief is for individuals.

So when we gather in groups to pray for the sick and the afflicted we are not following God’s imaginary “second book” then? That’s funny because God’s one and only Book says something else.
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20

I guess you made up that praying for relief was only for individuals didn’t you?

And the pain and suffering we are praying for relief from has nothing to do with selection.

Selection of what?

If I pray for relief of the pain of grief for the loss of a loved one, that has nothing to do with whether I am lucky enough to have genes that are beneficial to the population.

But if it is the process God uses then why pray for any relief at all, as that would in itself be thwarting the purpose and will of an all knowing God wouldn't it?

I presume you are impressed now.

You presume too much lucaspa, impressed I am not in the least. I will however question you on your gumption to say that your biblically baseless assertions have impressed anyone!

It would seem that the heart of man is stubborn indeed even when He believes in God and yet wishes to place his version of truth alongside of God’s truth and say that both have equal footings when there really is only one truth - and it is the Word of God.

However we will look further into your spiritually bankrupt reasoning for its justification of pain and suffering, as it would not be very palatable to your die hard non believer who object to a God who claims to be a God of love but then uses a process that totally says the opposite. What is certain is that evolution does not reflect the true nature of God at all, something which I will bring up into discussion later on.

 

[wblastyn]

[/font]

Yet, you have no problem reading an atheist and quoting him your OP.

ROFL!!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Crusadar - you seem to have nothing to add to this but self righteousness and complete contempt for others' expressions of faith.

There is no point debating with you because you know you're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

Some of us do need to work you know. Just out of curiosity, for an assistant professor at NYMC, how is it that you have so much time to spare? Don’t you have classes to teach, lectures to prepare for, papers to grade, research to do – or maybe something else better to do with your time then waste it on us bible believing literalists?

lucaspa said: I don't consider saving people from losing their faith a waste of time.

Still I wonder just how do you have so much time to spare to make 14.89 posts a day when I can’t even make one posting a week? This is on your own time I hope – I mean it would jeopardize your career if you were to use school property and school time to promote your religious views – as it almost did mine.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

So have you saved any one from losing their faith lately?

Yes. Over in the other forum the evolutionists did help Saviormachine in his crisis of faith brought on by creationism.

And what is it that you use to witness to people who are non believers lucaspa – the book of creation? I thought that was what the word of God was for?

I was quite clear the Book of Creation is not about salvation. It's about how God created. All that I do there is counter the atheists who claim that science disproves God. The Book of Creation and science won't allow that claim.

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Evolution did occur. If it hadn't it would not be such a widely accepted theory. After all, just how many flat earthers are there? Know any phlogiston chemists? But there are a lot of oxygen-combustion chemists and round earthers, aren't there? Once again, Crusadar, go to PubMed and use "evolution" as your search term. Start going thru the more than 120,000 papers and then get back to us on evolution being "imaginative" and "never occurred".

Nice try at changing the subject. But it won't work.

The subject was can we trust what the word of God says when it touches on morality and salvation or anything else?

That wasn't the subject, but the answer is "yes" that we can trust GOD for morality and salvation. But God isn't necessarily the "word of God" as in the Bible. For instance, the Bible condones slavery, and we think that is immoral. The Bible condones selling your daughter into slavery, and we consider that very immoral. The trick here is not to worship what you call the "word of God" but to remember to worship God instead.

Where is the consistency if you cannot trust the very foundation where the cause of moral decay and the need for salvation is rooted?

AH! There's the problem. The foundation is not the Bible! The foundation is GOD. Thank you so much for so clearly showing your false idol worship.

We are still dealing with the fact that "what the Bible says" is what you say it says. That's not authority.

Actually what we are really dealing with is what you are saying that the Bible clearly does not say. The Word of God is the final authority in and of itself.

Once again, the final authority is GOD. All the Bible claims for itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 is that the Bible is useful for instruction in righteousness. It does not claim final authority. You have constructed a false religion to say that. Now, remember who created.

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” Luke 4:4

Note the every word of God. That would include the words of God in His Creation, wouldn't it? Why do you deny those words?

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrew 4:12

Nowhere in this verse does it say anything about my words,

LOL! Now why would a verse written 1,950 years ago talk about the word of Crusadar? You didn't exist then. So your connection is irrelevant. Once again, who created?

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3

Nice statement of faith, and is not contradicted by science or evolution. Remember, TE holds that God is the sustainer of the universe and thus that God is behind and part of all the processes that we call "natural".

Now imagine that, the power of the Word of God able to bring forth things out of nothing. I would shudder in awe of anyone who can do that.

But you don't shudder in awe at the power of the Word of God that is able to bring forth things out of previous things thru physical processes? What a limitation you impose on your god! You can only worship God if He does things the way Crusadar wants them done? Pretty close to apostasy here.

Wishful thinking is to say the least about evolutionism, an abandonment of faith and trust in the authority of the Word of God it clearly shows.

Evolution is only an abadonment of a fallible human misinterpretation of the Bible. And recognition that there are more words of God than those found in a literal Bible. I just realized that the literalist god is pretty small. He can only be found in the Bible. How sad.

lucaspa: Christians have long acknowledged that, if God really did create, then Creation is also a book of God.

The fact that God did really create is shown by creation being the result of an instantaneous command.

lucaspa: But that isn't what it shows.

Scripture says otherwise:

Here's the schizophrenia of creationism on display. The first reply is that creation shows that it is the result of an instantaneous demand. However, when I say creation does not show that, the reply is not from creation but from a literal scripture! Now, if creation shows an instantaneous creation, then let's see the data from creation.

But there isn't any. Instead, you have to retreat to scripture in Romans 1:20 (which does not state and instantaneous creation) and then say:
[/quote] It would be illogical to say that since we are without excuse how thus can we use God’s method of creation as in that of evolution also to deny His existence? [/quote]1. Still no evidence from creation.
2. False witness in saying that we are using God's method of creation (evolution) to deny God's existence. This is theistic evolution, remember. God using evolution as His method of creation. That's hardly denying that God exists.

It is however your word against the word of God. I’ll let you figure which has more authority.

It's still your word vs the word of God. After all, you just acknowledged that God created. So, God's Creation shows He created by evolution. Romans 1:20 doesn't deny that! Even your Biblical quote doesn't help you. These words in the "word of God" don't back your claim.

lucaspa: If it really had shown that we wouldn't be having this disagreement. And creationism wouldn't have been falsified by Christians almost 200 years ago.

If scripture is the word of God, can it really be falsified by those followers who have simply compromised His word?

Creationism isn't the word of God. It's a man-made theory based on a man-made interpretation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-8. A wrong interpretation since creation science demands a violent Flood, which is against what you find in Genesis 6-8.

Here again we have the schizophrenia of creationism. Identifying creationism as scripture. It's not.

I suppose you do have reasons for your insistence that creationism has been falsified by so called “Christians”.

They weren't "so-called". Many of them were ordained and remained Christians thruout their lives. Some of them -- such as Rev. Adam Sedgwick -- opposed evolution. However, they recognized that creationism was wrong.

The reason, of course, comes from your use of "so-called". It shows that there was no bias against Christianity at work here. So instead of respecting the integrity of these men, you now have to attack them:

It is however simply your own delusion, as real science does support God creating as Scripture tells us. Scripture however tells us that these “Christians” have simply fallen into disbelief or have simply sought something much more to their liking to justify themselves before men rather than God - after all it was a time when man was beginning to advance in understanding the things that God has made – but then the gumption of some to attribute it all to have been the result of a blind process.

1. Creationism was falsified before evolution was conceived. Young earth was dead before 1820. The Flood by 1831. Both long before Darwin had ever conceived of evolution by natural selection.
2. As I pointed out above, many of the men who falsified creationism still resisted transformation of species and argued for the special creation of humans.

So, Crusadar, your contention falls apart in the face of historical fact.

As Karl Popper, a science philosopher and evolutionist states in his autobiography “Unended Quest.”

“This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.”

Hmm. No page number. Would you provide one, please?

However, Popper is wrong, as he has been wrong so often concerning evolution. A great philosopher of science, but a poor biologist and historian. What Popper doesn't realize is that Darwin set natural selection squarely in the tradition of natural theology -- which is explaining how God works. This is what the view of God's method of action was in Darwin's time:
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.
"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726

Now, from Origin:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

What Popper seems to be saying is that evolution not only became an alternative to Biblical Creationism, it provided a purely naturalistic explanation of origins without invoking God.

That is what Popper is saying, but what I've shown above is that Popper is not correct. Evolution didn't do that. The key here is that "purely naturalistic" you used. Popper has simply accepted the mythology of atheism here and the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Science can not back that statement. Science has no way of telling if any natural explanation is "pure" and does not involve God.

The problem here is that you have also accepted the atheistic mythology and statement of faith! After all, you agree with Popper about evolution, right? How can you witness for Christ when you really believe atheism?

What would be the implication if one could justify not needing God as the source of life? A justification in doing what anyone wishes to do without worrying about future retribution? In denying that God created as scripture tells us we are in fact denying life, which is God, as He is the only source of life and without Him we are dead – physically and spiritually.

There are two separate issues here:
1. The source of morality and whether morality can exist without some form of punishment lurking in the background. Start that as a separate thread if you want to pursue it further. Personally, there are a lot of theological problems with this view of morality.
2. The oft-repeated lie that denying that God created "as scripture tells us" is the same as denying that God created. Repeatedly setting up this strawmand doesn't make it any less a strawman. One more time: TE denies that God created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. TE says God created by the processes discovered by science. So, your worry has no foundation because no one here is denying that God created.

Atheists deny that God created, but that is a separate problem -- for them.

Genesis 3 does not say all creation was changed. That's your man-made theory. Snakes lost legs, childbirth became painful, it was hard to grow crops. That's it. God never said that what He put into Creation got changed. If you rely on the Bible, then you can't add things to it that aren't there.

There is no doubt that creation has changed as we are reminded of this everyday, as the whole creation has been groaning and travailing in pain as Roman 8:22 tell us.

But Genesis 3 doesn't tell us that, does it? It's remarkable how you ignore the Bible when you say you are following it. Romans 8:22 simply tells us that "creation" is "groaning" because of the spiritual downfall of people. It doesn't say anything close to what you say it does. I really don't understand how you can abuse scripture so badly.

 

[lucaspa]

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

You are accusing God of setting up stray paths for man to follow? Remember, that book of created things was written by God.

There's no worship of the creation here. Simply saying that God really did create.

Um hum, through a process that does not require Him

False witness again. There is no claim that God is not required.

I would rather think that Augustine was referring to an instantaneous creation. However you forget he was simply a man of God and nothing more.

Are you denying that God created? Are you denying that everything in Creation was put there by God? That seems to be what you are saying. I doubt it, because if you truly believe God created by instantaneous creation then you are saying that everything in creation was put there by God, right? Where else did it come from?

Augustine isn't advocating evolution, nor did I claim he was. Try to be honest in your discussions, Crusadar. False witness doesn't help God. What Augustine shows is that Christians have long recognized that God wrote two books. You, with your fixation on Biblical literalism, deny this.

You are going to try to ride this distraction as long as possible, aren't you? The idea that you get salvation from Creation is yours. Not mine. I'm not going to let you lose sight of that. I'm simply saying that Creation is also from God and by God. You keep trying to dodge that, but you can't, can you?

So I see, there is no message of salvation in the fossil record – could all those fossil be a clue perhaps of what happens when men turn away from God and seek not His provision of salvation – as He has brought His judgment upon man once and will again.

I don't see how. After all, those fossils are simply remains of organisms once alive that are now dead. Every living creature dies, so how can they be a clue? Also, why would God arrange those fossils to show evolution if evolution didn't happen?

So now that the ride is over, just how does one come to Christ simply by looking at God’s fallen creation?

You are the one that quoted Romans 1:20; you tell us.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

Here you have the refutation of your idea above. Didn't pay attention, did you?

One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows.

LOL! Not what Pope Pius said, is it?

Now really, who are we going to believe in lucaspa, the almighty “dead” pope or the living Word of God? Of course we already know the answer to that question don’t we. [/quote]It's still not what Pope Pius said, is it? Using ad hominem isn't going to get around:
1. That there are two books of God, but you won't admit to one of them.
2. That you misrepresented what Pope Pius said.
3. You are not quoting the "living Word of God". That Living Word is Jesus, and you have told us you don't believe the Living Word, just your interpretation of the Bible.

But you seem to be denying your own position:

And what position might that be?

It was right there in the sentence after the one of mine you quoted:
"But you seem to be denying your own position: "Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?" You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!"

You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!

And how do you suppose I did that?

"One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows."

Aren't you saying here that the Book of Creation tells him that there is no escape from death unless he finds truth in the word of God which leads him to Christ? If not, what are you saying? And how does the Book of Creation do this? What specific data in that book tells us that we need Christ for salvation?

So, since you find the Book of God's Creation so spiritually reliable, why do you reject the Book when it tells you how God created?

What book are you referring to that tells of how God created?

God's Creation. You know, the universe that God created and which God put everything in it? It's fun to watch you run in circles trying to get away from your own position, but don't you feel foolish?

I know of no such book except perhaps the one you obviously made up.

You have been trying to deny the Book of Creation thru about half the post. You start with the quote of St. Augustine and continue thru the quote of Pope Pius. I shouldn't have to tell you to pay attention to what you are doing.

So, you are 1) denying the existence of the second book on false criteria and 2) making up a false theology and trying to pawn that off as "God's word".

And which book tells us the message of salvation given to us by God our creator? Show me the message of salvation in the fossil record as you claim your sacred theory of evolution does.

And besides there is no denial, for there is no such book – how can you deny something that does not occur nor exist as that of evolution?

Of course there is a Book of Creation. Romans 1:20 tells you there is. You say there is:
"“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3
Now imagine that, the power of the Word of God able to bring forth things out of nothing." What do you think those "things" are? The Book of Creation!

"The fact that God did really create is shown by creation being the result of an instantaneous command."

Of course you only claim God wrote a second book – something in which the first book mentions nothing of.

In addition to Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20, there is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Now, what did St. Augustine call this? The "book of created things". The Bible does indeed say God created. That's the second book -- duplex cognito" as John Calvin put it.

I'm really surprised to see what lengths you are going to deny God as Creator. But I guess you have to in order to preserve your god of Biblical literalism.

 

[Plan 9]

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.



....... I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

First you title a thread with a phrase you can't define for us, and now you appear to be either be asserting that you've read everything David Oldroyd has ever written, or to be splitting hairs.

Or, are you saying that you're perfectly willing to read things written by an "unsaved dead athiests" who is so obscure that word has never gotten around that he or she speaks outright against God?

OR, are you saying that you're perfectly willing to read things written by a "saved dead athiests" who is known to speak outright against God?

Now that I think about it, that statement is as inscrutable to me as is your thread title.

What does it mean, Crusadar?

 

[wblastyn]

What does it mean, Crusadar?

It means you brought to light his insecurity. He fears that if he reads the link it may damage his faith in creationism, so he uses the excuse of "I don't read things by atheists" as a dodge, but what he doesn't know is super-sleuth Plan 9 has remembered his quote from the OP, which is by an atheist. Crusadar tries to dodge again by claiming he doesn't read things by atheists who speak out against God. The question then becomes: how do you know that atheist guy has never spoken out against God?

 

[lucaspa]

Spare me the links as I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.



....... I have no intention of reading something written by or about an unsaved dead atheists who is known to speak outright against God.

Then how did you get the quote from Popper? He qualifies as an "unsaved dead atheist" and you quoted him as speaking outright against God?

Or are you admitting that you never read Popper but simply copped the quote from a creationist website?

 

[lucaspa]

Just as I figure. It shows rather a record of the assumed Bolivians in Oblivions of years of the earth with nothing but evidence of death, diseases, maiming, struggling, destruction thorns and all manners of suffering. Where is the God of love that the Bible teaches in all of this?

Where is the God of love that let the Hebrews languish in slavery for hundreds of years?

The same place He was when He created the universe as according to scripture and knowing all along that He would one day die to for His creation.

How many Hebrews died of disease, maiming, and struggle during that slavery?

The same place He was when He made them into a mighty nation despite their status of being former slaves –their struggle however was not senseless as true character and trust is derived not from times of prosperity and joy but from being broken and humiliated.

GOTCHA! Thanks for admitting that God created Israel! So we have a creative act of God outside Genesis: God created Israel!

God uses death and suffering all the time for His purposes.

Not as a creative process but as consequence of sin. Pain and suffering is only meaningful if it is curative and as a reversal of a wrong choice.

Yes, as a creative process! God created Israel using the death and suffering of the Hebrew people as slaves, the death and suffering of the Egyptians during their escape from Egypt (even hardening the heart of Pharaoah twice to increase the period of suffering), and the death of people of Canaan. Out of all this death and suffering, and using it to demonstrate His power, God created Israel.

I would argue that our response to pain and suffering is always meaningful, even if the pain ends up killing us (as in cancer) or doesn't reverse a wrong choice (as in living at Love Canal to get exposed to the carcinogens). The pain and suffering of the people of Love Canal that dealt with the pain and suffering of their cancer and the cancers of those they loved was meaningful even tho it doesn't fulfill your criteria. In your zeal to attack evolution, you will deny how God created Israel and that God can work thru even pain and suffering to achieve His ends. Isn't that limiting the power and glory of God?

How about the suffering from the Babylonian Captivity?

What about it? Israel's rejection of God perhaps?

And still showing that God works thru death and suffering. Thanks for making my point for me, Crusadar.

How many Christians were martyred by the Romans in order to bring the gospel?

And yet the more the were slaughtered, the more that believed.

Another admission that God worked thru death and suffering!

No I deny your schizophrenic attempt to reconcile evolutionary hogwash as the process in which God would use.

Why? It's no more cruel than the processes God has used in the Bible.

If you would read your scripture correctly you will note that every instance had a reason and it was that man was the cause of his own demise – whereas the process of evolution is intentional.

And TEs believe that the instances of death and suffering in nature has a purpose: to get the designs in biological organisms. And yes, TEs believe that the process of evolution is intentional, just what you said.

For humans, it was spiritual death that is caused by sin, not physical. Check Genesis 2:18. God could not have meant physical death because Adam lived 930 years after his sin; he did not die "in the day".

Where is the meaning of atonement when death and suffering has been going on for billions of years?

Why does the length of time make any difference? Atonement is still atonement whether it is 4,000 years or 4 billion years.

The atonement is for spiritual death, not physical death.

they have perverted the Word of God with the word of man – just as theistic evolutionists have done. It is just a shame we cannot see into the heart of men – but Christ can and He is taking note.

Isn't it fun that creationists so often end up in threats?

1. Jesus rebuked those who were Biblical literalists and perverted the word by only looking at it literally. Sound familiar? Isn't that how you read the Bible -- literally?
2. You keep denying that God created. You think evolution is the "word of man" without seeing that Biblical literalism is even more the "word of man". After all, science reads God's second book directly. But you won't allow any god before your god of Biblical literalism. If Christ is really taking notes, I'd worry more about the notes he is taking of you.

Is death bad? You seem to think so, maybe inflammed by your fear of death. But death is just part of life. Not a "bad" think you make it out to be. After all, don't you think you will be united with God after death? Then why is death bad?

Is death apart of life lucaspa, after all God is life - can God than also die?

He did on the Cross, didn't He?

So where scripture says that death was brought into the world by the man Adam it was obviously only spiritual death right? Wait a minute I thought Scripture tells us that the soul cannot die, only the body so where does the Bible say we will die spiritually in Genesis?

Genesis 2:18 says that Adam will die "in the day" when he eats the fruit. He didn't physically die. And no, Genesis doesn't say he will start to die. It says "die". Since it's not physical death there, the only other form of death is spiritual.

Now, I'm not sure what verses you are using for the idea that the soul cannot die. I have seen enough out-of-context use of the Bible by literalists that I am skeptical when they make statements like this. So, could you please supply the verses?

Isn’t spiritual death only separation from God? If that were true which one does man fear most, physical or spiritual death since man does not know if he is spiritually dead, only when he witnesses physical death as he sees this everyday all around him?

It's not what man does fear, but what he should fear. It's obvious that you fear physical death. But should you? Aren't you going to be united with God after your physical death? Then why are you afraid? So what good is a promise of spiritual life when it is physical death that man fears most?

And also if the shedding of blood (through death) already existed before Adam and Eve what was the significance of saying that bloodshed was the only way for the forgiveness of sin?

Because the bloodshed was associated with sacrifice. Remember, Jesus' death is tied to the ancient practice of sacrificing (shedding blood) of animals as propiating God. The only way for atonement is the "ultimate" sacrifice -- God's son.

Is that not what the whole gospel is about, atonement with the blood and death of Christ? But according to the fossil record, death has been occurring for ages, so where is the logic in using something that means nothing?

None of those were God's son, were they? It is that God's son is sacrificed. By your logic animals had been sacrificed for atonement by the Hebrews for centuries, ever since Abel. They would have been enough and there was no need for Jesus to die. So the logic doesn't work because it applies to practices apart from evolution.

And me fear death? As a true believer why should I, for have you not read:

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:38-39

That was my question: why should you? Yet above you gave a reason why you should. Do you forget so quickly what you write?

God never promised us relief from pain. Pain and suffering are part of what makes us what we are.

I wonder how much the word of God really plays a part in your own life? However it does say something quite different:

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John 14:13

So where in this scripture passage does it say that prayer for relief from pain and suffering is prohibited.

Apples and oranges. My apologies. I used the wrong word. I meant to say that it was never promised that we would live free from pain and suffering. Which was your original claim. And this verse doesn't change that. I never said that God couldn't relieve pain and suffering. God obviously does relieve our pain and suffering by being there and offering comfort.

Now, the quote is out of context. Why am I not surprised!
12 I am telling you the truth: whoever believes in me will do what I do -- yes, he will do even greater things, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask for in my name, so that the Father's glory will be shown through the Son."

This isn't about the blanket answering of whatever prayer you have. This is about saying that Jesus will answer any prayer for what is needed to continue on with the ministry. If they need a miracle healing to carry on the ministry, then Jesus will provide it. But it has nothing to do with freedom from pain and suffering. After all, the disciples suffered greatly in their ministries.

And still why does God promise a new heaven and a new earth where death and suffering will be no more when it is the very things He used in creating this one? If God really took this long in creating this world – I wonder how long we would have to wait to see this new world that He has promised us – another few billion years?

1. Even Jesus said that no one, not even the son, knew the time for the Kingdom of God. So yes, we may have to wait for billions of years.
2. Because the people being saved have already gone through pain and suffering, God decides to rearrange the world differently next time. Also, since they have already died, and they are already designed by natural selection, there is no need to go thru the process again, is there? It's done.

 

[lucaspa]

If we are to have meaningful lives, then God can't shield us and make it so we never get hurt. What happens to us must be real, not make-believe and all made nicey-nice for us.

If we are to have any meaning at all in life we must come to the realization that death and suffering is not a part of the process of creation a loving God uses but as a consequence of man’s rebellion and thus seek Christ – as He is the only one who gives us life and gives it abundantly.

Apples and oranges. Seeking Christ has nothing to do with creating by death and suffering. God created Israel using death and suffering, so we already know God can and does use death and suffering to create. As you noted, God used the death and suffering of early Christians as part of creating Christianity. Shoot, God used the death and suffering of His own son to create Christianity!

Yes, Christ gives us spiritual life and gives it abundantly, but spiritual life and physical life are two different things.

I truly love my daughters, but I am not showing my love for them if I shield them from all pain and suffering.

I don’t doubt that you do, just as I my own children – which is why they need to experience pain and suffering as it builds their character – but not because such happen to be part of the creative process of a demented sadistic creator, but as a reminder that it was the direct consequence of sin.

1. Not all the pain children suffer is the direct consequence of sin. But I'm glad you reinforce my point that pain and suffering are necessary parts of creating an adult human. Thanks once again for affirming my point.
2. It is special creation that makes God sadistic, not natural selection. Evolution gets God out of the charge of being sadistic. God is not directly causing the pain and suffering of the world. They are simply a byproduct of having a universe where life has meaning.

I am simply being a control freak. Your god seems to be a control freak. I personally am glad that God is not.

Now you are bordering the absurd. You do mean the God of the Bible right?

No, I mean the god you have constructed. That god is not the God of the Bible.

And yes God is in total control, of my life and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Actually, He's not in total control. He doesn't tell you when to get up, when to go to bed, how fast to drive, whether to pass a particular car on the road and when not to. You are not a puppet. When you say "control", what you mean is that you defer to God's wishes on major decisions in your life. But if God is in "total control", then you are referring to your god and not God.

Evolution happens to populations,

There is no proof that evolution happens at all is there? Otherwise we would not be in disagreement would we?

There is plenty of proof. We are in disagreement because you simply reject the evidence. Very like the attitude of atheists who reject all evidence of God.

praying for relief is for individuals.

So when we gather in groups to pray for the sick and the afflicted we are not following God’s imaginary “second book” then?

We are still acting as individuals. We are cooperating but we are not the population. The second book is not imaginary. You are reading these words on part of that book right now. Note that some species do cooperate as individuals. But that cooperation is not evolution. Instead, the tendency to cooperate is a product of evolution.

That’s funny because God’s one and only Book says something else.
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20

Has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Isn't God with you when you are alone?

I guess you made up that praying for relief was only for individuals didn’t you?['quote]
I said it was the action of individuals. Read carefully. Praying for relief is not something the entire population does.

And the pain and suffering we are praying for relief from has nothing to do with selection.

Selection of what?

Of designs that aid in the struggle for existence.

If I pray for relief of the pain of grief for the loss of a loved one, that has nothing to do with whether I am lucky enough to have genes that are beneficial to the population.

But if it is the process God uses then why pray for any relief at all, as that would in itself be thwarting the purpose and will of an all knowing God wouldn't it?

Non sequitor to what I said. Evolution is the process God uses to get design in plants and animals. Prayer is part of the process God uses to communicate with individuals. Whether those individuals are in groups or alone. Is that clearer for you? Well, clearer for others reading this thread. I look forward to seeing how you warp the meaning.

If I don't grieve or if I do grieve that has nothing to do with whether I am lucky enough to have genes beneficial to the population.

I presume you are impressed now.

You presume too much lucaspa, impressed I am not in the least.

We need a "sarcasm" smiley. I never expected you to be impressed. You are not going to allow anything to get in the way of your worship of your false idol of Biblical literalism/creationism. All I can do is try to keep you from infecting others with your spiritually fatal disease.

BTW, it is special creation that hides the true nature of God. Special creation (creationism) makes God look like He is stupid, sadistic, and has Alzheimer's. Evolution by natural selection actually rescues God from the stupidity of creationism.

 

[Crusadar]

Plan 9 said: You know, I had previously thought you were simply contentious and rude, but if you can't define a phrase in your own OP (and even suggest that I pray in order to learn its definition), or understand that it speaks against God outright and that by posting it, you help his atheistic cause, I'm now drawn to the theory that you're just not not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

You forgot spiritually dogmatic, God trusting, and a bible believing young earth creationist. But really I do not need your approval to do what I do and could care even less what you think of me. However being the “rude” person that I am - I am not going to make any assumptions about you (as you have done me) since I don't know who you are nor what you believe.

However, what I do care about is believers who reinterpret scripture simply because they are unable to accept that which is plainly written in scripture perhaps due to a lack of faith or outside influences and then the gumption of trying to pass that off as the truth of God. In their attempt to justify evolution as the process in which the God of the bible would use they become schizophrenic in thought and in faith – as they can justify neither.

If you really want to discuss the meaning of "intellectually schizophrenic" in the light of scripture, then lets first look at what scripture says about it.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:19-25

Since from the beginning God’s creation already testifies to His glory why does he need man’s fallacious reinterpretation of it in that of man’s theories? But what causes the vial things we see in all of life? It would seem that the further we remove ourselves from God and His truth, the more we lust after our own hearts and the more we require justification for what we do and evolutionary myth is simply that – moral justification for that which is not of God, as evolution most certainly does not require Him. The schizophrenia here is that some have attempted to cram God into a process that does not require Him, and now are simply running around proclaiming that the Word of God is simply allegorical when it touches on origins.

Any attempt to cram God into the evolutionary timeline ends in futility as scripture plainly contradicts it. From His word alone we are clearly told that it was not the process God used – what the theistic evolutionnuts have done is simply compromise the authority of scripture with theories of men, but does God really compromise His truth with men? And evolution is a concoction of entirely of man. Throughout man’s brief history we have seen that it is not the case where God allows man to determine his own truth without repercussions, what makes anyone so sure it is any different today?

In examining the meaning of intellectual schizophrenic, we must look at the character of God as scripture tells us. It goes to say that the methods we use in life reflect most of all our innermost character. Since we were created in God’s image we reflect everything that is of God, our intellect, our compassion for others, our reasoning, our love and so on – unfortunately not our hate and thirst for blood and destruction and darkness, these come from being without God.

The methods God used reflect His inner most character. And what is represented by the evolutionary process – a slow painful process, survival of the fittest, the weak die, the strong live on to breed where death is the preferred mechanism of choice – everything that God is not. You must ask yourself - is this method consistent with what scripture tells us? Does this show us a God of so much love as He tells us?

This brings us to the schizophrenia of trying to harmonize evolution with Christianity. But first however let us look at natural selection as evolution tells us. It is unguided, unchecked, and unsure of what will be the outcome. From a purely philosophical point of view there is nothing which says that God could not have used this slow process – as long as it was not purely an undirected process. But I do not care about what God could have done or not have done. What I am interested in is how He did create as He has revealed to us in His word. Which brings in the question of how much of a role can we allow God to have? How much credit can we give God for this method of creation? According to modern evolutionary text books fresh off the press – zero. The schizophrenia is in trying to justify God through a process that scripture mentions nothing of, nor is represented in the character of God.

 

[Crusadar]

And what is it that you use to witness to people who are non believers lucaspa – the book of creation? I thought that was what the word of God was for?

lucaspa said: I was quite clear the Book of Creation is not about salvation. It's about how God created. All that I do there is counter the atheists who claim that science disproves God. The Book of Creation and science won't allow that claim.

And there you have it, no salvation in this man made book. And no it isn’t about how God created, it is about how theistic evolutionists think God created (its also what atheists use to justify their faith).

What you trust is what you say it says. That's not authority. It's wishful thinking.

And there is no wishful thinking more imaginative than that of evolution as it never occurred.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Evolution did occur. If it hadn't it would not be such a widely accepted theory. After all, just how many flat earthers are there? Know any phlogiston chemists? But there are a lot of oxygen-combustion chemists and round earthers, aren't there? Once again, Crusadar, go to PubMed and use "evolution" as your search term. Start going thru the more than 120,000 papers and then get back to us on evolution being "imaginative" and "never occurred".

Which makes scripture even the more true for many are indeed called but few chosen. But That isn’t the problem at all. The problem is that God did create and scripture gives us day by day account of this. The real problem is that some believers have trouble believing in what the Word of God says therefore created their own version of truth simply to justify their own selfish desires. I have no doubt there are thousands if not millions of publications about evolution, as myths masquerading as science are invented everyday and thrown out every other day, simply to deny the fact that God was Creator. But what does scripture say about man’s rebellion:

“For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Roman 14:11

The subject was can we trust what the word of God says when it touches on morality and salvation or anything else?

That wasn't the subject, but the answer is "yes" that we can trust GOD for morality and salvation.

The bottom line is whether we can take God for what He says or not. If we can take Him for what He says, then why question any part of His word?

But God isn't necessarily the "word of God" as in the Bible.

So I guess you can pick and choose which part of scripture you want to believe and not believe right? This is what I am talking about by a “schizophrenic faith” – the text itself never changes, it is only man’s view that does.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .” John 1:1.

So I wonder what does it mean by “and the word was God?

For instance, the Bible condones slavery, and we think that is immoral. The Bible condones selling your daughter into slavery, and we consider that very immoral.

When has God ever condoned slavery? If you read your scripture correctly you will note that it was man who made slaves – not God. And besides under whose authority or what authority do you say that slavery is immoral apart from God’s word? Since scripture is the word of God, are you saying then that God is immoral because He condones slavery?

The trick here is not to worship what you call the "word of God" but to remember to worship God instead.

The goal of spiritual living is not to be tricked into believing by Satan that man’s words have the same if not more authority than God’s Word.

We are still dealing with the fact that "what the Bible says" is what you say it says. That's not authority.

Actually what we are really dealing with is what you are saying that the Bible clearly does not say. The Word of God is the final authority in and of itself.

Once again, the final authority is GOD. All the Bible claims for itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 is that the Bible is useful for instruction in righteousness. It does not claim final authority. You have constructed a false religion to say that. Now, remember who created.

“--- and the Word was God.”

Since the Word is God and since God does have the final authority – God’s word is the final authority. Unless you are saying that your “word” of man overrides God’s “Word”? Now that would be very arrogant indeed!

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” Luke 4:4

Note the every word of God. That would include the words of God in His Creation, wouldn't it? Why do you deny those words?

Except you and the men you have chosen to believe instead of God made those words up, so your words are actually the word of man and bares no resemblance to God or His creation at all.

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3

Nice statement of faith, and is not contradicted by science or evolution. Remember, TE holds that God is the sustainer of the universe and thus that God is behind and part of all the processes that we call "natural".

It is what scripture says. It doesn’t contradict honest to goodness science - only evolutionary myth, I mean “science”. That’s funny I never heard that in any of the textbooks I use? Now I wonder do you actually say that to your students? Because I don’t – I’d get called down to the principal’s office right away!

But you don't shudder in awe at the power of the Word of God that is able to bring forth things out of previous things thru physical processes? What a limitation you impose on your god!

There is no awe in what does not occur, or in men’s wishful thinking is there? And despite what the Word of God tells you – you have very much limited God to your very own ever changing version of how God created – after all what awe is there in a so slow a process that you can’t even appreciate how it supposedly should occur because it can’t be detected – unless you look very hard, and make much wishful thinking!

You can only worship God if He does things the way Crusadar wants them done?

Actually Crusadar worships the God who can create something from nothing as His Word tells him. Crusadar is merely before Him on his knees in submission as he does not know how his God created, but accepts on faith what His Book tells him. As scripture does say:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrew 11:6

Lucaspa however claims he knows exactly how his god has created therefore worships a god who has to create by his man made theory of evolution – which is even a bigger miracle in the making as it excludes the miracle maker. And if lucaspa can’t fit his god into the mold that he obviously have made for his god then no doubt he may lose all faith in his god – because his god doesn’t require faith to please - only reason.

Pretty close to apostasy here.

A belief in evolution is apostacy.

Evolution is only an abadonment of a fallible human misinterpretation of the Bible. And recognition that there are more words of God than those found in a literal Bible. I just realized that the literalist god is pretty small. He can only be found in the Bible. How sad.

You forgot to say that the God of the Bible spoke things into existence - now that is surely a display of omnipotence! The god of evolution however didn’t do that at all, in fact it wasn’t even sure of what it will end up with! Now does an omniscient being demonstrate his omniscience by the use of unguided, unknown processes acting on unknown chemicals in an unknown atmosphere with an unknown amount of time to have produced all the organic complexity found in the living world?

When it says man was created from dust and woman from his side, was this simply allegorical or can it be confirmed scientifically? As it happens - true science does confirm that the nucleus of bone marrow cells contain already the 46 chromosomes required to create woman – minus of course the y chromosome – so God didn’t really have to create woman from scratch. After all God is not a God of waste, a perfect example of this is when after the feeding of the five thousand He ordered the gathering of the leftovers, so why use such a wasteful trial and error process to create when you already know what it is you want?

It is sad indeed that evolutionists are still looking for the conditions that will result in the synthesis of life when the creationists have already found it– and that is that the synthesis of life requires thought and technical intelligence – an infinite source of intelligence to be exact. When a closed system is opened and subjected to intelligent tinkering we do get life or a copied version of it anyway. To put it another way if it can be shown that Nobel laureate Arthur Kornberg synthesized his own version of the biologically active PhiX174 virus for the first time in 1967, without the use of any intelligence, I will eat my own words.

Here's the schizophrenia of creationism on display. The first reply is that creation shows that it is the result of an instantaneous demand. However, when I say creation does not show that, the reply is not from creation but from a literal scripture! Now, if creation shows an instantaneous creation, then let's see the data from creation.

The data from creation is that design demands a designer. To question the assumed flaws of design does not invalidate that there is a designer. After it is an observed fact that life does not spontaneously arise from any organic soup given any period of time – the laws of nature is simply not enough to do such a thing as organize itself into the first life – after all scripture does say that God is the only source of life. I think I started the thread that points this out here a few months back. http://www.christianforums.com/t71173

False witness in saying that we are using God's method of creation (evolution) to deny God's existence. This is theistic evolution, remember. God using evolution as His method of creation. That's hardly denying that God exists.

False witness is when man makes his concoctions to be equal or greater than the word of God to justify his disbelief in Him. And again only you say God used evolution, God’s word does not.

It's still your word vs the word of God. After all, you just acknowledged that God created. So, God's Creation shows He created by evolution. Romans 1:20 doesn't deny that! Even your Biblical quote doesn't help you. These words in the "word of God" don't back your claim.

Yes, God created, with the full capacity of His godhood as scripture says.

Creationism isn't the word of God. It's a man-made theory based on a man-made interpretation of Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-8. A wrong interpretation since creation science demands a violent Flood, which is against what you find in Genesis 6-8.

And again it says “In the beginning God created….. , not “ In the beginning evolution created. And it is obvious that evolution is entirely a man made theory based on man made interpretations of a fallen creation. I however do not claim that creationism is absolute, what I do claim is that the word of God is absolute.

And besides since when have floods that kill and destroy become non violent – if you think they are then I suggest you move to where they normally occur and see first hand and report on how non violent they really are.

Here again we have the schizophrenia of creationism. Identifying creationism as scripture. It's not.

Well duh, creationism is only mentioned in scripture – and evolution is not. It is what God’s word says. And the Word was God. Gee, I think we do have different bibles don’t we? I guess your bible is evolution – the answer to every thing in the universe right? Now I understand.

I suppose you do have reasons for your insistence that creationism has been falsified by so called “Christians”.

They weren't "so-called". Many of them were ordained and remained Christians thruout their lives. Some of them -- such as Rev. Adam Sedgwick -- opposed evolution. However, they recognized that creationism was wrong.

Could this be the problem lucas? For a professing Christian you seem to be most dependant on simply what other believers say about their faith and never once told us what God has revealed to you about your own faith. Could it be possible that you may be lacking in your own faith therefore you must depend on others for their faith? Of course you do know that you can only believe for yourself as no one can believe for you, don’t you?

 

[Crusadar]

The reason, of course, comes from your use of "so-called". It shows that there was no bias against Christianity at work here. So instead of respecting the integrity of these men, you now have to attack them:

So since you seem to be an authority on Christianity – us bible believing literalists want to know how you determined that these men have integrity worth respecting. And how the heck did you determined that? Did you examine their hearts lucaspa – for that is where it matters to Christ – hence His rebuke of the so called “men of God” in His days because He saw into their hearts. Neither I nor you can do that, we only have the Word of God to compare their integrity with – and it is evident that most if not all have deviated to extremes from the Word of God.

It is however simply your own delusion, as real science does support God creating as Scripture tells us. Scripture however tells us that these “Christians” have simply fallen into disbelief or have simply sought something much more to their liking to justify themselves before men rather than God - after all it was a time when man was beginning to advance in understanding the things that God has made – but then the gumption of some to attribute it all to have been the result of a blind process.

Creationism was falsified before evolution was conceived. Young earth was dead before 1820. The Flood by 1831. Both long before Darwin had ever conceived of evolution by natural selection.

More delusions of grandeur. Which part has been falsified lucaspa? Since creationism as you say has been falsified which part should we throw out from the creationist camp? Any suggestions? Bust since creationist arguments center on the idea that design demands a designer, should we throw away all our use of intelligence in designs and work on the evolutionist model of no design? Should we also abandon all the technological advances earned through hard work and intelligent input in favor of natural selection when we build better planes, synthesize more effective vaccines?

And since creationism has been falsified, how does evolution account for matter behaving creatively as the evolutionary process tell us – despite observations from the real world? As they do maintain that matter on its own will give rise to biological machines in an unknown manner at an unknown point in time – when no where has such a process been found to naturally occur even to this day! (and mind you they have had a long time to look, over a century now since Darwin’s demise)

And what have evolutionists actually found? That there are more unknowns than ever! The unknowns I believe are what can be referred to as “fudge factors” which is not real science as it is based on zero evidence. What we are finding is that the deeper we dig into the mysteries of life the more we find that life is infinitely complex, much like its Creator is said to be.

As I pointed out above, many of the men who falsified creationism still resisted transformation of species and argued for the special creation of humans.

And there you have it – men, fallible men that is.

So, Crusadar, your contention falls apart in the face of historical fact.

You think so lucaspa? Your gumption however betrays you. The historical facts you have chosen says nothing about being able to see into the hearts of men do they? That is where falsification of anything starts – the underlying presuppositions for the so called “falsification” as you should know what gets reported does not always reflect the true position of individual does it?

What Popper seems to be saying is that evolution not only became an alternative to Biblical Creationism, it provided a purely naturalistic explanation of origins without invoking God.

That is what Popper is saying, but what I've shown above is that Popper is not correct. Evolution didn't do that. The key here is that "purely naturalistic" you used. Popper has simply accepted the mythology of atheism here and the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Science can not back that statement. Science has no way of telling if any natural explanation is "pure" and does not involve God.

Come on now, there is no distinction between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution at all is there? The only difference is God is crammed in despite what scripture says. Only you think there are differences because you have convinced yourself that there are!

The problem here is that you have also accepted the atheistic mythology and statement of faith! After all, you agree with Popper about evolution, right? How can you witness for Christ when you really believe atheism?

Actually the problem is that you have conveniently ignored the justification for using a system of belief that can also be used to deny its own basic premises. Simply speaking about or agreeing with what others believe in no way says one must believe the way they do – as some truths are universal you know.

What would be the implication if one could justify not needing God as the source of life? A justification in doing what anyone wishes to do without worrying about future retribution. In denying that God created as scripture tells us we are in fact denying life, which is God, as He is the only source of life and without Him we are dead – physically and spiritually.

There are two separate issues here:

There is really only one issue when you get down to the bottom of the barrel and it is nothing more than your fallacious attempt to set your delusionary second book of God as having the same footing as the only Book of God. You might as well give up because it’s not going to happen.

The source of morality and whether morality can exist without some form of punishment lurking in the background.

Morality exists because it is written into the heart of man, a conscience to know what is right or wrong. Without consequences there is no need to conform is there?

Start that as a separate thread if you want to pursue it further.

Here is as good a place as any.

Personally, there are a lot of theological problems with this view of morality.

Theologically perhaps, Biblically no.

The oft-repeated lie that denying that God created "as scripture tells us" is the same as denying that God created. Repeatedly setting up this strawmand doesn't make it any less a strawman.

However only incredulity of scripture begets strawmen lucaspa, it is not from taking scripture on what it says. Your insistence that it is easily falsified stems simply from a deeply rooted incredulity of scripture due perhaps to a dependence on evolutionary myth if it is your bread and butter. As believers of God, we do have different views on how God created, but show me where the true meaning of “create” is not misused in evolution when referring to the creative process of God. The core meaning of create can only be attributed to a mental process, and not something occurs on its own.

One more time: TE denies that God created according to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

And for the last time. Evolution denies that God created period. For not only does evolution mention nothing of God, God’s Word mentions nothing of evolution – as both do and can exist exclusively without the other!

TE says God created by the processes discovered by science. So, your worry has no foundation because no one here is denying that God created.

Are you sure lucaspa? What you really mean is believed on faith, not discovered. What we see in the real world testifies against the working of your beloved cow of evolution, especially as shown by the first and second law of thermodynamics in energy conservation and entropy increase?

Why does evolution contradict the fact that whenever the Word of God refers to Him creating it is always in the past tense “created” meaning that the act of creating is done? Evolution however requires that creation is continual, no verse in scripture supports that God is continually creating anything - it always says created.

Atheists deny that God created, but that is a separate problem -- for them.

And so again where is the logic in God who most certainly want His creation, man, to come to know Him use a system of creation which can also be used to deny His existence? Wouldn’t he be undermining His own objective? And it is a problem when we adopt their justification for their denial of God.

But Genesis 3 doesn't tell us that, does it? It's remarkable how you ignore the Bible when you say you are following it.

There is more than one book in the bible you know.

Romans 8:22 simply tells us that "creation" is "groaning" because of the spiritual downfall of people. It doesn't say anything close to what you say it does. I really don't understand how you can abuse scripture so badly.

Spiritual downfall my foot! It is death and suffering that causes groaning, no one groans because they are unbelievers, they groan because they suffer as it is what we all have in common do to man’s rebellion - as it is written. Scripture tells us that in a future time to come the earth will be restored where lion and lamb will sit together once more.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

The result of which many a stray paths that man has taken throughout his brief existence – to worship the creation rather than the Creator.

You are accusing God of setting up stray paths for man to follow? Remember, that book of created things was written by God.

No lucaspa, go read Romans 1:22 on - man rejects God because of his nature, as he does and will find any and every justification for his rejection of God, evolution is simply one of those excuses masquerading as science and has nothing to do with God leading anyone purposely astray.

You are going to try to ride this distraction as long as possible, aren't you? The idea that you get salvation from Creation is yours. Not mine. I'm not going to let you lose sight of that. I'm simply saying that Creation is also from God and by God. You keep trying to dodge that, but you can't, can you?

So I see, there is no message of salvation in the fossil record – could all those fossil be a clue perhaps of what happens when men turn away from God and seek not His provision of salvation – as He has brought His judgment upon man once and will again.

I don't see how. After all, those fossils are simply remains of organisms once alive that are now dead. Every living creature dies, so how can they be a clue? Also, why would God arrange those fossils to show evolution if evolution didn't happen?

Why don’t you take off your evolutionary glasses for once and listen to what God’s word says? They are remains that are the result of a catastrophic flood! A judgment of God on man’s wickedness, a taste of God’s judgment, then and in the time to come.

So now that the ride is over, just how does one come to Christ simply by looking at God’s fallen creation?

You are the one that quoted Romans 1:20; you tell us.

Man can’t come to Christ, just by looking at God’s creation, he can only lament for the wretched state he has brought upon himself – it is only through faith in Christ that we are given salvation. And what does scripture say about faith:

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17

So faith does not come by seeing creation, but by hearing the Word of God.

 

[Crusadar]

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

There is no clash, when you view the world through the Word of God. There is however always clash when we allow ourselves to dictate which part of scripture we can pick and choose to believe – due to outside influence.

One book is filled with words that are written into the hearts of men, the other tells him there is no escape from death, pain suffering and all atrocities man has brought upon himself unless he finds the truth in the word of God which leads him Christ – the answer to all his sorrows.

And you have missed the point completely here is where the message lays: it is that unless man finds the Truth in the Word of God, that is Jesus, there is no escape from death and suffering - now and in the eternity to come.

What is evident is that there is no greater loss than the death of a loved one, despite the false teachings of evolution that say death is a part of life it brings little comfort to the many who are touched by death everyday. So why did man evolve such bitterness towards death – something in which is inevitable? All other lesser creatures share not man’s natural obsession with the reversal of death or aging? Why does man build so much tradition and ritual around the dead if it is a meaningless process of life as evolution tells us?

LOL! Not what Pope Pius said, is it?

Now really, who are we going to believe in lucaspa, the almighty “dead” pope or the living Word of God? Of course we already know the answer to that question don’t we.

It's still not what Pope Pius said, is it? Using ad hominem isn't going to get around:

And there you have it, the word of a dead pope taking precedence over God’s word. Like I said, the pope is dead. And yet God lives and so does His Word. So who are you going to put your faith in?

1. That there are two books of God, but you won't admit to one of them.

There is only one book of God – which mentions nothing of the other book so there is no need to admit anything.

2. That you misrepresented what Pope Pius said.

The pope is only a man of God, not God. It is idolatry to say that the word of the pope is on equal footings with the Word of God. And besides shouldn’t we be more concerned about misrepresenting the Word of God as you are doing and not a dead pope?

3. You are not quoting the "living Word of God". That Living Word is Jesus, and you have told us you don't believe the Living Word, just your interpretation of the Bible.

That’s baloney and you know it. Where did I say I did not believe in Jesus? I think I’ve talked more about Him in any single post than you have in all your evolutionary rants. Now who really shows belief in Christ, the one who proclaims Him quite often or the one who barely mentions Him.

But you seem to be denying your own position:

And what position might that be?

It was right there in the sentence after the one of mine you quoted:
But you seem to be denying your own position: "Then what you are saying is that by looking at creation we can come to an understanding that we are sinners and need Christ to redeem us – without ever reading scripture?" You seem to be answering "yes" to your own question!"

Are you really sure that I am denying my own position? Read it again in the light of this scripture verse:

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” Romans 7:24

From looking at creation alone we are not lead to Christ, we come to an understanding that God is behind creation, but the revelation that Christ can deliver us from the body of our death, where the death here is physical, cannot be realized in creation. This realization is instead a special revelation only found in the Word of God. Creation only points us to our wretched condition of pain, suffering and death – only God’s Word can provide the solution to our condition but only if we come to accept Christ as Lord and Savior through trust in God’s promise of salvation as revealed in Scripture – something that your “book of creation” cannot do.

Aren't you saying here that the Book of Creation tells him that there is no escape from death unless he finds truth in the word of God which leads him to Christ?

Yes, that is what I am saying, your point being?

If not, what are you saying? And how does the Book of Creation do this? What specific data in that book tells us that we need Christ for salvation?

By looking around you what is it exactly you see lucaspa, a beautiful flawless creation or a creation filled with errors, dangers, pain, suffering, and death? And who is the only one who can deliver us from all of this? And as mentioned above creation does not lead one to know Christ only the desire for deliverance from it – it is the Word of God that leads to Christ.

So, since you find the Book of God's Creation so spiritually reliable, why do you reject the Book when it tells you how God created?

No lucusap, what I find is that God’s creation is a remnant of what it use to be before sin took its hold and says anything about how God created. It only points to Him as the Creator, only you are saying that it shows how he created.

God's Creation. You know, the universe that God created and which God put everything in it? It's fun to watch you run in circles trying to get away from your own position, but don't you feel foolish?

Hasn’t it become obvious by now that it is entirely your very own book which has no affiliation with God – whatsoever? However lets look at these imaginary circles, like your imaginary book, that I am supposedly running around.

First of all foolishness comes entirely from man for have you not read:

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." 1 Corinthians 3:19-20

Now to say that evolution is not entirely a concoction of man is to deny scripture as it says nothing of evolution! Now lets see who is really the one chasing his own tail in justifying faith with foolishness.

Since God’s Word says “and the Word was God”. Lets look at scripture for insight about man’s foolishness in saying that God used evolution as His preferred method of creation.

In Matthew chapter 5 we are given a very clear character description of God, in that since Christ claims that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father – meaning that they are the same in character.

For if we know a person’s character we can make a fairly accurate guess at the methods that he would use to solve a particular problem. Since an individual’s character determines their methods, what does scripture reveal to us about God’s character and how He could have used a method such as evolution - which is against everything that God stands for.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3

Is it just my understanding or does it reflect God’s character in that those who are poor in spirit are those who will inherit the kingdom of heaven? And according to what exists within the evolutionary struggle for survival, where is this notion of the poor in spirit? For if one is poor in spirit one becomes food for the spirited! So why does the Word of God teach what is opposite of His supposedly creative process? Unless perhaps it is not His creative process.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5

What is this? The meek shall inherit the earth, but that is not what is seen in the preferred method of creation of theistic evolutionists is it? The meek does not inherit anything, rather they become trophies for the dominant. Isn’t it strange that a Creator who teaches us to be meek would use a creative process that denies His own character of humility - even unto death? Did Christ really mean what He said then about being meek and poor in spirit? But according to evolutionary theory this is not the case! How can God the creator who teaches us to be meek use a creative process which blatantly violates His very character of meekness?

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matthew 5:7

Now is there such a thing as mercy in the struggle of life? For if there is then evolution would cease to occur!

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9

And what about the lovers of peace, what becomes of them but martyrs and victims, this is evident in the continued struggle of life which pervades all levels from the lowest to the highest of organisms – especially in that of man himself.

And so to justify that evolution as the preferred method of creation by God, invalidates the very character of the one who said the above. So what we come down to is that in the light of scripture the circles I seem to be running and your second book are only that - imaginary.

But lets look upon the words of Solomon, perhaps the wisest man who ever lived for some words of wisdom:

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Everything is meaningless!" Not only was the Teacher wise, but also he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails— given by one Shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecclesiastes 12:9-13

Now let me get my popcorn and just sit back and watch how long you will be chasing your tail when you attempt to explain why Jesus Himself taught us virtues that go against His method of creation.

I know of no such book except perhaps the one you obviously made up.

You have been trying to deny the Book of Creation thru about half the post. You start with the quote of St. Augustine and continue thru the quote of Pope Pius. I shouldn't have to tell you to pay attention to what you are doing.

Like I said you cannot deny what is not there – that is creation through evolution.

Of course there is a Book of Creation.

Shouldn’t it be called the Book of Evolution? Actually it is not a book at all but a fallen creation in which you claim is a book.

Romans 1:20 tells you there is. You say there is:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrew 11:3

Now imagine that, the power of the Word of God able to bring forth things out of nothing."

What do you think those "things" are? The Book of Creation!

Something out of nothing is what it means. The Word of God was what brought forth all that exists, it was not a process – but I guess that’s too incredulous for you isn’t it? So your god of evolution can’t create something out of nothing so he opted for evolution instead. Maybe the god you believe isn’t a god at all – but a god of your own making?

Of course you only claim God wrote a second book – something in which the first book mentions nothing of.

In addition to Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20, there is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Yes it is through faith we understand that God created something from nothing, and that we are without excuse if we believe in anything apart from this – and in the beginning God did create the “heaven” (singular) and the earth. Yes I accept this, what would be your point?

Now, what did St. Augustine call this? The "book of created things". The Bible does indeed say God created. That's the second book -- duplex cognito" as John Calvin put it.

By the way you don’t pray to Augustine do you? Once more Augustine was simply a man of God, not God. No one is denying God created anything – only you are saying that.

I'm really surprised to see what lengths you are going to deny God as Creator. But I guess you have to in order to preserve your god of Biblical literalism.

Then you should also be surprised when I say that no such thing was ever said. I believe that God created as scripture tells me, how is that denying God created? You obviously give the credit to an unknown process, now how is that not denying God as creator.

You must have ignored what I said from an earlier post:

“God I know nothing of how you created, therefore I believe whole heartedly in what you have said as to what you have done, for you are my Creator and I am simply before you on my knees in total submission.”

Theistic evolutionists however come before God and say: “I can’t believe what you say in how you created because of my faith in my own book of human intuition, therefore I will continue to doubt your Word even though it may be spiritually as well as intellectually schizophrenic to justify both.”

 

[Plan 9]

Plan 9 said: You know, I had previously thought you were simply contentious and rude, but if you can't define a phrase in your own OP (and even suggest that I pray in order to learn its definition), or understand that it speaks against God outright and that by posting it, you help his atheistic cause, I'm now drawn to the theory that you're just not not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

You forgot spiritually dogmatic, God trusting, and a bible believing young earth creationist. But really I do not need your approval to do what I do and could care even less what you think of me. However being the “rude” person that I am - I am not going to make any assumptions about you (as you have done me) since I don't know who you are nor what you believe.

We have a number of "spiritually dogmatic, God trusting and Bible believing young earth creationist" members here who don't feel the need to endlessly break CF's Rule One when replying to Lucaspa's, and other members', posts, and I respect them for that. Your posts to him are rude by CF's own definition; that's a simple fact and no assumption on my part is needed.

I do find your statement which appears to mean that once you are under the impression that you know what I believe, you will then feel free to make all the assumptions about me you wish to be one of those unconsciously humorous bon mots of yours that keeps me coming back for more.
We who read your posts are already fully aware that you make such unwarranted assumptions about Lucaspa, who we already know to accept either the Nicene or Apostle's Creeds, for he posts freely in the Christian fora here with the full permission of our moderators, whose job it is to insure just that.

If you really want to discuss the meaning of "intellectually schizophrenic" in the light of scripture, then lets first look at what scripture says about it

.

Since you adopted this phrase for your own use from an athiest, I see no reason why either Biblical exegesis or prayer are needed to define the combination of two English words. Having looked up the term "schizophrenia" in my abnormal psychology text (and I am driven to do this, since the term isn't once mentioned in the Bible), I then put those two terms together, producing a nonsense phrase, which may have a facile and cuttingly clever veneer which your own prose cannot match, but no meaning is conveyed by it whatsoever.
When we debate, we have a responsibility to define our terms when asked to do so. When you shirk this basic, which could possibly be resolved by five minute's use of your English dictionary, you should not expect anyone to credit your research on any subject, the Bible included.

That being said, now that you have refuted your own argument, and supported Lucaspa's by quoting Pope Pius XII, please feel free to return to backing and filling to bring the Holy Father's quote into line with your spiel, rather than simply saying, "Oops! You got me there; I didn't read that quote carefully enough before using it.", an action which might earn you some real respect.

Of course you don't care what I, or, I suspect, anyone reading your posts thinks of you; that's already indicated in your previous posts, and I suppose there's no particular reason why you should, except that it might also earn your argument more respect, which I would think you might want, since you elected to post it here, rather than in the journal forum.