How about "I have faith that God is not a deceiver". I guess that would more accurately represent my belief.Remus said:
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Scientific INterpretation of Evidence
- Thread starter GodSaves
- Start date
- Status
Well, maybe I just didn't understand you. You said this:
This really sounds like you are calling God a deceiver if creationism is right. This must have been an allegorical statement.
notto said:
This really sounds like you are calling God a deceiver if creationism is right. This must have been an allegorical statement.
Upvote
0
So Vance, in essence you are also stating:
If creationism happens to be true, then you will judge God and call Him a deceiver, correct? Or should I say (since you seem to prefer deceptive rather then deceiver) you will judge God and say He is deceptive, correct?
THis thinking is talked about in the Bible. I believe Jesus says that if "A" happens will you still believe in Me and believe Me to be Holy and True. You and many TE's have answered Jesus' question by saying no. (you say this when you say if creationism is true God is a deceiver or deceptive)
God's ways are not our ways and why you and others think they can get off by equating God with a quality of the devil, if you are wrong, is unChristian. But I highly doubt, but I hope, that you will understand this.
notto said:
If creationism happens to be true, then you will judge God and call Him a deceiver, correct? Or should I say (since you seem to prefer deceptive rather then deceiver) you will judge God and say He is deceptive, correct?
THis thinking is talked about in the Bible. I believe Jesus says that if "A" happens will you still believe in Me and believe Me to be Holy and True. You and many TE's have answered Jesus' question by saying no. (you say this when you say if creationism is true God is a deceiver or deceptive)
God's ways are not our ways and why you and others think they can get off by equating God with a quality of the devil, if you are wrong, is unChristian. But I highly doubt, but I hope, that you will understand this.
Upvote
0
Vance said:
This is the last I have to say about this. You again have credited God to creating deceptively. Even though you say God may have a reason you still credit God to having created deceptively. You didn't even give a thought to the fact that the interpretation of the evidence by scientists could be wrong. Instead you said God created deceptively, and try to get out of judging God by saying He isn't a deceiver, He just creates deceptively.
"I didn't rob the bank, I just drove the get away car."
Seriously, can TE's even consider for a moment that fallible man (scientists) could be wrong in their interpretation, or is really just not possibly as two TE's here have explained?
You think it is any less of a judgement that you would say "God created deceptively?" You are judging how God created and His intent. This is hypocrisy.
I don't understand how any sinner can stand even close to the judgement seat of God and judge God, in any way. Whether you want to state how God did something, or directly about God Himself.
I am quite amazed that so many people who are Christian cannot even give a thought that the interpretation of the evidence, given by scientists, could be wrong. Instead they rather say God is a deceiver, or God created deceptively. Both statements judge God.
Upvote
0
Remus
Senior Member
- Feb 22, 2004
- 666
- 30
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What do you base your faith on?notto said:
Vance, I'll ask you the same question
Why do you believe this?Vance said:
Of course, I'm not proposing that God is a deceiver. I just want to know how the two of you would know this for sure.
Upvote
0
As Christians, why wouldn't we believe this and have faith in this. It sort of goes with being a Christian.Remus said:
Upvote
0
Godsaves, you have now proven that you just don't get what I am saying. How can I say God can't deceive so many times and you still not get it? GOD CAN'T DECEIVE.
I can do something which has the result of deceiving people without being a deceiver. Anyone should be able to see that. The point is that it is SO unlikely that God would create in a way that would end up deceiving people (even thought He can not deceive, I must continue to add, I see), that YEC'ism is almost assuredly wrong.
If you can not see how this is not a judgment of God at all, then you are wilfully choosing not to understand, since I know you are an intelligent fellow.
As for science being fallible, I have pointed out before and even in that very post that science can indeed be fallible. I said that the evidence falls short of being 100% certain, only 99.99% certain. There is always a chance that the massive amounts of evidence were all, over the last two hundred years, studied and tested by thousands of scientists coming from all backgrounds, including Christian, using a wide variety of different methods, just gave the wrong results. Oddly, all the SAME wrong results. Yes, that COULD happen. It is just SO improbable that it is simply not worth giving any serious credence to.
I can do something which has the result of deceiving people without being a deceiver. Anyone should be able to see that. The point is that it is SO unlikely that God would create in a way that would end up deceiving people (even thought He can not deceive, I must continue to add, I see), that YEC'ism is almost assuredly wrong.
If you can not see how this is not a judgment of God at all, then you are wilfully choosing not to understand, since I know you are an intelligent fellow.
As for science being fallible, I have pointed out before and even in that very post that science can indeed be fallible. I said that the evidence falls short of being 100% certain, only 99.99% certain. There is always a chance that the massive amounts of evidence were all, over the last two hundred years, studied and tested by thousands of scientists coming from all backgrounds, including Christian, using a wide variety of different methods, just gave the wrong results. Oddly, all the SAME wrong results. Yes, that COULD happen. It is just SO improbable that it is simply not worth giving any serious credence to.
Upvote
0
Of God deceiving? I would like to see it. Since I believe intentional deception is a sin (do not bear false witness), and God can not sin, I believe that God can not deceive.Remus said:
What is odd is that when the evidence for an old earth first started coming to light and geologists, and Christian geologists at that, decided that the earth was MUCH older than 10,000 years (before the theory of evolution, by the way), the first reaction by Biblical literalists was that God actually DID create it to look older than it really was. I am not sure that they ever gave a reason why God would do this. The obvious "God the deceiver" problem arose, so later proponets of this approach refined it to say that God created things "in maturity", meaning that he created things with their full functionality so that all would work according to His current plan. But this was shown to be a false approach as new discoveries were made because so much was not just made in full functionality, but showed an actual history of past events which have nothing to do with functionality (craters, deposited fossils, etc, etc) and the stuff actually tested old over and over by a variety of means, which would be entirely unecessary for functionality as well. And the evidence from the universe itself was as dramatic as from Earth as we learned more about it. Soon we began to see the Old Earth Creationists, since even those who have committed themselves to a literal reading of Scripture could no longer deny the age of the earth.
Upvote
0
There is no scientific evidence against it.Remus said:
(if you are looking for analogies with which to question my faith, you will need to keep digging).
Upvote
0
Remus
Senior Member
- Feb 22, 2004
- 666
- 30
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Would you agree that had Jesus been given a medical examination, that it would have been determined that he was conceived by a man?Vance said:
I'll ask again, why do you belive that God can not deceive?
Upvote
0
God made Jesus in a fully functional way, like every other human. This, presumably, would have included full DNA, etc. I have no idea what such a study would have revealed, but I believe it would only have revealed what a normal human would have in order to function as a human. So, this would not be deceptive in the least.
Very often, miracles require functionality, that is understood. And if God had created a universe which was "in maturity" or functionality, that would be another story. But then the universe would still, in many ways, TEST young even though it "looked" old (mountains, light in motion, etc). But there would be no reason to create materials with half-lifes of millions of years, or create "false" craters, or embed materials into the earth that don't need to be there, etc. In fact, the earth would be pristinely "young" other than those areas needed be "developed".
And I told you why I think God can not deceive.
By the way, are you agreeing that all the evidence at least points to an old earth/universe?
Very often, miracles require functionality, that is understood. And if God had created a universe which was "in maturity" or functionality, that would be another story. But then the universe would still, in many ways, TEST young even though it "looked" old (mountains, light in motion, etc). But there would be no reason to create materials with half-lifes of millions of years, or create "false" craters, or embed materials into the earth that don't need to be there, etc. In fact, the earth would be pristinely "young" other than those areas needed be "developed".
And I told you why I think God can not deceive.
By the way, are you agreeing that all the evidence at least points to an old earth/universe?
Upvote
0
Do you believe that if Mary was examined, should would still be a virgin?Remus said:
There is a difference between functionality and history, as Vance has been explaining. The known history of the world falsifies the young earth creation.
Upvote
0
wow.Remus said:
I have never heard a YEC say that before. I am a bit stunned. (no sarcasm intended in the least).
Upvote
0
Just like beliving in evolution apparently goes with being a modern day Christian too?notto said:
Upvote
0
'Christian' geologists (again we cannot judge if they were Christian or not can we?) are just humans as well who can also do things for selfish reasons or look for alternatives. Christians can divorce and live with their conscience..Christians can do many things and still be Christians. Of course it makes sense for Christian geologists to be trying to find evidence or look at a theory of more than 6000 years for the earth. They are after all, after the truth about our origin. Some Christian geologist decided the earth was more than 6000 or 10000 years old and some remained YEC's.Vance said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
