• 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.

Full Grown Tree, Can God create ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Agreed, however it it must be noted that there is a difference between interpreting the world through scripture and interpreting scripture through the world - the former would be my conviction.
Why? They are both spoken by God.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
476
40
✟11,829.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
muaxiong said:
Agreed, however it it must be noted that there is a difference between interpreting the world through scripture and interpreting scripture through the world - the former would be my conviction.
It should be noted that there is a difference between using scripture to interpret what it was meant to interpret and using scripture to interpret something that it wasn't meant to interpret.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
To those of you who think there'd been no personal attack against the OP:


Great way to greet a newby, guy.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
muaxiong said:
Tree rings for all practical purposes simply represent growth, to conclude that it can be an accurate measurement of a trees age is pushing it a bit.

Even so, even if we limit the meaning of tree rings to represent growth only, you still have to admit that a tree that didn't "grow" in the traditional sense, that is, one that was created instananeously by God, would have no reason to have any rings.

Agreed, however it it must be noted that there is a difference between interpreting the world through scripture and interpreting scripture through the world - the former would be my conviction.

Fair enough, but there is no reason to automatically place scripture as being superior to the world when the world, being God's creation, wrought with His own two hands, is every bit as inspired as scripture.

The two are supposed to work together, and when interpreted, should agree with each other. If one interpretation must change, I don't see why it should automatically be reason.


I would agree, however faith should always lead reason and not the other way around - after all who can say that it is by reason first that they have come to believe in Christ?

"Always" is a strong word... just as we would agree that reason is not an enemy of faith, I would suggest that nor should reason be its slave.
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Pats said:
To those of you who think there'd been no personal attack against the OP:
Attacks what he said, not the person. If you don't want people to address your comments, don't post them on a debating forum, write a blog instead.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
ebia said:
Attacks what he said, not the person. If you don't want people to address your comments, don't post them on a debating forum, write a blog instead.

Not all newbys have read the entire forum. It was personal to say that his arguement was one that has already been discussed and unoriginal, not to mention the grammar and spelling remarks. It doesn't respond to the content of the post really at all. Just infers incompetance of posting, wich is personal.

I don't have a problem having my issues debated, as you know. But, it should be noted that there is a difference between debating issues and telling someone off for their spelling.
 
Upvote 0

Athene

Grammatically incorrect
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
14,036
1,319
✟87,546.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
While we're in the subject of objections, I object to the OP in his second post claiming that those who do not believe in a literal genesis are not true christians. I also object to being told that a lack of faith in God led me to reject a literal genesis.

The OPs second post is packed full of insults towards TEs, but funnily enough Pats, I don't see you pulling up discipledave about that. Birds of a feather flock together I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,554
308
51
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟29,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian

Athene, I didn't read the whole thing. Had I noticed that, I don't think I would've even gotten into it. I have never posted with that kind of attitude and this is the first time you've addressed me, so I'd say you wouldn't know.

My fault for skimming through. I definately do NOT agree with that kind of thinking.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

This is an excellent point, and I'm glad you posted this.

How would one recognize something as millions or billions of years old if the only frame of reference one had was thousands of years. The ability to think abstractly in terms of millions of years old would be inhibited to say the least.

It reminds me of the original Planet of the Apes - since no flying creatures survived the apocalypse, the apes had no frame of reference for flying things, and therefore such things were [vizzini]inconceivable[/vizzini].

Likewise, if all of creation was only 6000 years old, and we all believed that, then the notion of a rock being a million years old would be beyond three standard deviations of thinking, or in other words, too far off the rader to be considered rational.

So, you've demonstrated how the 'veil of deception' argumnent is internally flawed and in fact makes God to look rather dumb in the process for not thinking things through.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gahhh!

Reading this post gave me headache.

So, does that make me:

1) the type of person who doesn't enjoy being 'shouted' at with inappropriately sized text

2) the type of person who is wearisome about having his faith questioned by every new neo-creationist PRATT-ler.

3) the anti-christ

Because there are, after all, only three types of people in this world.

Time to go pop an Excedrin.


 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private


There is a conspicuous absence of ad hominem attacks in the posts responding to your OP.

You have absolutely every right, in as much as the rules of the forum priviledge and constrain you, to state your opinion, just as others have every right to support or refute the elements of your opinion.

You are posting on a public forum. Grammar, spelling and proper web etiquette count.

I could write all of my posts in binary code or leet but I would be foolish to do so. It's difficult to get to the substance of your post if I can't understand what you are attempting to say, or if it triggers a migraine in the process (hint: font size 2 is more than adequate.)



Not quite, go back and read your Bible again. God did not create the plants and animals. Rather He called forth the seas and the land to birth the plants and animals. Plants and animals are, according to an indicative reading of the Bible, not created directly by God but by the elements at His command.


Go back and read the text again. You are deceiving yourself.

Genesis 2:1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


And here is the $10K question: does Genesis convey the truth of how God created or why He created? If you are like me, then you accept the revelation of Genesis as conveying the truth of the why and look to the revelation of Creation itself to answer the how.

This is where i have said God's people, those who are True Christians believe through FAITH, ( by the way FAITH being a requirement for SALVATION ) while others lose their Faith because of the evidence.

Only God knows who the faithful are. We are too good at deceiving ourselves and others to ever think that we could be proper judges. That said, faith is the only requirement for salvation within orthodox Christianity.



Acceptance of the evidence for evolutionary theory as revealed by Creation through the divine gifts of science and reason does not necessitate scriptutal falsehood. The Genesis account conveys truth, just not the truth that you insist it conveys.


Ignoring the fact that it is important to research and understand the literary, historical and cultural contexts of the different parts of scripture puts you in dangerous theological territory. But you can excused, because you seem to be just one of so many victims of this post-modern, post-literate culture that has fallen into the traps inherent in a presentation of scripture only through written codex.

Remainder of rant snipped

Sorry, I can't continue to respond because your post actually had triggered a migraine.

But as my grandmother used to say, "That's the devil trying to get out of ya."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.