Evolution is a part of a "strong delusion" in the end times?

[Speedwell]

I have considered the possibility of the Bible not being literal, then I quickly realized that it's either all or nothing. You can't pick parts you do or don't like, because the very writings say that such a thing is not possible. The Bible demands the whole thing to be believed fully or not. The gospel's were written to be seen by man, and to be followed. Jesus said his words would carry on. Why would he carry it on in a corrupted book? Why would he carry his message in a book that claims the entire thing to be literal, if it was not the case?

Because it doesn't claim to be literal.

 

[Jimmy D]

QV please:

In other words, God allows it to happen, while taking the credit for it.

It seems a lot of these commentories disagree with you, I suppose they're the wrong ones?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

No. God sent it.

It's nice to see you're a fan of GOD DID IT.

Something most people here arc & spark about.

Who prompted David to number Israel, God or Satan?

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

The answer is that God allowed Satan to do it.

Note how this principle is manifest in the book of Job:

After Satan wipes Job out, killing his flocks and his children, we read this at the end of the book ...

Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

The book of Job is a fascinating book.

God purposely prompted Satan to focus on Job, knowing that Job would hold to his integrity and not curse Him.

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

God purposely set Satan on to Job, but in so doing, He had to withdraw Himself and watch as Satan put Job through one horrible ordeal after another, causing him to suffer mercilessly.

Had God intervened, then God would have been the loser, but He knew His servant Job, and knew he wouldn't "curse God and die," which is what Satan was trying so hard to get him to do.

Joseph sums this principle of how God operates up very well ...

Genesis 50:20a But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good,

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems a lot of these commentories disagree with you, I suppose they're the wrong ones?

You a big fan of GOD DID IT too, are you?

Good to hear.

God also died on the Cross to save you.

Let's see your patronage now.

 

[durangodawood]

...Joseph sums this principle of how God operates up very well ...

Wherever else this principle operates, it either doesnt operate here, or Isaiah is wrong, or is mistranslated:
God shall send them strong delusion

We can accept it as the text's meaning, or we can bring our own modifiers to it.

 

[durangodawood]

You a big fan of GOD DID IT too, are you?

Good to hear.

God also died on the Cross to save you.

Let's see your patronage now.

I'm talking about the meaning of the text, not whether its factual or not. Thats a whole other discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wherever else this principle operates, it either doesnt operate here, or Isaiah is wrong, or is mistranslated:
God shall send them strong delusion

We can accept it as the text's meaning, or we can bring our own modifiers to it.

First of all, it is Paul, not Isaiah.

Second of all, God is going to send a strong delusion, just as it says.

BUT, just as He used chosen secretaries to pen the Scriptures, He can use human (and angelic) agents to delude people.

And let me make this perfectly clear:

In the end, the deluded ones will be to blame for allowing themselves to be deluded.

Even during their delusion, they will have freewill.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm talking about the meaning of the text, not whether its factual or not.

So am I.

 

[Jimmy D]

You a big fan of GOD DID IT too, are you?

Good to hear.

God also died on the Cross to save you.

Let's see your patronage now.

LOL, can you at least agree the passage is open to different interpretations?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Dude.... learning more literally IS alleviating ignorance.

True, yet "learning more" is a common facet of life not exclusive to "investigation of the natural world through systematic method". Any book you read on any subject, or words you hear concenring a subject, alleviate "ignorance" of that subject. You're trying to claim this basic fact as "science" when it is not; it is a common truth which is a part of every field on understanding.

Also, the use of "ignorance" is being applied to the ethical/cultural/etc. problem of "division", and not simply "learning things": I am quite certain Muslims, Jews, Nazis, etc. "learn things" but this common human ability is not a product of "science", it is the product of human intellect which exists apart from science.

Sure.
You are ignorant of X or believe a thing concerning X that is actually wrong.
Scientific investigation gathers knowledge concerning X.
You now are no longer ignorant of X or you understand that what you believed about X is wrong.

Again, you are merely asserting "science provides information"; a fact no one has denied. You need to demonstrate that the information gained has been substantial, and meaningful to the condition of mankind.

I wouldn't put it that way, but science most certainly informs ethics.

"Informs" is of no consequence if the "information" provides nothing substantial, or, meaningful. It seems to me that you're of that belief that "any and all information is substantially meaningful to the human condition"; is this your belief? If so, I question your understanding of words such as "substantially meaningful" in relation to alleviation of common problems of humankind.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Wow.

You realize that "wow" is not an attempt at rebuttal, and that all such statements are to be intellectually regarded as a concession of inability to rebut?

In other words, "wow" is to be translated as "I am unable to offer rebuttal"?

 

[CodyFaith]

So was Jesus a sheep?

John 1:29 literally tells us he was.

How about grasshoppers with four legs (Leviticus 11:20-23) or cud chewing rabbits (Leviticus 11:6 ) are these claims literally accurate?

Judges 1:19 says "God was unable to overcome chariots of iron", is that literal?

And that's before we get into the verses that literally contradict other verses.

As to whether Jesus is a sheep, i's clear that him being the lamb of the world is not meaning he's a literal sheep. However, that does not mean the Bible is not literal. There are loads of metaphors in it, but it's still quite literal.

And if all you can do is post a couple verses that I tbh can't be bothered refuting, because not only is it off topic it's a complete waste of time, than I won't even bother to respond. I gave a valid reason as to why the Bible HAS to be literal and you respond with "but see these verses, but". Verses, which I'm sure if you google with the word "contradiction" beside it, other men will have given you a valid answer to your so called "contradictions".

A very popular video on youtube, had about 100 contradictions on it, I once refuted every single one of them accurately for something to do. Not bragging in the slightest, just showing that the word of God is exactly that. And showing the straws that are grasped by people who claim otherwise.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Since medicine seems to be your 'pet peeve'.......

In fact, medicine is not my pet peeve; on the contrary, medicine is apparently the one and only card you have to play in order to convince yourself and others that "science" provides information through investigation of the natural world which has substantially meaningful impact on the problems of humankind. This is why you are not appealing to information from any other field but medicine.

So, again, medicine is not my pet peeve; it is the only straw you have to grasp. I am most willing to set "medicine" aside to find out what else you have to offer? Let's consider "medicine" now off the proverbial table (we can come back to it if you like) and see what else "systematic investigation via 'science'" has to offer to in a substantially meaningful alleviation of the problems of mankind.

Unless you have forebears who died from smallpox, malaria, polio, diphtheria, urinary tract infections, measles, mumps, etc, then I suppose the advances we have made in that direction would be irrelevant.

If you are of the understanding that, removing several bullets in the chamber of a gun holding 10,000 bullets is making a "significant and meaningful" change before handing the gun to a child to play Russian Roulette. I, however, would question your understanding of the words "significant" and "meaningful".

Unless, like I, you lay awake as a child, listening to your younger brother struggling to take each breath and wondering if he was going to survive the whooping cough that afflicted him, then our cure of that disease would be irrelevant.

If you are of the understanding that, removing several bullets in the chamber of a gun holding 10,000 bullets is making a "significant and meaningful" change before handing the gun to a child to play Russian Roulette. I, however, would question your understanding of the words "significant" and "meaningful".

But, I will give you that you make a nice and basic appeal to emotion with your words. Unfortunately, emotion is a foundation of, religious expression; not scientific.

Unless you are aware of the increase in life expectancy of some 15 years, just from the introduction of modern dental practices, then this advance in knowledge might be irrelevant to you.

If you are of the understanding that, extending life for 15 years in a world of problems somehow contributes to "alleviation of experience of problems"; but that would be completely backward, since all you are doing is prolonging the experience, and not alleviating the problems to begin with. It seems to me that you're now going off the proverbial "rails" of the discussion, since nothing about "extension of experience" has anything whatsoever to do with alleviation the problems common to mankind.

We have removed many of the "bullets" already.....and continue to remove more of them weekly.....

And more bullets keep being placed into the chamber; daily. I.e. no meaningful change.

 

[SteveB28]

So tell me:

How did 'no more significant people than fallible men like you and me' survive through a fiery furnace that was heated seven times beyond its normal capacity?

Pardon??

 

[CodyFaith]

Because it doesn't claim to be literal.

Well first off I would like to say it doesn't have to claim that. It demands literalism, a little wisdom will show that.

But in any case, it actually does.
2 Timothy 3 :16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Here's a good explanation for you, for @Armoured, and whoever else seems to be getting tripped up.
https://gotquestions.org/biblical-literalism.html

 

[SteveB28]

In fact, medicine is not my pet peeve; on the contrary, medicine is apparently the one and only card you have to play in order to convince yourself and others that "science" provides information through investigation of the natural world which has substantially meaningful impact on the problems of humankind. This is why you are not appealing to information from any other field but medicine.

So, again, medicine is not my pet peeve; it is the only straw you have to grasp. I am most willing to set "medicine" aside to find out what else you have to offer? Let's consider "medicine" now off the proverbial table (we can come back to it if you like) and see what else "systematic investigation via 'science'" has to offer to in a substantially meaningful alleviation of the problems of mankind.



If you are of the understanding that, removing several bullets in the chamber of a gun holding 10,000 bullets is making a "significant and meaningful" change before handing the gun to a child to play Russian Roulette. I, however, would question your understanding of the words "significant" and "meaningful".



If you are of the understanding that, removing several bullets in the chamber of a gun holding 10,000 bullets is making a "significant and meaningful" change before handing the gun to a child to play Russian Roulette. I, however, would question your understanding of the words "significant" and "meaningful".

But, I will give you that you make a nice and basic appeal to emotion with your words. Unfortunately, emotion is a foundation of, religious expression; not scientific.



If you are of the understanding that, extending life for 15 years in a world of problems somehow contributes to "alleviation of experience of problems"; but that would be completely backward, since all you are doing is prolonging the experience, and not alleviating the problems to begin with. It seems to me that you're now going off the proverbial "rails" of the discussion, since nothing about "extension of experience" has anything whatsoever to do with alleviation the problems common to mankind.



And more bullets keep being placed into the chamber; daily. I.e. no meaningful change.

Strange.....you seem to be living in a different planet than the rest of us.

The net effect is that our advances have improved the lives of the bulk of the planet. There are far fewer diseases to threaten us than in our past and we are rapidly 'closing the net' on many that still exist.

Contrary to assertion, the world is LESS torn by division, strife, violence, etc than at any point in our history. If YOU appealed less to your emotions and adopted a scientific approach to the evidence, you might see this.

 

[CodyFaith]

Why? This is a statement of desperation. Remember, the bible was written by no more significant people than fallible men, like you and me.



Again, a claim made by men. Frightened, gullible, superstitious men.



By men.....



No. Some men claimed that a man called Jesus said that. We have no writings of this man to corroborate that claim.



He wrote nothing, that we are aware of, in any book.

 

[John Hyperspace]

HS said that science is how we learn about the natural world.

He wasn't speaking about society's problems. Learning about the natural world is how we gain knowledge that helps us develop technology.

I am aware of this. Are you not aware that the entire point of this discussion between us is in my original statement that "systematic investigation of the natural world is an entireprise which contributes no information of substantial or meaningful worth in relation to the real problems mankind faces"?

What you think "science is" has no relevance in relation to that statement.

Also, science is not "how we learn about the natural world"; we learn about the natural world through self experience. Science is one method of systematic study of the natural world, as well as a completely theoretic enterprise.

And you know, just for our curiosity's satisfaction, it is nice to know and understand.

"Nice to understand" does not offer any substantial or meaningful alleviation of the problems of humankind.

Also, science does not give "understanding" it gives tentative approximations.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Strange.....you seem to be living in a different planet than the rest of us.

True. It's called "Planet Reason"; I'd be honored if you'd pay a visit someday.

The net effect is that our advances have improved the lives of the bulk of the planet. There are far fewer diseases to threaten us than in our past and we are rapidly 'closing the net' on many that still exist.

Please provide the list of known diseases against the list of cured diseases. Or, would you just be completely guessing? Hoping and praying? Is this your idea of "science"? "I just say words and they are true"? This is nothing short of religion, and a poor facsimile, at that.

Contrary to assertion, the world is LESS torn by division, strife, violence, etc than at any point in our history.

And you believe this is due to "systematic investigation of the natural world"? You believe this, yes?

 

[SteveB28]

Please provide the list of known diseases against the list of cured diseases. Or, would you just be completely guessing? Hoping and praying? Is this your idea of "science"? "I just say words and they are true"? This is nothing short of religion, and a poor facsimile, at that.

I have already given you a list of some of the major diseases over which we now have control (I note you have changed your language from ONE "bullet" to 'several' ....... we seem to be making headway....). To that list you could add others such as tuberculosis, rabies, rinderpest, tetanus, influenza.

These are the MAJOR infectious disease killers from our past. You might describe it as removing just 'several' bullets from the 'gun', but such a statement is disingenuous. Not all 'bullets' are equal. For example, the control of influenza, measles and smallpox ALONE accounts for the removal of the great bulk of threat of death by infectious disease.

I suggest you conduct a 'scientific examination of the natural world' in this regard, in order to bring your understanding up to a reasonable level.....

And you believe this is due to "systematic investigation of the natural world"? You believe this, yes?

Yes.

I have just celebrated my 88th birthday during this past week. A few centuries ago, I would have been most unlikely to make such a boast. The probabilities are such that I would have been dead for at least 20 years. (I know this as a result of a 'scientific examination' of the statistics, by the way....).

What has permitted me this longer life span? Luck? An angel looking over me? Or could it be that the most threatening diseases that might have cut my life short have been controlled? Could it be that modern dentistry has helped me avoid a fatal infection of my teeth? Could it be that the blood pressure and cholesterol medications that have been developed permit my body to function more efficiently? Could it be that the development of more and better strains of food sources allows my nutrition to be well served? Could it be that advances in our transport mechanism result in my food being available all year round?

Someone needs to jettison his asinine argument.......