[OPEN]Does the Origin theory really matter?[/OPEN]

kenneth558 · May 25, 2006

stumpjumper said:
Jesus was pretty clear about his followers NOT fighting for power...

stumpjumper, if you would just believe more of what God says, you would learn more of what He says. You didn't even read the link to scripture that I posted, did you? Here is the scripture:

18Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

21What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

From the tone of your response, I'd say you are one of the type Paul was challenging. Lots of speech, but where's the power?

Your OP asked a question. I answered it. You responded in mocking tone. I'd say you weren't looking for an answer but for an argument. Have a good day.

stumpjumper · May 25, 2006

kenneth558 said:
stumpjumper, if you would just believe more of what God says, you would learn more of what He says. You didn't even read the link to scripture that I posted, did you?

The thing is I do believe what God says and the Bible disagrees with you about this power thing:

Jesus explicitly stated in Matthew 18:1, in response to a direct question about power in the Kingdom of Heaven, that those who humble themselves to God will be first. Those who think they are the first shall be last and the last shall be first...

Matthew 18:1-3
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Humbling oneself as a child is what is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven not seeking power...

18

Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

21What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

The Power in your passage belongs to God!

Your OP asked a question. I answered it. You responded in mocking tone. I'd say you weren't looking for an answer but for an argument. Have a good day.

I'm not mocking but your view of scripture stating that the disciple's should seek power is just way off...

It's just a complete misreading of scripture my friend...

jereth · May 25, 2006

RenHoek said:
Have you seen the vast majority of the threads started on this board are from TE's...You with the most of those? Who has the stirring spoon?

Yes, we TEs (and myself personally) take a very active part in the debate on this forum. But all our activity is largely driven by the constant stream of YECist antagonism that we encounter in our churches, in the wider Christian community, and from established YEC organisations (like AiG).

What YECists need ot understand is that TEs in general do not have an agenda to pursue. We're not trying to return the Church to doctrinal purity. We're not trying to root out apostasy. We're not trying to defend the Church from an atheistic threat. We're not trying to reform scientific institutions. All we want is to conduct our scientific activity in peace, and to participate in the body of Christ without being called compromisers and Bible-destroyers.

Why then are we so vocal in places such as this? Because we are under constant attack. Every day there is a large segment of the Church working with all their might to blacken our name and drive us out. An international "ministry" has been established against us, which Christians are called to give money to. If you are a sincere Christian believer (as all TEs are), this is hurtful and distressing. YECists are not, and never will be in a position to appreciate this.

shernren · May 25, 2006

The part that TE's generally are oblivious to, is that Creationists are not scientifically stupid but choose to look for evidence of God's Word being correct as opposed to the secular scientific interpretation of the the data. When one looks at it from that perspective the view changes dramatically and it becomes obvious that it is all about interpretation. Creationists tend to be more conservative and not indulge in wild speculation as to how diversity of species came about differently than how God tells us it did.

Gap Theory is a mighty fine pedestal from which to lecture us on "wild speculation", isn't it? "Wild speculation" is a label that comes easily to mind when considering, say, the idea that the voidness and formlessness of Genesis 1:2 needs to be explained by the destruction caused by a grand cosmic battle.

But rmswilliams has already explained how alternative scientific interpretations are not equivalent. Besides, the bigger issue is that the atheistic interpretation of the Bible and the creationist interpretation of the Bible are pretty much the same.

Atheist: Creationism is wrong, therefore the Bible is wrong.
Creationist: The Bible is right, therefore creationism is right.

They both agree on:

If the Bible is right then creationism has to be right.

And I think that one concession sours the whole deal for me.

There are always those who being weak in the faith are easily misled into believing that man knows better than God. That is unfortunate but one that is augmented by so many older Christians believing the delusion themselves.

I wonder if you can back up this statement that we believe that man knows better than God. I suspect that it is nothing more than a rehashed God-of-the-gaps argument.

Now here I have some difficulties. Most YECs do not make any such assertions that because you're a TE you have no right to be Christians. That's false, plain and simple. Most if not all YECs, at least the ones I know, will not say anything about your right to be a Christian, some may doubt your Christianity, but few if any actually call into question your right to be one.

That's how I perceive the general YEC reaction to TEism ... oh, they're all incredibly polite in the way they say it, but 9 out of 10 times the first reaction any YEC has to TEs is "Jesus believed in a literal 6-day-creation, how can you not?" with the obvious implication that TEs don't believe in Jesus in a lot of other things as well. The logical progression (which has actually been explicitly made quite a few times) is that TEs are simply Bible-burners who don't give a whit about reading the Bible properly and care less about what Jesus says than about what man thinks.

And how can a person like that have any right to call himself or herself a Christian?

I was extreme in the way I phrased it ("no right to be a Christian") but the basic sentiment is there, I feel like I should be numb to it by now but I'm not. YECs see TEism as some kind of copout for us TEs to please the world, but really, TEs are mocked for being Christians as much as YECs are. On one side atheists think we still can't let go of "pie in the sky when you die", on the other side YECs think we're in bed with the enemy just because we accept a few scientific statements.

Beliefs. Pesky things.

charityagape · May 25, 2006

shernren said:
Firstly, why would that be offensive? What's wrong with being scientifically stupid? Everybody's stupid some way or another.

Let me see if I can explain what's wrong with it. It's assumed that I believe in a literal six day creation because i'm too ignorant to know better, because I haven't study it myself, because I've been overly influenced by other scientifically backwards christians. It's been assumed that if I knew more about evolution, etc then I would understand and give up this backward idea of a literal genesis.

That's offensive to me. Even in the post above you're not saying I wouldn't call you scientifically stupid, you're saying what's wrong with the fact that you are scientifically stupid, understand?

What stumpjumper said,

I certainly wouldn't say scientifically stupid, though. I would just say that they don't accept the findings of science as true.

is great, but as I said to him, it's not the normal view.
I may be good with science but I'm horrible with history and geography - I can barely navigate the roads around my place though I've been driving a year, if the trip takes more than 10 minutes' drive I need either a good guide or a map. Besides, you've survived life 13 years more than I have while being scientifically stupid, so it can't be that abnormal or life-threatening a disease after all.

Now if you were a scientist who earns a living from science, then being called scientifically stupid might be quite an insult. But I don't think you are, right? So what difference does it make in your life to be "scientifically stupid"? That's what technology is for, dear: packaging science into scientifically-stupid-people-friendly boxes for blurheads like you and me. We don't need to know squat about semiconductors to use the computer, or electron guns to use the television, or hydrocarbon combustion and differential gears to use a car.

Now, I'm not saying that I think you're scientifically stupid. I think I'm scientifically stupid (or at least not where I want to be yet). But why does it sting so much? It isn't that bad, right? What has happened is that in the Western culture centered around science and technology science has become synonymous with intellectuality. In other words when someone calls you "scientifically stupid" what you really hear is: "you're stupid, fullstop." As I've shown, that really doesn't make much sense, does it? But we've encouraged it by all-but-deifying science (and YECism is a part of it, too - trying to make the Christian faith credible by making it scientifically credible, indirectly bowing down to the powerful image of science). Someone smart is an "Einstein" or a "rocket scientist", a genius is someone who invents some new technology. What would you feel if I said "You're as smart as Picasso!", that wouldn't feel like a compliment at all, would it?

Being scientifically stupid isn't all that bad ...

Secondly, most TEs here actually don't assume outright and immediately that YECs are scientifically stupid. Proof? We bother to try to reason you out of it. By directing you to TO, say, we assume that you understand the methodology of TO and the terms it uses. If I try to show you that radiodecay rates are constant, it means that I assume you know what radioactive decay is, how it works, what an atom is (which is actually brilliant: people weren't even sure that atoms existed two centuries ago). If we really thought you were scientifically stupid, we wouldn't even bother. Of course, there are a few people here who will do just that with a PRATT, swipe it off without giving it a second thought, but by and large most of us are willing to explain the science behind our conclusions. You may be scientifically stubborn in refusing to accept our explanations, but we don't consider you scientifically stupid.

On the other hand, how do you think we feel every time YECs come along and effectively say that we have no right to be Christians simply because we believe in evolution?

I think it's wrong for you to be made to feel that way.

vossler · May 26, 2006

shernren said:
That's how I perceive the general YEC reaction to TEism ... oh, they're all incredibly polite in the way they say it, but 9 out of 10 times the first reaction any YEC has to TEs is "Jesus believed in a literal 6-day-creation, how can you not?" with the obvious implication that TEs don't believe in Jesus in a lot of other things as well. The logical progression (which has actually been explicitly made quite a few times) is that TEs are simply Bible-burners who don't give a whit about reading the Bible properly and care less about what Jesus says than about what man thinks.

Well I suppose your free to perceive it any way you wish, just as I'm free to see it as I do. That's the beauty of forums like these. Still it is a bit of a downer that Christians can't accept one another as brothers in Christ. Isn't that what Christianity is suppose to represent?

shernren said:
I was extreme in the way I phrased it ("no right to be a Christian") but the basic sentiment is there, I feel like I should be numb to it by now but I'm not. YECs see TEism as some kind of copout for us TEs to please the world, but really, TEs are mocked for being Christians as much as YECs are. On one side atheists think we still can't let go of "pie in the sky when you die", on the other side YECs think we're in bed with the enemy just because we accept a few scientific statements.

For me personally the world has crept into Christianity in many many ways. Evolution is but one of those ways. Does that bother me, to some degree yes, but ultimately it isn't my concern because it's not my fight. I can't change it! So it really doesn't matter how I see TEs, what matters is how God sees them. The battle is the Lords and I'm becoming very comfortable with giving it to Him and leaving it in His more than capable hands.

I'd like to see TEs as God does, yet right now I'm not too sure how He sees them. Does He see them differently than YECs, I would think so but truly I really don't know. What I do know is that I need to worry less about how God sees others and more about how Hes sees me. If I can get my walk with the Lord to be developed better then an issue such as evolution will no longer be a personal stumbling block, but rather nothing more than a pebble, one among many others, that will no longer trip me. Yet as most know, pebbles are not what one would call a solid footing either. They're still a problem just not as prominent. The key to it all is found in God's Word. May all of us feast upon it first and come back to it's banquet often.

USincognito · May 26, 2006

Since this is an Open thread I'm going to comment, but won't respond to any antagonistic replies I get.

I think the Creation/Evolution issue is tremendously important - as a social, political and educational issue in the U.S.

As far as theology or salvation goes, I can only comment on what I've seen and that's there seems to be more people who are YECs who lose their faith, or at the very least suffer a crisis of faith when dealing in ernest with the subject of evolution than marginal believers adopting a more fundamentalist theology.

Of course the sad part of that observation is if those people hadn't been so psychologically and emotionally wedded to to YECism, they might still be believers today.

meebs · May 26, 2006

stumpjumper said:
Well... Does it really matter?

I fail to see how it really makes that much difference in soteriology, Christology, Bibliology, etc, etc. I guess I just don't know why it is still such a major issue in Christianity... There are very few people or groups that really doubt the theory of evolution but those that do are motivated by religious belief.

Why is that?

Theories about our biological origin really don't have very much to do with faith and I have never understood why it really matters...

Let me know why it matters, if it does, please...

i agree. i think it wouldnt matter. Look, i know im not a christian now but when i was i really figured it didnt matter. i honestly beleived thatit was a simply a case of God made the world no matter what.

I beleived a small sentance in genesis 1:1 - in the begining God made the heavens and the Earth.

this was all that mattered. If i found cause to beleive in God again, regarding origins theory, i would beleive the same thing!

im glad this one is open, it was something on my mind

RenHoek · May 26, 2006

jereth said:
Yes, we TEs (and myself personally) take a very active part in the debate on this forum. But all our activity is largely driven by the constant stream of YECist antagonism that we encounter in our churches, in the wider Christian community, and from established YEC organisations (like AiG).

So then you will understand when the same type of persecution coming from the scientific community deems YECs as backward, redneck, NASCAR-loving, flat-out-moronic, uneducated, inbred, un-evolved, and to quote my new buddy "patheticly stupid" Welcome to humanity. So where does it stop? What is wrong with a YEC trusting God and/or His ways to be above scientific explanation? I know you are not saying TEs are the only group being bagged on for their beliefs.

TEs in general do not have an agenda to pursue.

Perhaps, but there are many scientists who do, and they use evolution to try to eliminate the need for a God as a creator. I personally feel, that many scientists think that they are evolved higher than the rest of us and that there is nothing on this Earth that they can not explain through their data. I find arrogance to exude from this group with at least the same force as the self-righteous judgementalism from the YECs you mention. I liken it to the Jews vs. Arabs, Hatfield vs. McCoy, black vs. white, and the list goes on. Who can be right if we all are wrong?

Every day there is a large segment of the Church working with all their might to blacken our name and drive us out.

What did Christ exemplify under the same type of slander when on trial? Not being pious here, you know full well the change in my attitude from the beginning of my stay here in this forum. If we did not face persecution Christ would be a liar. Go in peace, study science, leave God to handle those who would call you a heretic. They will answer for it one day.

USincognito · May 26, 2006

RenHoek said:
Perhaps, but there are many scientists who do, and they use evolution to try to eliminate the need for a God as a creator.

Out of curiousity, could you name one other than Dawkins who does so? I've met him in person and while I find his opinion of religious people appalling, he's quite a decent fellow. On the other hand, I'm familiar with scientists like Kenneth Miller, Bob Bakker, Glenn Morton and the author of the 29+ Evidences essays Douglas Theobald who are as evangelical in their zeal for spreading the Gospel as they are for supporting science.

RenHoek said:
I personally feel, that many scientists think that they are evolved higher than the rest of us...

Since this is an Open thread I shall only comment that this is either ignorance or a straw man on your part. Would you say the same about Donald Trump? What about the Artist formerly, and now again known as Prince? The latter won't make eye contact or shake hand with people, but he's known for giving waitresses $100 tips for bringing him a drink.

In addition to Dawkins I've met Eugenie Scott of the NSCE and found her to be as gracious and self-depricating as any other high-profile evolution advocate I've seen in public. None of those on the evolution side I've mentioned (note - real names vs. your "them" assertion) actually think they're more evolved than other humans since such an idea is anathema to evolutionary theory. We all bleed red. We all have 46 chromosomes. Some people are more intelligent, or more accuractly are more informed and educated in a particular area of study, but that doesn't mean they think they are more evolved.

I'm sorry if this post is crossing the OPEN lines, and I feel like an intruder for posting this, but to act like orthodox, and often evangelical Christians accept evolutionary theory because they want to "reject God" or "elevate themselves" is an insult to people of character, faith and accomplishment that I cannot allow to go unchallenged.

RenHoek · May 26, 2006

Out of curiousity, could you name one other than Dawkins who does so?

I my view, any atheist who pursues the TofE is out to disprove God, knowingly or not. They reject the idea that they might have to be accountable to a higher being. Is this their sole goal? Perhaps not. Would they admit as much if pressed? Perhaps not. I go by the arrogance of the scoffers I have encountered.

To answer your question more directly, I have not catalogued all those who have demonstrated this to me, as I find no reason to waste my time doing so.

Since this is an Open thread I shall only comment that this is either ignorance or a straw man on your part.

My perception is based on the whole of my experiences with others. Therefore it is not ignorance. It is not an argument; therefore it is not a straw man. I perceive their arrogance and condescending attitudes and make that conclusion. If I am wrong, fine, this is just how it seems to me.

I'm sorry if this post is crossing the OPEN lines, and I feel like an intruder for posting this, but to act like orthodox, and often evangelical Christians accept evolutionary theory because they want to "reject God" or "elevate themselves" is an insult to people of character, faith and accomplishment that I cannot allow to go unchallenged.

I think you missed my point. I am not saying all scientists feel this way, nor am I indicting them in any way. I was trying to point out that there are diametrically opposed views held by zealots on both sides. My statements were in response to jareths issues with those on the YEC side who persecute him. There is balance in that arena and it does not make either side right for doing so.

rmwilliamsll · May 26, 2006

Perhaps, but there are many scientists who do, and they use evolution to try to eliminate the need for a God as a creator.

The question is if they are doing this as scientists or as human beings with agendas and worldviews.

If they are properly using their science then your argument is with the low level science that allows the elimination of God. but OTOH if they are misusing the science and are speaking out of their metaphysics then your argument is not with science but with metaphysics.

i'd propose that Dawkins and his ilk are metaphysicans pulling a quick snow job on the YECist community, making them think that the issue is things like the age of the earth and a global flood, when in fact the issue is idols and people fighting God, both of which are religious ideas. So what happens is that YECism is mislead into attacking the age of the earth, which is good solid science initially done by Christians intending to prove the Noahic flood. In attacking science you are attacking God's book of Works and as such are misguided, at best.

Dawkins and community are laughing behind YECists backs for they have convinced the majority of fence sitters that if science is true then atheism is it's logical consequence, if the Bible is wrong in science and history then it is wrong about spiritual things, and that those who believe the earth is 10K years old are luddites and idiots.They get a lot of mileage out of what is a metaphysical position that itself is misusing science to substantiate their position. But since YECism concentrates its attacks on good science the world sees only the stupidity of people assaulting a castle at its strongest point, while all the while the back door is wide open.

Chrisitianity has been fighting metaphysical and religious issues for a long time, now when the issues are important and guide the societies we live in, YECism abandons metaphysical principles and fights on the level of radioactive dating, tree rings and varves. Places that they are not only incompetent but areas that have nothing to do with the issues of idolatry and God which is what Christianity does. In the mean time this is giving the atheist and unbeliever a get out of jail free card because he is pushing the point that methodological materialism leads mankind naturally and logically into philosophic materialism because those who know better are talking about the earth being 10K years old rather than disputing the metaphysics.

that is why YECism is dangerous. when the best of the Christian community is needed to contradict Dawkins and his fellow travellers, they have deserted the real battle-with unbelief and metaphysics- and attacked science.

meebs · May 26, 2006

RenHoek said:
I my view, any atheist who pursues the TofE is out to disprove God, knowingly or not. They reject the idea that they might have to be accountable to a higher being.
.

ummm not really, see my previous view. some others share a simlar view.

The reason for much atheism comes from elsewhere.

no really, who says that (say for a moment he exists) God didnt create the universe this way, as opposed to the main genesis view?

shernren · May 26, 2006

I my view, any atheist who pursues the TofE is out to disprove God, knowingly or not. They reject the idea that they might have to be accountable to a higher being. Is this their sole goal? Perhaps not. Would they admit as much if pressed? Perhaps not. I go by the arrogance of the scoffers I have encountered.

Thought experiment: What is a Christian who pursues the TofE trying to do? Disprove God?

If yes, prove it.

If no, then I think it is quite apparent that it is not the TofE in and of itself which causes atheists to want to disprove God, nor is it in and of itself able to disprove God (or else anybody who believed in the TofE would not be a Christian). Therefore atheists are not atheists because of the TofE, they are atheists before the TofE. It is a means to the end for them, and as a means it cannot be condemned for the ends it is brought to by unscrupulous people.

RenHoek · May 26, 2006

Thought experiment: What is a Christian who pursues the TofE trying to do? Disprove God?

That would be yours to answer, but my understanding of your position is that you are searching for God’s methods, this is why I specified atheists.

If no, then I think it is quite apparent that it is not the TofE in and of itself which causes atheists to want to disprove God, nor is it in and of itself able to disprove God (or else anybody who believed in the TofE would not be a Christian). Therefore atheists are not atheists because of the TofE, they are atheists before the TofE. It is a means to the end for them, and as a means it cannot be condemned for the ends it is brought to by unscrupulous people.

Agreed, my point was this is why the reactionaries rail against it. People have tried to use it to disprove God in the past/probably present too. The sheep are simple and look no further than the surface.

RenHoek · May 26, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
Perhaps, but there are many scientists who do, and they use evolution to try to eliminate the need for a God as a creator.

The question is if they are doing this as scientists or as human beings with agendas and worldviews.

If they are properly using their science then your argument is with the low level science that allows the elimination of God. but OTOH if they are misusing the science and are speaking out of their metaphysics then your argument is not with science but with metaphysics.

i'd propose that Dawkins and his ilk are metaphysicans pulling a quick snow job on the YECist community, making them think that the issue is things like the age of the earth and a global flood, when in fact the issue is idols and people fighting God, both of which are religious ideas. So what happens is that YECism is mislead into attacking the age of the earth, which is good solid science initially done by Christians intending to prove the Noahic flood. In attacking science you are attacking God's book of Works and as such are misguided, at best.

Dawkins and community are laughing behind YECists backs for they have convinced the majority of fence sitters that if science is true then atheism is it's logical consequence, if the Bible is wrong in science and history then it is wrong about spiritual things, and that those who believe the earth is 10K years old are luddites and idiots.They get a lot of mileage out of what is a metaphysical position that itself is misusing science to substantiate their position. But since YECism concentrates its attacks on good science the world sees only the stupidity of people assaulting a castle at its strongest point, while all the while the back door is wide open.

Chrisitianity has been fighting metaphysical and religious issues for a long time, now when the issues are important and guide the societies we live in, YECism abandons metaphysical principles and fights on the level of radioactive dating, tree rings and varves. Places that they are not only incompetent but areas that have nothing to do with the issues of idolatry and God which is what Christianity does. In the mean time this is giving the atheist and unbeliever a get out of jail free card because he is pushing the point that methodological materialism leads mankind naturally and logically into philosophic materialism because those who know better are talking about the earth being 10K years old rather than disputing the metaphysics.

that is why YECism is dangerous. when the best of the Christian community is needed to contradict Dawkins and his fellow travellers, they have deserted the real battle-with unbelief and metaphysics- and attacked science.

I have no arguement.

RenHoek · May 26, 2006

jellybean said:
ummm not really, see my previous view. some others share a simlar view.

The reason for much atheism comes from elsewhere.

no really, who says that (say for a moment he exists) God didnt create the universe this way, as opposed to the main genesis view?

Perhaps too blanket a statement, but if God does not exist, evolution (abiogenesis sp?) is the only viable view and hence viewed as closely related.

Pats · May 26, 2006

I've read about half of this thread, and I plan on reading the other half.

I'd really like to see more than just opinion. I'm hoping to see some scripture. I've been attempting to study this issue from scripture.

One thing is clear.... I don't think it's cut and dry.

Assyrian · May 26, 2006

RenHoek said:
Perhaps too blanket a statement, but if God does not exist, evolution (abiogenesis sp?) is the only viable view and hence viewed as closely related.

I would say evolution is the only viable view because that is what the evidence shows. An atheist will base his world view on the real world. If the world was flat, plastic, and surrounded by a crystal sphere, that would be the view he would base philosophy around.

Just because an atheist bases grounds his materialism on the scientific study of the material world around him, it does not make the material world, or the scientific study of it false.

There seems to be an almost gnostic danger facing the church today, that in defending creation, they abandon the real world God actually created and hand its scientific study to the atheists. Bad move.

Assyrian

kenneth558 · May 26, 2006

stumpjumper said:
....It's just a complete misreading of scripture my friend...

Yes, somebody is certainly misreading scripture.

You said "The Power in your passage belongs to God!"

Scripture says "...the speech of them of them which are puffed up, but the power."

To assume as you do that "the power" is not the power of them which are puffed up is quite a stretch.

There is no need to argue about the original source of the power - we both know it is God. What we seem to disagree on is that a person with faith can be used by God as a conduit for Him to manifest His power through. Or don't you believe God does that like He used to? If you don't believe it, then go ahead and believe in evolution - it can't hurt you any more.

Pats said:
I'd really like to see more than just opinion. I'm hoping to see some scripture. I've been attempting to study this issue from scripture.

Pats, what kind of scriptural statements would be meaningful to you? Because they are out there but different people come from different angles, and it is hard to know which one will meet you where you're at. What means the most to me is that I see that God values belief in what He says over believing what our eyes tell us so much as to give us righteousness for it:

19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Or how about the fact that God cannot lie? (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18) He told us what He did, and it is the truth.

But you might be at a much different place than I am. What do you think will help you?

[OPEN]Does the Origin theory really matter?[/OPEN]

Believer in the Invisible

Left the river, made it to the sea

Senior Member

you are not reading this.

Blue Chicken Gives You Horns

Senior Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

The dev!l loves rock and roll

What eeeeeez it man?!

a post by Alan Smithee

What eeeeeez it man?!

avid reader

The dev!l loves rock and roll

you are not reading this.

What eeeeeez it man?!

What eeeeeez it man?!

What eeeeeez it man?!

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Believer in the Invisible

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency