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.
ped2000 said:Theism has everything to do with morality. and if you're not a person of God (atheist) then that leaves you also a person of amorality, immorality and moral relativism. You only think you're moral because of the groundwork in society laid out by believers. You are leaching off of what was already there and convincing yourself that what morals you may have are from yourself. Its called self-deception.
ped2000 said:Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God faith guardian?
what does the Bible tell you?
I did. When you anwer my question you gain the answer to yours by proxy.
for being supposedly versed in logic you seem to have a severe case of confirmation bias with regards to the social-moral paradigm
Just answer this: Do you believe what the Bible says about Jesus Christ being the son of God and why?
Im not dodging the question. Im answering it as plain as can be. way to interpolate what you want to believe though, but the anser remaina 2, like it or not.
Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is at the center of the universe. For many centuries, however, people believed that Claudius Ptolemaeus and others were correct when they advocated an Earth-centered universe. They wanted to believe this theory because some thought, incorrectly, that this is what the Bible teaches.
Taken in order, Genesis 1:14-18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 were often cited to support the geocentric theory of Ptolemaeus. Yet none of these Scriptures, taken in any order whatsoever, state that God designed the universe with Earth at its center. In fact, Earth isn’t even the center of its own small solar system; the sun is. We can understand why Copernicus and, later, Galileo, who posited the sun-centered (heliocentric) theory, caused such a controversy in the church. It was thought that heliocentricism contradicted the biblical teaching of geocentrism. But, again, the problem was that God’s Word doesn’t say that the Earth is at the center of anything. Sadly, as time went on and people came to understand that the Earth did in fact revolve around the Sun, many simply lost faith in God’s Word, because they had falsely been taught geocentrism.
We must remember that Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. How ironic that science has never disproved one word of the Bible, yet it has caused many people to walk away from God. The ever-changing theories of fallible man come and go. Not so with the Word of God, however, as it endures forever (Matthew 5:18). Any time there is an irreconcilable difference between the two, the Bible is where we need to place our faith.
It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.
For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.
However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”
If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.
So would you then please restate your answer?
because the answers have already been given over and over there is no need to re-type them. just because you dont want to BELIEVE it doesnt discount it.
It's not wrong. You are. You are not the bible, are you?
If this was as unambiguous as you claim why are there inconsistencies, severe inconsistencies, in the creation parable when read literally
I do not think I am distorting it. I think you are twisting it though. And this post of yours is a case in point. You do not address the inconsistencies I pointed at, but attack me as a person instead. Do you know what that says? That you know you're wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it.
The bible does contain many metaphors and parables. That does not invalidate it in the least. If you insist the parables are literal that can invalidate it in the hearts of many though. And I do think that's what you're doing. Not to mention that you're subtracting from the real message of the Cross, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, love - unfathomable love. Shouldn't THAT be what we preach, shouldn't we have learned from the geocentrists and others and admit we can be wrong in our human fallibility?
You know, if you start researching ToE you'll find that it's not a faith, it's an accurate explanation of observed - and used - facts. Thank God for evolution if you're a diabetic. Because that's one of the tools we've used to create insulin for you. Thank God for evolution every time you wash your clothes. The detergent enzymes are adapted through guided evolution.
We are animals. Doesn't follow that morality doesn't exist.
Biblical literalists are fascinating.
Aye. By any biological definition we are.We are animals. Doesn't follow that morality doesn't exist.
I adhere to the apostolic creed, so yes.will answer my question now please? Do you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God the creator as outlined in the Bible
which defines itself as the infallable word of God, and why?
Backpedal. I'm not peddling anything, certainly not backwards.okay then, backpeddle some more.
No. You're twisting the bible - or in severe danger of doing so - by not admitting to your own fallibility and your blatant disregard for human history of fallibility.Oh really. let me get this straight, Im the one twisting the Bible because I dont accept your faith on the origins of life that completely contradict the Bible that you supposedly follow and only "take literally" when it suits you. totally logical!
When it comes to natural sciences it's easy.Within the framework of nature/physical reality we can operate with a decent degree of certainty. If the real world contradicts an interpretation the problem is neither in the bible nor in the world, it is in the interpretation.Tell me, how is anyone supposed to know then what to believe and what to trash into the "metaphor" waste bin?
I use evolution as a tool in my studies. Practical and theoretical.Did you witness evolution with your own eyes? No, its a secular based faith and nothing more.
Yes how did we ever get by before your almighty lord darwin???
I know what Im dealing with is hollow nonsense when the grammar nazi'ing comes out.
Im not dodging the question. Im answering it as plain as can be. way to interpolate what you want to believe though, but the anser remaina 2, like it or not.
The answer is in the wall o'text on post #11, sort of. He implies "no".You aren't answering the question of course you are dodging.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?