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.
where you have plants but no sun or moon?
That's an atheistic response but all things created are used to point to God and in being aware of God the response is to praise and worship Him.
That's just the way it is.
Do you mean like taking a tree and using tools to make a house? That is not doing something better than God. The carpenter has raw material. God uses faith which isn't material to create all things material. God is not the limited one.
Your first reply on this post indicates that it has everything to do with man-made atheism which does not recognize God as God.
No because it's man made. It exists solely as a counterfeit explanation for the existing universe that God created with His own divine power.
While you and your fellow creationists would rather drive from Christ and their salvation in Him all other Christians who disagree with you. You are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis.God would rather redeem every atheist.
You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."
You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.
You had your chance to provide a term but you didn't so atheist doctrine it is.There is no "atheist doctrine" and it's not even relevant to this discussion.
The question is irrelevant because God didn't.The question is what God could have done.
And, whenever you give your atheist views in these posts then its useful in the discussion whenever and however I deem to mention it.
The question is irrelevant because God didn't.
As Christian, an Anglican--what people like you have called a "Bible-hating, Christ denying commie" for my beliefs--I offer a personal example and can provide as many more as you like. The vicious hostility is rampant, even in a forum like this which is heavily policed against such things. The only way I can account for it is that creationists are trying to take possession of the Gospel and deny its saving power to anyone who disagrees with them about Genesis.You've made some broad statements without any examples. So I'll have to consider them to be no more than ineffective inaccurate opinions.
If I was as concerned about it as you are, then I'd give my testimony to give them something else to consider.
I'm not concerned about it--you can't steal the Gospel from me--I just want to know why you would try to do such a thing.If I was as concerned about it as you are, then I'd give my testimony to give them something else to consider.
You are an agnostic. But that is not the word Christian.For the record I'm not even an atheist.
You are beating a dead horse. God already used His divine power to diversify life on earth.. without the man-made concept of evolution.It's a question of what God could or could not have done. What is preventing God from using evolution to diversify life on Earth?
It would take imagination to think that God would bother using evolution when He's already accomplished the creation of all things without it.So far the only thing preventing it seems to be that creationists can't imagine God doing that.
No it speaks directly to you not seeing an end to the discussion.That you're trying to shut down the discussion in your response speaks directly to that.
You are an agnostic. But that is not the word Christian.
You are beating a dead horse. God already used His divine power to diversify life on earth.. without the man-made concept of evolution.
God made some animals that could be genetically altered in small ways that man has discovered how to do it. There are other animals that cannot be genetically altered. That's diversity too.
It would take imagination to think that God would bother using evolution when He's already accomplished the creation of all things without it.
No it speaks directly to you not seeing an end to the discussion.
Light is just radiation - which in even the BB was one of the first things around. So why would I require solar light in order to have plants?
So why are creationists trying to hold the Gospel hostage to a literal Genesis?Try to do what such thing? You spoke of other Christians.. don't involve me in it just because I gave you some advice.
You know perfectly well that I was only speaking of the end of the discussion with me.I started this thread. Of course I'm not seeking an end to the discussion.
You know perfectly well that I was only speaking of the end of the discussion with me.
You apparently enjoy marathon discussions but my time is minimal for exchanges with strangers when I have a family to give my greater attention to so if you post something else I will not respond.
There are a lot of creationists on this forum that don't consider non-creationist Christians to be real Christians.
The only way I can account for it is that creationists are trying to take possession of the Gospel and deny its saving power to anyone who disagrees with them about Genesis.
Go to anywhere outside our solar system to any of the rocks or Ort Belt or any object in space and see how helpful light from the BB would be for growing plants. the fact is even on Earth with all the light we get from starts and the BB - plants would not grow without the sun.
Bit here is the bigger question for you - what problem do you solve by lumping all of the universe into that 7 days of Genesis 1-2?
Why not leave that alone and just limit the scope to the "two lights" on Day 4 ... one for the day (the sun) and the other for the night (the moon)? It is easier to deal with life on Earth rather than "all stars and all life in the entire universe"? Why expand the scope of the problem to be solved to that level when there is no need to do it??
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?