Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
You still haven't answered my question regarding the Atheist in the burning house.
Upvote
0
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.
tulc quote
...really? Because what I see? Is the Levite and the Priest evaluated, the Samaritan saw the need and helped. Which of the three were the wounded man's neighbor? Which one are you clirus?
Response
What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.
Lets say you saw Hitler in a ditch (and you knew it was Hitler), would you help him?
I do not see any justification in the Bible of Christians helping Atheists, except to offer the salvation of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
The Bible definitely says Christians should help Christians.
On an individual level, the decision to help is between God and the person, but from a policy perspective, I do not believe it is best for Christians to help Atheists other than to offer salvation.
The problem is hope. Atheists hope facts never enter into the discussion of the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution cannot be proved, thus it remains a theory because it cannot be proved.
When the word "theory" is used it means it cannot be proved.
Really? I posted the Scriptures, pointed out the things I saw and then contrasted it with what you said. If there's more information I didn't address I'd be happy to look at it.What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.
...Hitler was in the story of the Good Samaritan? (what translation are you reading? And as a Christian who tries to do as the Bible says I have to say: :Yes, I'd help him.Lets say you saw Hitler in a ditch (and you knew it was Hitler), would you help him?
Well to quote the only person who's opinion you appear to believe is infallible:I do not see any justification in the Bible of Christians helping Atheists, except to offer the salvation of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.
What you see is what you want to see, at the exclusion of other information.
I agree.The Bible definitely says Christians should help Christians.
That's up to you. Where the trouble comes in is when you appear to want to make your opinion out to be God's opinion also.On an individual level, the decision to help is between God and the person, but from a policy perspective, I do not believe it is best for Christians to help Atheists other than to offer salvation.
...Hitler was in the story of the Good Samaritan? (what translation are you reading? And as a Christian who tries to do as the Bible says I have to say: :Yes, I'd help him.
I suspect that you copy pasted from a creo site so please provide a Source for your claims and make sure it is a peer reviewed one too!
See, the funny thing about probability theory is this: it can predict the likelihood of an event, but it cannot predict when it will occur, or whether it will occur.
To illustrate this, let's look at nuclear power plants: in terms of probability, the risk of a disaster beyond maximum credible accident-level measures at one per ten thousand years. However, this does NOT mean that it'll take ten thousand years until such a disaster takes place - it can happen today, or tomorrow, or on any other day within that time period. The only thing that can be predicted with probability is that there most likely won't be more than one such event per ten thousand years (per power plant, that is...).
Or take the lottery: winning the jackpot is even LESS likely than experiencing a nuclear meltdown - and yet people keep doing it.
The thing is: extremely unlikely events take place all the time, everywhere. An extremely small likelihood does not prevent them from happening - it only means that they're not very probable.
Take a handful of sand. Pour it onto the table. Now, how likely do you think it is that the grains fall *exactly* in the pattern you've just created?
You could spend your whole life picking the grains up and pouring them again, and yet it is almost impossible for you to re-create the original pattern. It could still happen - it's just extremely unlikely. But even more importantly: even that first pouring created an extremely unlikely pattern. You've basically just created something that's statistically impossible. You didn't do so intentionally- it just happened.
To conclude, it may be extremely unlikely for a planet to exhibit all the characteristics that it needs in order to make it sustain protein-based life. The earth does exhibit them, however, and it does not take miracles to explain that. Life forming on a planet with liquid water is no more miraculous than a puddle forming in a cavity.
There's more than just one hypothesis with regards to that: Eigen, Hoffmann, Wächtershausen, the UVTAR model, radioactive beach hypothesis, thermal vents...Even if they were to assemble, as you know DNA holds the coding for how life works. The thing about coding is that it's information that isn't a tangible object. So where did the coding come from?
Wikipedia, does not define Gravitation as a theory.
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gravitation can be measured and the measurements repeated by anyone.
The part of the Theory of Evolution where non living matter becomes living matter, cannot be done by scientists, thus the Theory of Evolution remains a theory.
Except that they are not.The key elements of the Theory of Evolution that do not agree with the Bible are also mostly a "hunch".
Fantastic, isn't it?The very first section of that article is titled 'History of gravitational theory'.
So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.
There are words that are really repulsive.
I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.
So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.
There are words that are really repulsive.
I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.
Evolution does not treat Christians different from the rest of humanity, so perhaps you should rethink that.So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.
There are words that are really repulsive.
I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.
Reality being proven different than your world view is offensive? That's a worrying over-reaction...So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.
There are words that are really repulsive.
I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.
Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?Evolution does not treat Christians different from the rest of humanity, so perhaps you should rethink that.
You might be on to something here. Especially considering how creationists tend to huff and puff about "my great-grandfather wasn't a stupid APE!!!"Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?
Maybe that's what is offensinve about it?
So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.
There are words that are really repulsive.
I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.
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?