-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
darwin's beliefs
- Thread starter archaeologist
- Start date
- Status
it is possible but i doubt it. in reading hisown words i found no such conversion proclamation. you go to and evangelical or fundamental church and everyone has a conversion story which they will talk about and can pin point even if 40+ years have passed.
darwin would be an exception if he had one.
if it is rejected, then it is based upon an unwillingness to follow God's ways and not because it is false.
semantics. infants usually means babies not children who can make decisions on their own. but look at the passage again and key in on the following phrases: 'to such as these' & 'like a little child'. very important phrases wich qualify the meanings.
{though it doesn't mean children can't choose to accept Christ but infants/babies are another matter}
acts 2:38-39 doesn't mean infant baptism nor states that such is the way to salvation, it states that the words of salvation are for everyone including the adult's children. big difference.
same with 6:4--it is an admonition to fathers to teach their children it does not say that infant baptismis the same as salvation.
but circumcision did not replace the sacrifices the children had to do when they grew up. that system was in place for the forgiveness of sins until Jesus died and rose again. Jesus sacrifice replaced the O.T. sacrificial system, baptism is a separate sacrament and comes after salvation not in lieu of.
AFTER SALVATION acts 18:8 specifically states '..believed in the lord...' the believing comes first, thenthe baptizing and infants can't do the former.
right but given people's enviorment, the devil's deceptive work, anything is possible.
it may deal with creation but it is telling a false story because its roots are in evil and it is meant to lead people away from God. evolution certainly does discount God's existence, in fact it removes it altogether. though theistic evolutionists try to christianize the theory by placing Him somewhere in the picture.
if you read any secular evolutionary and you will see the hatred towards God and the way he designed things.
i have seen no record of it and you haven't provided anything yet that speaks of a true belief or conversion.
please provide proof for that statement for it isn't taught in scripture but is an assumption based upon the words found in scripture and a limited understanding of those words.
provide credible proof please.
it was the only one that came to mind as i was writing a response. but still it has a point to it though i do not agree with hovind.
we do have the right to determine who is or isn't a false teacher so we can warn those who are true believers to be careful. the bible warns us so we can, as such people are not followers of Christ.
[QUOTEJust as so many other things that came after the Bible, like the Internet, the computer you are using, WWII, and many others are mentioned by Him?
][/QUOTE]
everything is covered in the Bible, just not in the words you would like to see them.
no, it is according towhom God considers a believer BUT that isn't a license to deviate from God's word.
no but if you do it all the same way, what result would you expect?
post scripture which demonstrates that---your turn.
doesn't mean creation and read it on as it says:
not what i am talking about. God doesn't sanctify sin,He punishes it. evolution is not of Him andits purpose is sinful and how can God sanctify something that never existed and is not a creation of God?
right, and the biblical author had no editorial rights so the genesis is still literal and not allegory or metaphor.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Ah, so the only truth is spiritual truth. Needless to say that this isn't even correct, I'm glad you aren't saying that literal truth is the only kind of truth.
Sorry Archie, your rather childish attempt to regulate the discussion aint going to work, it's not up to you who decides who can participate in the discussion. But it is kind of amusing watching you try.
Upvote
0
If you wish to open a thread in the right forum, I have saved your response to the whole baptism thing in a word document and will discuss it there. But not here. And no. I am not ceding the point. Just redirecting it.
You have the works of the Church Fathers. In the link I provided last post (to the Issues, etc. Journal) I do believe it references St. Augustine saying something about infant baptism. You might want to double check.
Furthermore, evolution's purpose is not sinful. It is an explanation for the diversity of life we see today. You are one of the most inflexible creationists I have seen in that you deny any variation ever occurs in anything (which is demonstrably untrue through things such as breeding). Pretty much everybody else, creationist and not, admits evolution occurs below the species level. Some creationists admit it occurs above the species level, but below the kind level (which they have never actually defined). What most people seem to disagree with is the timescale. Which is geologic in origin.
Only God truly knows whether He wanted it to be literal or not. He never said which explicitly. We can infer from the creation He made (which He said we will know Him by) that it is to be taken allegorically. And if Satan has the power to deceive people into wrongly interpreting the Bible, how can you be so sure the Prince of Darkness isn't deceiving YOU into your viewpoint?
Metherion
Well, please tell what that point is. And get the next story correct.
And of course discarding what had been done since just after the last book that went into the Bible was written and before the Bible was even put together is fine, as is declaring most of Christians throughout history to never have been, as well as most of them today, because of a sixteenth-century idea. I'm sorry, I still need some convincing here.
You have the works of the Church Fathers. In the link I provided last post (to the Issues, etc. Journal) I do believe it references St. Augustine saying something about infant baptism. You might want to double check.
Then you should be easily able to bring forth Bible verses about all sorts of things. Let's start with the explicit references to what I mentioned, shall we?
You mean to who YOU think God says is a believer according to what YOU think God's word says while ignoring some of the rest of it.
Well, if we did it all the same way, we'd expect answers to be the same within experimental error, which for a well-designed experiment is at most 1%-2%, and usually at least an order of magnitude less. For textbook problems where the measurements are given, we'd expect it to be the same.
Very well. I choose two examples of Scripture. I choose the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. The one where everybody gets paid the same even though some of the workers came later in the day? That one. For the second bit I choose the Mosaic Law. The parable is quite obviously (and explicitly) a parable, and thus not literally true. The Mosaic Law is a set of commands explicitly detailing point by point what is and what is not acceptable literally. Both came from God. One was given explicitly to Moses by God, the other came straight from Jesus' mouth. Therefore, God's truth is NOT limited to either literal or otherwise, but includes more than one type of truth. But it is still God's truth, as both of those came directly from God.
Yes. Truth like all you need is belief in Jesus. Gotcha.
I thought we were talking about how people are saying the creation stories were hijacked from the Babylonian versions.
Furthermore, evolution's purpose is not sinful. It is an explanation for the diversity of life we see today. You are one of the most inflexible creationists I have seen in that you deny any variation ever occurs in anything (which is demonstrably untrue through things such as breeding). Pretty much everybody else, creationist and not, admits evolution occurs below the species level. Some creationists admit it occurs above the species level, but below the kind level (which they have never actually defined). What most people seem to disagree with is the timescale. Which is geologic in origin.
Now you are both missing the point AND claiming to know the mind of God!
Only God truly knows whether He wanted it to be literal or not. He never said which explicitly. We can infer from the creation He made (which He said we will know Him by) that it is to be taken allegorically. And if Satan has the power to deceive people into wrongly interpreting the Bible, how can you be so sure the Prince of Darkness isn't deceiving YOU into your viewpoint?
Metherion
Upvote
0
i understand what you are saying but it is germane to what we are talking about right now. it isn't off topic, per se.
the point is that when they found out they were wrong they dropped discussing it and did not consider the alternative--creation. which is par for the course for evolutionists. once they find something that disproves their theory, they try to make it go away or change the criteria to fit their beliefs.
i do not follow you here.
no.
right and your point is moot
here is your error (in bold). it is not more than one truth but one truth being presented by different methods. don't confuse method with type .
don't read into what is being said. 'the demons also believe in God and they tremble" a
'all who come to me and say lord lord...i never knew you...'
there is more to it than you think.
sigh... obviously we do know what is or isn't allegorical because we have the HOly Spirit guiding us. as for your last accusation--we know because we test the spirits like Bible says to.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
No archie this really isn't the case. Hermeneutics isn't some kind of mystical art form, a non-believer can look at the different genres of literature within the Bible and tell what is allegorical/poetic/historic etc. Believers however rely on the Holy Spirit to counsel and guide us through the scriptures to Christ.archaeologist said:
Upvote
0
Robert the Pilegrim
Senior Veteran
And so, no Christian or Jew prior to the 1500s had the Holy Spirit guide them with respect to the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun...
I would suggest rather that there are very few stories in the Bible for which it matters whether or not they are literal.
Upvote
0
The alternative was NOT creationism. The first alternative is making sure the initial ideas (in this case, the amount of dust that was accumulating) are correct. In this case, they weren't. So, the whole matter was re-examined, the calculations were fixed, and the lander wound up with the right size pads. There was no need to ever consider creationism, and no guarantee that the same rate over 6000 years would have provided the right answer.
Furthermore, the age of amount of dust on the Moon has NO bearing on evolution.
Biblical creation is not the only alternative to anything in science, unless a reliable test for the supernatural comes up-- at which point science will gain a new branch of "suparnaturology" or some such. And the supernatural will become not quite so mystical. Might not even be the supernatural anymore.
Easy. I'm saying that credobaptism wasn't really introduced until ~16th century. Infant baptism has always been around, since the 2nd and 3rd century. Most Christians today and in the past were baptized as infants. And this isn't just the R.C.C., it's the E.O. and the others that were around at that time as well. The majority of Christians accept it today. Declaring most of the Christians today and throughout history non-Christians in not an acceptable move.
How so? Your contention is that if two people do something and have differing beliefs they will get vastly different answers. Mine is that following the same methods and using the same starting point scientists (myself included) have gotten the same results as other scientists within acceptable error. Which is one the order of (low single digits) percent to tenths of a percent or even less.
I think that confusion may be what is happening. We both think Genesis gives a truth, you just think it's presented literally while I think it is presented figuratively, but we both agree that the given truth God is the Supreme Creator of everything, man sinned and fell somehow, et cetera. You just seem to think that truth is inaccessible without taking its trappings at the same value as the given truth, while I think it is possible to take the truth out of the wrappings after I realize the wrappings don't fit with the rest of the gift.
Yes, like living belief includes acting like Jesus (out of Titus) and belief includes loving God by keeping His commands (don't remember the exact Gospel verse) and so on. The demons do not do those so while they believe in the existence of God, they do not follow His commands, etc. On the other hand, literal Genesis is never in there, and other issues like the type of baptism are debatable, though usually with a majority on one side of the issue.s
Obviously we either still have no clue or actually DON"T have the Spirit's guidance because of the sheer number of differing views out there. And remember, even the Devil can use Scripture if it suits his purposes. He quoted it to tempt Jesus at the very least, after all.
Metherion
Upvote
0
i will disagree with you on that and state that is why secular science doesn't belong in areas that are beyond its scope. all their interference does is prove that scripture is correct: God's ways are not man's and it is futile trying to do otherwise.
that isn't totally true...i would challenge your definition of 'christian'.
you are missing a word or words here. but to answer the gist, it is not me declaring anything, Jesus did that in His discussion with nicodemus. take it up with Him.
[QUOTEHow so? Your contention is that if two people do something and have differing beliefs they will get vastly different answers. Mine is that following the same methods and using the same starting point scientists (myself included) have gotten the same results as other scientists within acceptable error][/QUOTE]
and i said 'right' of course if yo do soemthing the same way and the same starting point youwill get the same results, that is a no brainer. it doesn't matter about your beliefs unless the believer stops and looks to God for guidance.
as an example, how does secular science get water form a rock?
no, i am saying there is only one truth.
neither do many people who claim to follow Christ.
but if you love the Lord God with all of your heart, soul and mind then itis natural you would proclaim His word correctly and not follow secular man's thinking.
secular man says evolution--the Bible says a supernatural act within 6 days.
sure we do, and we test the spirits so we know for sure
Upvote
0
So doing things like finding out how most of the universe actually works isn't science? The Bible will give us everything we need in chemistry, biology, geology, biochemistry, etc?
Of course you would. Apparently a Christian is only a person who had an adult conversion experience and was/is a believer in a 6-day creation. Well, guess what. Some of THEM said that infant baptism is good. Like St. Augustine (who was in fact baptized as an adult). And he also said that we shouldn't stubbornly stick to a literal Bible on matters of science and look like fools if it is found out that the real universe works differently. So even among (according to you) "true" Christians there is dissent.
Yes. John, chapter Three. Where all Jesus says is that we must be reborn of water and the Spirit. Aka baptism. John 3:5. Remind me where in that it says one needs to be a faith-professing adult to be baptized?
Oh, and Luke 18:15 uses the word infants. Or babies. Depending on the translation. Jesus specifically tells the disciples to let them come unto Him. Are you trying to disobey His word by telling us that infants can't or aren't supposed to come unto Him? And then in 16&17 Jesus specifically says that those like infants (and, of course, infants are like infants) are who the Kingdom of God is for. Now, if you must be an adult to be baptized, and can't get to the Kingdom of Heaven without Baptism, how exactly does THAT work?
Oh, and apparently (don't know the author) (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]), the 253 Council of Carthage, and St. Augustine in (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]) all state that infant baptism is right and proper.
And the idea that it had to be adults only wasn't around until the Anabaptists in ~the 16th century.
Certainly sounds like you are the one rejecting ~1500 years of Christianity including the early Church fathers and calling into question every infant baptism preformed during those 1500 years to me. That's what I meant. And calling the Christianity of more those 1500 years, and more the vast majority of Christians today over a pair of things that aren't even detailed in the Bible isn't one of your rights.
So they should get different results if we both stop at the same point (where time isn't critical, obviously) and pray, they'll get different results because they were true believers who turned to God and I'm a false believer who didn't truly to God and thus wasn't guided?
Unless it a very specific type of rock that is meant to hold or filter water, we don't. Unless there is a spring beneath it, but I'm sure that's not what you meant. Of course, we don't claim to be able to.
I suppose when technology advances a little more, we'll be able to rearrange atomic structure, but AFAIK we aren't there yet.
On the other hand, people who follow Christ and fail usually ask for forgiveness through whatever venue they use for it, unlike demons.
We obviously differ on what preaching His word correctly is. But we do both agree that God is God, Jesus is real and died for our sins, etc. Isn't THAT what God's word says?
So does that mean you assume we don't, or that every time we've done so we've done so wrong? Or perhaps that the spirits have learned to get around testing? Just what are you trying to say here?
Metherion
Upvote
0
not what i said--going to this type of argument willclose this discussion down soon.
that is a mis-used quote. done to death and ignored. again such an attitude is not worthresponding to.
no. the thief on the cross disproves that idea.
that passage is not talking about baptism.
actually that is wrong and if it was infant baptism, Jesus wouldn't have waited till age 30 to be baptised.
i don't like your tone, so i will just humor you from now on.
answer the question.
Upvote
0
Rudolph Hucker
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,540
- 332
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Yes, Archie, do that.
The question was "is the number of species now the same as on the ark?".
Upvote
0
Maybe not directly, but it was the ideas you seem to ascribe to hold.
"If it isn't in the Bible or discovered and researched only by people believing our view of the Bible it isn't of God. And everything we need to know is in the Bible." (no, I am not quoting you specifically. If I were I'd use the quote brackets.)
Or, you could tell me how I'm misusing it.
Ah, so you can prove that the thief on the next over cross did NOT go to John the Baptist and get baptized in water, AND that his "deathbed" (I say deathbed because he was in the place he was going to die and never left it despite the fact that he wasn't actually in a bed) supplication to Jesus to remember him did not constituted a rebirth in spirit? Do tell.
No, it isn't directly talking about baptism. It is talking about who the Kingdom of God is for. And since the Kingdom of God cannot be accessed by those who haven't been baptized, it then becomes quite clear indirectly that it MUST be talking of baptism. After all, if you can't get to the Kingdom without being baptized, and the Kingdom is for infants and babies, then it follows that correct! Infants and babies must be able to be baptized!
Remember, we're supposed to take into account more of Scripture than just the verses we're quoting.
1. Then show me it is wrong.
2. Jesus didn't start His ministering until age 30. John the Baptist was also the first to practice the practice of Baptism. He wasn't prophesying when Jesus was an infant, it wasn't a standard Jewish practice, and (as I said) Jesus hadn't started His ministry yet. So the New Covenant hadn't yet been instituted with Baptism as its sigh. So it wasn't yet necessary or even thought of. And Jesus was ritually circumcised. So Jesus DID have the appropriate infantile ritual. And He (see above) mandated a new one for those who heard and the ones following them.
We're on the internet, how can you even tell what my tone is?
Interestingly enough, the next 2 words after you ended the quote were the answer.
And later on, I also added that science doesn't claim to be able to get water out of rocks.
Metherion
Upvote
0
no, it is your attitude not my ideas.
typical sarcasm, not worth responding to
it has nothing to do with baptism and we can see by its context that darwin did no such thing so his beliefs were non-existent and evolution is based in evil not God.
you missed the point
no, you didn't answer the question but that is typical of the crowd here. they want all their questions answered but the refuse to do the same.
well i think it has been established that darwin never was a true christian nor a real believer in Christ and that his theory has no foundation in God.
let's move on to the next guy then
Upvote
0
Then tell me just how my attitude is wrong.
On the contrary, I am deadly serious. If it is your claim that the thief is an exception to the rule about Baptism being necessary then you should be able to prove these two claims.
I very clearly spelled out the connection between Jesus saying the Kingdom of God was for infants and infant Baptism.
What thing did Darwin not do? There was no mention of Darwin in that part of the post.
And what exactly was that point? That Jesus would have done something blatantly un-Jewish as a kid because of a New Covenant He hadn't ushered in or even announced yet?
Please, tell me your point so I can address it.
How exactly do the words "we don't, but we don't claim to be able to" not answer the question?
I've still to see an answer to the question about the # of species on the Ark, what you are implying with your testing the spirits comment, and whatever other questions the guys around here have asked you in the past. Accusing me on not answering a question I did answer and claiming that we're hypocrites because we want answers without giving them, citing an example when we DID give an answer, and refusing to answer your own questions all at the same time is both lying and hypocrisy.
I think you've still got a long way to go on proving all three of those point (and the relevance between the first two and the last one).
Not yet.
And who would we move on to? The people behind a round earth? The people behind germ theory? James Hutton? Einstein?
And dude, are you the same poster as the last several pages? You seem to have a different writing style, you're a lot more terse, and you're a lot more hostile. What's up with that?
(and this is genuine concern. If I changed my style that much I'd hope someone around here would notice and call attention to it.)
Metherion
Upvote
0
with that previous post, i just see you like all the rest of the TE posters here. this discussion used to be enjoyable until then.
you are like all the rest, putting out ridiculous criteria to be met when the scripture is very clear. like all the rest, you lack understanding and insight into the word of God and resort to statements that prove this fact:
john the baptist was dead by this time.
no there was no connection to infant baptism in those verses. you haven't shown anything.
this thread is about darwin's beliefs.
surely, science has a process figured out to get water from rocks...
which answer would you like? we are not told and i wasn't there but we are told that the ark was big enough to hold them all, the food they would need and the 8 people.
if that doesn't answer your question then nothing will.
not at all, Gen. 1:31 takes care of the third one; his own words take careof the second and no evidence of a conversion experience does in the first. you need to counter those three things before you can claim that.
Upvote
0
Ridiculous claims require ridiculous criteria, especially when the Scripture ISN"T clear or isn't consistent with the rest of the world.
And of course, you being a true believer have insight that the rest of us false believers could never hope to have unless we come around to your side and no matter how hard you try to explain it we won't get it so you won't even bother trying.
That right?
But he certainly baptized a lot of people when he was alive; how do you know this thief wasn't one of them? Jesus never said you had to have both at the same time, now, did He?
Go back over what I said.
Jesus said who the Kingdom of God is for in those verses.
When talking to Nicodemus, Jesus says what is needed to get into the Kingdom of God.
When you put who it is for together with how to get there, you see how the people it is for are supposed to get there. Remember, we're not supposed to cherry pick Scripture.
Yes, but saying Darwin did or did not do something when Darwin was not mentioned and there was no clear thing for him to have done in the previous discussion, it becomes confusing.
If it (or the chemical components in a form that can be reacted into it) is not already there, we don't get it out. That's how science works.
Well, the actually question was
Were there more or fewer species on the Ark than there are in existence today?
So, the answer I'm looking for is either "more" or "fewer".
No, it doesn't. It does not say that God finished creating and nothing would ever change in His creation, it does not say that God finished creating and everything was fixed from that point on. All it says it that God was done creating. It does not say anything about God's creation being unchanging, or unalterable, or anything as you claim it does. Your invoking Gen 1:31 is flawed as it does not say what you claim it does.
You mean his admission of belief? Yeah, that proves Darwin wasn't Christian.
You still need to show that the combination of Jesus saying you need to be baptized and that the Kingdom of Heaven is for infants shows that infant baptism is invalid for a conversion experience. And that it is impossible for Darwin to believe and later lose that belief, and that losing said belief (if it happened) would result in everything done while that belief was held becoming invalid.
Metherion
Upvote
0
john 3:16 the act of belief comes first.
sorry i mis-read the way my bible was printed genesis 2:1
Upvote
0
Rudolph Hucker
Senior Member
- Jun 26, 2007
- 1,540
- 332
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
Upvote
0
Then why is it listed as reborn in water and the Spirit in that order? Perhaps for those baptized by John who then came to believe in Jesus? Nowhere does it say that if you a reborn of the water before being reborn of the Spirit you must be re-reborn in water or that the first rebirth in water is invalid.
Okay, Genesis 1:31-2:1. From the NIV:
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Okay. So God finished making them. It does not say:
1. That they can never change.
2. That they are perfect the way they are (Gen 1:31 says they are 'good')
3. That God fixed them exactly as they are in their current form.
4. That God will never see fit to change them, or make a process by which they can be changed.
5. That God made it so they can never change.
Or anything like that. All that it says is that God finished the initial bout of creation, and it was good.
Metherion
Okay, Genesis 1:31-2:1. From the NIV:
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
Okay. So God finished making them. It does not say:
1. That they can never change.
2. That they are perfect the way they are (Gen 1:31 says they are 'good')
3. That God fixed them exactly as they are in their current form.
4. That God will never see fit to change them, or make a process by which they can be changed.
5. That God made it so they can never change.
Or anything like that. All that it says is that God finished the initial bout of creation, and it was good.
Metherion
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
