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.
You left an important qualifier out.
Faith pleases God.So how do you differentiate between "faith" and "being wrong"?
Faith pleases God.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Being wrong displeases not only God, but others, including me.
If you're referring to "deep," I found it redundant,
So as long as you're pleased, you're right?
I accuse them of denying the totality of reality -- that is, not willing to see the whole picture.
The Sadducees, for example, neither believed in a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits.
Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:
That's why they were sad, you see.
(You'll get that in a minute.)
That's a deflection for you.You almost always* remind me of Statler & Waldorf.
* There's an oxymoron for you.
I'm sure you're kidding.
You're telling me that in a conversation with someone who believes the earth has only gone around the sun 6018 times, "deep time" is a redundant term?
Well, you're still trying to justify your denial with examples of how good it makes you feel.
I'm afraid the parallels with other forms of denial are almost comical.
And you still fail to acknowledge that using the excuse of your faith to justify a denial of reality has anything wrong with it.
Put it this way, if you weren't using faith would you be using something else to deny reality?
From the extremes you are going to on this forum it would seem likely.
Therefore we may reasonably ask if this is not at least a fairly harmless way of you dealing with this issue?
Well, yes, it is of course, reasonably harmless given the apparent alternatives that might substitute for it.
But one can't help feeling that it is a pity that the more reasonable alternatives, including a faith not used to justify denying reality but one that embraces it, are not available to you.
That is a great shame but clearly beyond the scope of most people here to try and address as it requires more than simple reasoning and rational argument to deal with.
That's a deflection for you.
No -- claiming you don't believe in "deep" time is redundant.
Nice!In this type of discussion it is helpful to keep in mind there are two sides to any science vs religion argument and neither side knows the answer.
God made the Earth in a supernatural way. God is not constrained by time as he invented it and lives outside it. Rocks are as old as he made them, we don't know the exact time or age. He could have made things old to begin with or he could have compressed time.
I do not think science disagrees with Christianity. But there is a faction of science that is determined to prove there is no God so results are skewed and not looked at with an open mind but with assumptions based on other assumptions.
True science should benefit us all instead of being used to prove the unprovable. The discussion is interesting. Facts are great but they are not proof of God or no God.
People have dedicated their lives to working this stuff out, building on the work of others who dedicated their lives to the same goal. Decades and centuries of meticulous observation, experimenting, comparing, considering, sharing, discussing and often arguing over what conclusions can be drawn.I find it interesting -- and always have -- that agreeing with scientists' conclusions (the age of the earth for example) -- isn't good enough.
One has to agree with how scientists arrived at that conclusion as well, don't they?
This everything-or-nothing attitude doesn't cut it with me.
People have dedicated their lives to working this stuff out, building on the work of others who dedicated their lives to the same goal. Decades and centuries of meticulous observation, experimenting, comparing, considering, sharing, discussing and often arguing over what conclusions can be drawn.
So no, it is not sufficient for you to just come along and pluck a number or a result out of thin air, that just happens to agree with these hard-won conclusions, and say 'hey look, we agree. We're both right!'.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
At least I can get you laughing.
I find it interesting -- and always have -- that agreeing with scientists' conclusions (the age of the earth for example) -- isn't good enough.
One has to agree with how scientists arrived at that conclusion as well, don't they?
What cuts it with you is only what is self-gratifying.This everything-or-nothing attitude doesn't cut it with me.
Fair enough. But without it you would presumably revert to how you were immediately before you found it, and you said that wasn't a great place.I thought I already answered NO (or I HOPE NOT) to that?
If walking by faith is an "extreme" to you, is walking by sight an "extreme" to you as well?
I hope so.
I hope I don't come across as a militant crusader for the cause.
Thank you.
I've seen what a faith that "embraces [mundane] reality" does to even basic doctrine -- and want no part of it.
Correct.
Instead of the worldly logical, try the divinely theological to get the whole picture.
But, just as the Bible says, it can't be done by unbelievers; and many are QED of that very truth.
What cuts it with you is only what is self-gratifying.
The problem with an "embedded age" is that is simply a careful wording of the claim that "God is lying". Even when I was a Christian I did not believe in a dishonest God. Yes, if a God wanted to, and was all powerful, he could have created you last Tuesday. The question is why would he? If one believes in an honest God then "embedded age" is not possible. There is no excuse for making all of the Earth's geology conform to one false picture. If the "dates" of various rocks did not support geology, then you could question them. The fact that they do leaves us with two choices, either the dates are right or we have a dishonest God that is trying to lead us astray. The latter makes no sense to me.In this type of discussion it is helpful to keep in mind there are two sides to any science vs religion argument and neither side knows the answer.
God made the Earth in a supernatural way. God is not constrained by time as he invented it and lives outside it. Rocks are as old as he made them, we don't know the exact time or age. He could have made things old to begin with or he could have compressed time.
I do not think science disagrees with Christianity. But there is a faction of science that is determined to prove there is no God so results are skewed and not looked at with an open mind but with assumptions based on other assumptions.
True science should benefit us all instead of being used to prove the unprovable. The discussion is interesting. Facts are great but they are not proof of God or no God.
I'm not going to dignify posts that imply I have some kind of narcissistic personality disorder with a response.
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?