Creation predictions

[Aman777]

so fish weren't created then? How is it they exist?

They were part of the "every living creature that moveth" BUT they were NOT listed as you, and some ancient theologians, claimed in Gen 1:21.

So, I still must be missing something, What's the significance of "His" and "Their" kind then? What you seem to be saying is that there's no real difference between them other than all of God(i.e. Trinity) made everything (which is only some) while a third of God made some others?? If God (Trinity) made everything, then isn't what Jesus makes on top of that redundant?

Their kind is always an Eternal creation since it involves the Trinity. His kind is always a temporal kind (common ancestor) and subject to death after first made. Humans are a temporal kind and MUST be born from above by the Trinity to be an Eternal Creation. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Jesus IS the only God ever formed or that ever will be formed. Isa 43:10 He is the physcial incarnation of the invisible Spirit of God the Trinity.

You're not making sense Aman. If as you say, God(Trinity) created everything, then Jesus created some more (which would logically mean God(Trinity) didn't create everything after all) - why does the bible even make the distinction between firstly everything, then birds, then land animals and cattle if there's no difference between where everything ends up?

Jesus made some temporal creatures, such as mosquitoes but Scripture does not show that God the Trinity created them eternally. Smart, since it keeps mosquitoes out of Heaven forever. God the Trinity created all innocent animals (including prehistoric people) innocent and not subject to death from Water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time

Many men have seen Lord God/Jesus. Eze 1:28

Num 23:19 God (Elohim) is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:

Lord Jesus repents. Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD (YHWH/Jesus) that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

God, in Scripture, is the Trinity and Lord God is Jesus. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

I've read through Aman's posts before. Be warned and steel yourself. You are about to stare into the abyss.

Thanks for confirming Scripture which says:

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[Aman777]

uh.... -_- yeah, I know all about it. He could drown in logical reason and evidence and still not acknowledge his illogical shortcomings... He just barrels on as if you weren't even there. it really is amazing, and perplexing.

Is that WHY you find it so hard to refute me? Of course it is. God Bless you

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks for confirming Scripture which says:

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Scientology says something similar about you.

Now, back to topic..................

 

[Aman777]

Scientology says something similar about you.

Now, back to topic..................

Scientology is based on man's changeable opinions/beliefs. That makes it a Religion. My view is based on the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History. Faith plus Fact equals God's Truth. Amen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientology is based on man's changeable opinions/beliefs.

No. It is based on Hubbard's revealed knowledge about how the intergalactic emperor Xenu waged war on the immortal Thetans, captured them and then imprisoned them on this planet inside our bodies.

That makes it a Religion.

Yes. Just like any other "revealed knowledge". Including the religion you adhere to.

The point here, is that all religions tend to call those who don't swallow it up to be "fools" or similar.

My view is based on the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History.

Is there even a single christian on this very forum that agrees with your particular outlandish view of christianity?

I dare say that there is none.
Or are you talking about you agreeing with yourself?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

So @Almost there , not to beat a dead horse, but I did want to cover off on this last point since you're likely not going to come back to it and some of it is in response to the OP - I take your absence of a reply as implicit acceptance that my answer below is just fine?

If it happened by accident, from where does one acquire morals, and why should they be trusted?

We get our morals from a rational assessment of the consequences of our actions on the people around us, especially for those dear to us. I have a reasonable expectation that my treatment of others will be reflected in their treatment of me. If I'm a brutal dictator, then I'll be hated and my life will come to a short and abrupt end if I'm lucky. If I help people I don't know in my community, then my community is more likely to return the favour, and not just for me, but for those I love too.

Then there's this:

Exactly! It is because your father teaches you to be moral, and being moral makes you and everyone around you filled with much more joy.

One example: The difference between making love to your wife with a clear conscience vs making love to her while also having an affair. Which is a more pleasurable experience? Why?

Obviously the first - because I know how it'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. I'd also hate to have put her in that situation and I'm not certain I could ever make it up to her if I did such a mean thing to her.

...and "Exactly!" what?? My father was only one of many people who helped me build a moral framework to live by - not sure why you centered on this one and only figure? How about my mother, my siblings, other relatives, my social circle, my community, etc.? My morals most certainly aren't dictated from on high if that's what you're angling at.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question because surely, these aren't the only reasons I should have morals? that's not a big list so I imagine you haven't dug very far... Why (else) do you think I should have morals? (I'm going somewhere with this...)

Where I was going with it was the points even you brought up, were reasons we are all moral agents, no matter our worldview. None of the reasons for morality you mention (instructed by a parent, Joy to myself and those in my company, happiness in marriage and successful personal relationships, etc.) require a God.

and Lastly:

Wind isn't life. I'm talking about life.

Well then, my perpetual life idea, you haven't answered my perpetual life idea. Like I said, it'd be identical to your God - so perhaps just tell us which of these only two mutually exclusive options your God has to be categorised in - is he "created" or "an accident of nature"?

or is God not considered life?

 

[USincognito]

You're playing with plain language. Usually when someone does that it is to protect their ox from being gored. It also reminds me of the arguments I used to have with people on this subject way back in the 70's. It pretty much always ended up being an argument about the definition of "theory" vs "Hypothesis".

I completely sympathize with folks who think that using proper and subject specific verbiage and definitions is semantics. That objection does not change the fact that there exists subject specific verbiage and definitions however.

But back to your post, are you seriously saying that observing the sun setting in the west for 64 years and then saying that it will do the same thing tomorrow is not making a prediction? Sure, it's an obvious one and few would disagree, nor would anyone take bets that I was wrong, but it is, at the end of the day, a prediction.

I stand by my weather analogy. There is a qualitative difference between predicting that it will be hot in Dallas in August and it will be 102° on August 15th. "Dogs will give birth to dogs" is the former, the presence of a particular fossil in a particular strata or the presence of centomeres and telomeres in a fused chromosome is the latter.

 

[Almost there]

That's just not true. Here are your exact words:

Actually, no. If that happened, I'd become one of those that believe that God created the first life and then let evolution take its course, and here we are. But that has yet to happen

And the "if that happened..." was in reply to this:

If you had bought that same bunch of hens and a rooster and they laid eggs that hatched into snakes, or puppies, or even a broadway dancing troupe, you would equally say this supports your creationist worldview and we would all be none the wiser.


So yes, that is exactly what you said: when you see those eggs hatch into snakes or puppies, then, as per your own exact post, you would stop being a creations and simply accept evolution theory. While those eggs hatching into snakes, would actually disprove evolution.

So no, not a strawman, but a factual response to your post.

I'm perfectly fine if you were honestly mistaken and didn't actually mean it like you wrote it, or read the post you replied to too fast and misunderstood it. That's all cool. You can just retract it and explain what you REALLY meant or just say you misunderstood the post. That's fine. We all make mistakes. Especially if we are late for a meeting. ;-)

But simply denying it all and playing these silly accusation games while what you wrote is right there for all to see/read, doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

Wow. You're serious about this.
I still see it at strawman. It's not what I said, nor what I meant. It may be your inference, but it is still a strawman.

 

[Almost there]

I stand by my weather analogy. There is a qualitative difference between predicting that it will be hot in Dallas in August and it will be 102° on August 15th. "Dogs will give birth to dogs" is the former, the presence of a particular fossil in a particular strata or the presence of centomeres and telomeres in a fused chromosome is the latter.

I agree, but they are both predictions. That's all I was trying to say. It's just that one is more, um, sure, than the other.

 

[Almost there]

So @Almost there , not to beat a dead horse, but I did want to cover off on this last point since you're likely not going to come back to it and some of it is in response to the OP - I take your absence of a reply as implicit acceptance that my answer below is just fine?

Then there's this:

Where I was going with it was the points even you brought up, were reasons we are all moral agents, no matter our worldview. None of the reasons for morality you mention (instructed by a parent, Joy to myself and those in my company, happiness in marriage and successful personal relationships, etc.) require a God.

and Lastly:

or is God not considered life?

The problem is that I don't have the time to answer every single post. I don't do this for a living, and I still need to make a living. So many times I find myself trying to answer questions that I've already answered, but asked slightly differently. Eventually I just, quite literally, walk out of the room. Your very first response to me that you quoted is an excellent example. It makes MY point that the morals of an atheist are simply what he decides they are. And all that that implies.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

They were part of the "every living creature that moveth" BUT they were NOT listed as you, and some ancient theologians, claimed in Gen 1:21.

actually, pretty much everyone (both believers and non-believers alike) agree it is talking about everything that lives in the water, otherwise, why bring up Air and Land creatures later in exactly the same language? Find the clickie link below that shows all translations of Genesis 1:21 - none of them support this notion that "all life" is meant here - instead, ALL of them translate this verse to mean all water-bound life is created - Genesis 1:21 - Bible Gateway - yet everyone else is wrong and you, of course, are right. Right?

Their kind is always an Eternal creation since it involves the Trinity. His kind is always a temporal kind (common ancestor) and subject to death after first made. Humans are a temporal kind and MUST be born from above by the Trinity to be an Eternal Creation. Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 and John 14:16 Jesus IS the only God ever formed or that ever will be formed. Isa 43:10 He is the physcial incarnation of the invisible Spirit of God the Trinity.

Another assertion without evidence - this is still just your imagination Aman. You're reading into the Bible stuff that isn't there. Nothing you say supports this "his/their" kinds thing. I refer you to the clickie I provided above.

Jesus made some temporal creatures, such as mosquitoes but Scripture does not show that God the Trinity created them eternally. Smart, since it keeps mosquitoes out of Heaven forever. God the Trinity created all innocent animals (including prehistoric people) innocent and not subject to death from Water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Again - Assertions! Mosquitos falls under the "all life from water" assertion you keep blathering on about in Genesis 1:21. You have NO justification for this wishful thought, otherwise it wouldn't have said "All" in Genesis 1:21.

Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time

Many men have seen Lord God/Jesus. Eze 1:28

Num 23:19 God (Elohim) is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:

Lord Jesus repents. Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD (YHWH/Jesus) that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

Contradictions. Yes, I am aware of these, and many more.

God, in Scripture, is the Trinity and Lord God is Jesus. Amen?

then Jesus was not involved in Genesis 1 at all then since not once is "Lord God" mentioned, only "God". Wrong again Aman.

 

[Aman777]

Is there even a single christian on this very forum that agrees with your particular outlandish view of christianity?

I dare say that there is none.
Or are you talking about you agreeing with yourself?

Does every godless person here agree with you? God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit agree with me, and in the end, that's all that matters. Ask the Christians here since I have NO problem with any of them. That's because my view is supported by God's Holy Word, while your's is based on satanic lies and unbelief. God Bless you

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The problem is that I don't have the time to answer every single post. I don't do this for a living, and I still need to make a living. So many times I find myself trying to answer questions that I've already answered, but asked slightly differently. Eventually I just, quite literally, walk out of the room. Your very first response to me that you quoted is an excellent example. It makes MY point that the morals of an atheist are simply what he decides they are. And all that that implies.

Of course we do have better morals than one dictated by the God of the Bible, so I don't see that as a problem. Unless of course you prefer the Judicial setup that ISIS has in place? I've asked this question before and never got an answer, but let's say we both had a personal revelation from God - in my case, I'm a non-believer, so let's just say I heard voices in my head, that told us both to take our first-born sons to the top of a hill and gut them. I would have no problem committing myself to an asylum, because this completely contradicts my moral framework.

How about you though, would you pull off an Abraham/Jeptha stunt? As far as I can tell from the Bible (after all, this is where you get your morals from, right?), you have no choice.

I hope that's a clear Creation Prediction?

 

[Speedwell]

MY point that the morals of an atheist are simply what he decides they are.

What gives you the right to dictate to atheists what their basis of morality is? What you are describing is moral anarchy disgusting even to atheists.

On the other hand, obeying the arbitrary dicta of an ominpotent being capable of imposing draconian punisments for failure to comply isn't "morality" either, merely expedience.

 

[Aman777]

actually, pretty much everyone (both believers and non-believers alike) agree it is talking about everything that lives in the water, otherwise, why bring up Air and Land creatures later in exactly the same language? Find the clickie link below that shows all translations of Genesis 1:21 - none of them support this notion that "all life" is meant here - instead, ALL of them translate this verse to mean all water-bound life is created - Genesis 1:21 - Bible Gateway - yet everyone else is wrong and you, of course, are right. Right?

Do you agree with all of the theology of ancient men? or any of it? If so, then you are basing your faith on something which God tells us cannot be understood until the "increased knowledge" of the last days reveals His Truth. Dan 12:4

Another assertion without evidence - this is still just your imagination Aman. You're reading into the Bible stuff that isn't there. Nothing you say supports this "his/their" kinds thing. I refer you to the clickie I provided above.

Who made land creatures from the dust? It was Lord God. Gen 2:19 Who made whales? It was God the Trinity, which means that whales will be in Heaven. Amen?

Again - Assertions! Mosquitos falls under the "all life from water" assertion you keep blathering on about in Genesis 1:21. You have NO justification for this wishful thought, otherwise it wouldn't have said "All" in Genesis 1:21.

All life did come from water. Gen 1:21 uses the words "every living creature that moveth". Do you know which creatures are "living"? It's the ONLY way Eve can be the Mother of all "living". Gen 3:20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Some people are dead to God. They are not among the "living" because they remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1

Contradictions. Yes, I am aware of these, and many more.
QUOTE="Aman777, post: 72229411, member: 323752"]God, in Scripture, is the Trinity and Lord God is Jesus. Amen?

then Jesus was not involved in Genesis at all then since not once is "Lord God" mentioned, only "God". Wrong again Aman.[/QUOTE]

False, since Genesis chapter one is the outline of God's 7 Days. The "DETAILS" of the same days are found from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation. Details of man's formation from the dust on the 3rd Day are found in Gen 2:4-7 and they show that it was Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) Who made him. In your misguided view, WHO is YHWH?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We get our morals from a rational assessment of the consequences of our actions on the people around us, especially for those dear to us. I have a reasonable expectation that my treatment of others will be reflected in their treatment of me.

There's a good argument to be made that these assessments and expectations are not, in general, explicitly the products of conscious reasoning, but are to some degree learned (and possibly based on innate predispositions).

Many other animals appear to have the basic foundations of what we call morality - sense of fairness, co-operation, altruism, sympathy, empathy, responsibility, group reaction to cheaters & freeloaders, etc.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Do you agree with all of the theology of ancient men? or any of it? If so, then you are basing your faith on something which God tells us cannot be understood until the "increased knowledge" of the last days reveals His Truth. Dan 12:4

So really, what you're saying is that the Bible has been, and will be a useless document until it's too late? Is this why you misinterpret & reinterpret it so much? Do all Christians know the Bible can't be trusted? How do you know when the "Last Days" are upon us, - after all, we won't know because he will come like a thief in the night (that, and the Bible can't be trusted either, right Aman?).

Who made land creatures from the dust? It was Lord God. Gen 2:19

Nope, you're mistaken. God did in Genesis 1:25. Are you making things up, or is there a "Bible Contradiction" (tm)

Who made whales? It was God the Trinity, which means that whales will be in Heaven. Amen?

As will be Mosquitoes.

All life did come from water. Gen 1:21 uses the words "every living creature that moveth". Do you know which creatures are "living"? It's the ONLY way Eve can be the Mother of all "living". Gen 3:20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Some people are dead to God. They are not among the "living" because they remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1

Fish are living, they live in water - You're reading in additions to scripture again Aman, As I pointed out, everyone agrees that the verse of Genesis 1:21 is referring to waterbound life and winged fowls - do you want me to show you all those bible verses again?

False, since Genesis chapter one is the outline of God's 7 Days. The "DETAILS" of the same days are found from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation. Details of man's formation from the dust on the 3rd Day are found in Gen 2:4-7 and they show that it was Lord God (YHWH/Jesus) Who made him. In your misguided view, WHO is YHWH?

YHWH = God.

Why Do Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Use Two Different Names for God?
#27. Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods? (Gen 14:22, 17:1, 21:33; Ex 6:2-3; Ps 82:1 vs Deut 32:8-9; Ps 29:1, 89:6-8)
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Bible-mention-Elohim
Bible Commentary: Exodus 6:3 - YaHWeH, the name of God
etc.​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

There's a good argument to be made that these assessments and expectations are not, in general, explicitly the products of conscious reasoning, but are to some degree learned (and possibly based on innate predispositions).

Agreed, we all want to participate - unless of course you're a psychopath, then you don't get why people don't take advantage of other people's good will & kindness to get what you want.

 

[Speedwell]

The key point is that morality is a social phenomenon whether there is a god or not. the creationist dichotomy--that morality is either revealed by their god or is completely a matter of individual whim--is false, blatantly false, a mere rhetorical device.