Strategy of the Devil

[LifeToTheFullest!]

By its definition, "Just" means fair, as in, you do the crime, you'll do the time. A "just" God owes His created children their due punishment for ignoring His Word, seeking to supercede His position in the Universe, trying to be as powerful as Him, or to attain a position that no longer needed a sovereign Creator, One who possesses the right to bless His children, punish them, or wink and look the other way.

A just judge does not release guilty criminals onto the street so they can go out and offend again. Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death," and if you read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", written and presented by Jonathan Edwards in July of 1741, you have a graphic representation of the premise that God owes us nothing, in light of man's selfishness in setting himself up for a fall. He owes us no ray of sunshine, no breath of air, no drop of water...we deserve eternal separation from Him...and not fifty or sixty or seventy years down the road, when we shuffle off this mortal coil...but RIGHT NOW.

So that is what a "Just" God would do in response to our selfishness and disrespect of our Creator.

So what did He do? He didn't cast us all into the outer darkness...that wretched sentence is reserved for those who wish to deny God completely or at least argue against His sovereignty, claiming He has no right to ask anything of us...that He is at best an absent landlord or a product of an overactive imagination. He did not give us the punishment we were due...which would have been the just and fair response...and in His love and restraint He showed He is MERCIFUL. He did not give us the sentence we deserved...He showed mercy in His great love for us.

So...how to clean up the mess we made in our rejection of His authority, not unlike what much of the world practices today, as they deny Him or hold Him at arms' length, trying to rationalize the systematic theft and denial of His sovereignty? God said a sacrifice would be required...and there was only One that would suffice on all levels, that of Christ Himself. We could never afford the cost of the atonement through the sacrifice of our Savior on the cross...it is offered by a just and merciful God at no cost, based on God's limitless GRACE. He is a gracious God, affording us a means of regaining our lost righteousness, that we would be capable of being in His presence, despite our past failings.

How does anyone, when referring to the Creator of the Universe, acquire the arrogance to say, "Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair."

What do we know of fair? On what do we base our brazen evaluation of God's motives, intents, or power? What allows us to thumb our nose at Him and shake off the responsibility we have to our Creator?

Either He is real...or He is not. If He is not, you're in the clear with that line of thinking. But I am convinced the opposite is true, and that it is His love for us and His desire to spend eternity with us that ultimately produced the opportunity to make it right, to pay our debt in full, though the sacrifice was not ours, but Christ's...and that of God Himself.

If God is real, and I believe He is, and if He created the universe and all within it, and I am certain He did, then He can make the rules...all of them. It's His playground, baseball diamond, bat, ball, bases, gloves, and even the snowcones after the game. He's large and in charge...He is...sovereign.

It cracks me up to hear people who say He doesn't exist generate paragraphs on what He was thinking, or how He isn't really all THAT powerful, or explain how He does what He does as if they were talking about their dachsund and why he always does his business in the left corner of the yard and not the right one.

The God of the Universe is going to defy understanding and analysis by those who mock Him, deny Him, or reject Him. You can no more know the mind of God than your cat could divine your plans for the coming weekend.

Whether Eve made the decision to commit the first sin or not isn't the point. We have free will, we tend to be self-involved and to deny outside expectations of how we live our lives...it was a matter of time. Could God have made us into sinless automatons, incapable of failing on any level to follow His instructions? Absolutely!

If He did...our salvation would not be contingent on a decision about whether or not to accept God's gift of Grace through the death of Christ on the cross in our place and His existence as the Son of God, the one Lamb whose blood could restore our righteousness in God's eyes. We would be robots...programmed to do no wrong. But we have the ability to fail, to be self-serving, to disappoint the God who loves us...and...we have the ability to decide...for ourselves...just who Jesus Christ is.

That is the most important decison any of us will make in our lifetime...and don't believe what some will tell you. God will not send a single person to hell...however...you will get to punch your own ticket...if that is truly what you choose. In the end, you can't blame anyone else for your poor decision. It's all yours.

Or maybe this is all made up, and you're wrong. How would you know? Maybe Allah is the way.

 

[MoonLancer]

maybe God is the Devil pretending to be God.

 

[Assyrian]

By its definition, "Just" means fair, as in, you do the crime, you'll do the time. A "just" God owes His created children their due punishment for ignoring His Word, seeking to supercede His position in the Universe, trying to be as powerful as Him, or to attain a position that no longer needed a sovereign Creator, One who possesses the right to bless His children, punish them, or wink and look the other way.

A just judge does not release guilty criminals onto the street so they can go out and offend again. Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death," and if you read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", written and presented by Jonathan Edwards in July of 1741, you have a graphic representation of the premise that God owes us nothing, in light of man's selfishness in setting himself up for a fall. He owes us no ray of sunshine, no breath of air, no drop of water...we deserve eternal separation from Him...and not fifty or sixty or seventy years down the road, when we shuffle off this mortal coil...but RIGHT NOW.

So that is what a "Just" God would do in response to our selfishness and disrespect of our Creator.

So what did He do? He didn't cast us all into the outer darkness...that wretched sentence is reserved for those who wish to deny God completely or at least argue against His sovereignty, claiming He has no right to ask anything of us...that He is at best an absent landlord or a product of an overactive imagination. He did not give us the punishment we were due...which would have been the just and fair response...and in His love and restraint He showed He is MERCIFUL. He did not give us the sentence we deserved...He showed mercy in His great love for us.

So...how to clean up the mess we made in our rejection of His authority, not unlike what much of the world practices today, as they deny Him or hold Him at arms' length, trying to rationalize the systematic theft and denial of His sovereignty? God said a sacrifice would be required...and there was only One that would suffice on all levels, that of Christ Himself. We could never afford the cost of the atonement through the sacrifice of our Savior on the cross...it is offered by a just and merciful God at no cost, based on God's limitless GRACE. He is a gracious God, affording us a means of regaining our lost righteousness, that we would be capable of being in His presence, despite our past failings.

How does anyone, when referring to the Creator of the Universe, acquire the arrogance to say, "Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair."

What do we know of fair? On what do we base our brazen evaluation of God's motives, intents, or power? What allows us to thumb our nose at Him and shake off the responsibility we have to our Creator?

Either He is real...or He is not. If He is not, you're in the clear with that line of thinking. But I am convinced the opposite is true, and that it is His love for us and His desire to spend eternity with us that ultimately produced the opportunity to make it right, to pay our debt in full, though the sacrifice was not ours, but Christ's...and that of God Himself.

If God is real, and I believe He is, and if He created the universe and all within it, and I am certain He did, then He can make the rules...all of them. It's His playground, baseball diamond, bat, ball, bases, gloves, and even the snowcones after the game. He's large and in charge...He is...sovereign.

It cracks me up to hear people who say He doesn't exist generate paragraphs on what He was thinking, or how He isn't really all THAT powerful, or explain how He does what He does as if they were talking about their dachsund and why he always does his business in the left corner of the yard and not the right one.

The God of the Universe is going to defy understanding and analysis by those who mock Him, deny Him, or reject Him. You can no more know the mind of God than your cat could divine your plans for the coming weekend.

Whether Eve made the decision to commit the first sin or not isn't the point. We have free will, we tend to be self-involved and to deny outside expectations of how we live our lives...it was a matter of time. Could God have made us into sinless automatons, incapable of failing on any level to follow His instructions? Absolutely!

If He did...our salvation would not be contingent on a decision about whether or not to accept God's gift of Grace through the death of Christ on the cross in our place and His existence as the Son of God, the one Lamb whose blood could restore our righteousness in God's eyes. We would be robots...programmed to do no wrong. But we have the ability to fail, to be self-serving, to disappoint the God who loves us...and...we have the ability to decide...for ourselves...just who Jesus Christ is.

That is the most important decison any of us will make in our lifetime...and don't believe what some will tell you. God will not send a single person to hell...however...you will get to punch your own ticket...if that is truly what you choose. In the end, you can't blame anyone else for your poor decision. It's all yours.

I am sure Ar Cosc is as wretched a sinner as the rest of us, just look at his profile pic. But it wasn't being judged for his own failings he was asking about, but the justice being found guilty of the sin of someone else.

 

[Skaloop]

Another question to ask is "If we were created to love, would we not need the ability to hate?"

No.

 

[Son of the King]

Originally Posted by Son of the King
Another question to ask is "If we were created to love, would we not need the ability to hate?

No.

That would be like saying you can have strength without weakness then as well?

 

[Skaloop]

Originally Posted by Son of the King
Another question to ask is "If we were created to love, would we not need the ability to hate?

No.

That would be like saying you can have strength without weakness then as well?

Not really. Strength/weakness are relative. Love/hate are not. If one is stronger than another, that other is by definition weaker. However, if one is loved more than another, that does not mean that the other is hated.

For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is stronger than me; compared to him I am weak. I am stronger than a 5-year old girl; compared to me, she is weak. A 5-year old girl is stronger than a caterpillar; compared to her, it is weak. You get the point.

It's not the same for love. For instance, I love my wife more than I love my friend. That does not mean I hate my friend. I love my friend, but only like my co-worker. I still don't hate either of them.

I have never understood this idea that you cannot have X without the-opposite-of-X. People will say you can't have light without darkness, or you can't have good without evil, or you can't have love without hate. That's just nonsense.

 

[corvus_corax]

Non-science thread is full of non-science



Why is this being brought up in a Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum?

 

[Son of the King]

Not really. Strength/weakness are relative. Love/hate are not. If one is stronger than another, that other is by definition weaker. However, if one is loved more than another, that does not mean that the other is hated.

For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is stronger than me; compared to him I am weak. I am stronger than a 5-year old girl; compared to me, she is weak. A 5-year old girl is stronger than a caterpillar; compared to her, it is weak. You get the point.

It's not the same for love. For instance, I love my wife more than I love my friend. That does not mean I hate my friend. I love my friend, but only like my co-worker. I still don't hate either of them.

I have never understood this idea that you cannot have X without the-opposite-of-X. People will say you can't have light without darkness, or you can't have good without evil, or you can't have love without hate. That's just nonsense.

I can understand the point you are making. But I do have to wonder what love would be like without hate. Would love even have a definition without hate? Love would just be a robotic entity.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Non-science thread is full of non-science

Why is this being brought up in a Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum?

If you look at the OP you will see that we're discussing how the science of evolution ('Darwinism') is viewed by young earth creationists — in this instance it is described as the work of the Devil.

Young earth creationists both use and abuse science, as it suits and depending on the situation, but there's one science they despise above all else and that is evolution.

They abhor evolution and challenge almost all those sciences ending in "ology" that demonstrate the Earth is old. The OP is suggesting that the main reason for this is the supreme importance placed on Original Sin in their religion.

So why is the ancient story of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Curse so central to its followers that they have to deny every science that points to a completely different direction for man's origin? What is it about SIN that grips these people and makes it a pivotal theme in their lives? Why blame 'Darwinism' for what is claimed to be an increase in non-belief in God, when there are host of other possible explanations. Why tell us 'evolutionists' that we are, like Eve, part of the Devil's strategy?

This has to be is a central question in the evolution/creation debate. It's not 100% science, but where else to discuss it if not in the Creation & Evolution forum?

 

[Mike Elphick]

<snip>
I have never understood this idea that you cannot have X without the-opposite-of-X. People will say you can't have light without darkness, or you can't have good without evil, or you can't have love without hate. That's just nonsense.

I can understand the point you are making. But I do have to wonder what love would be like without hate. Would love even have a definition without hate? Love would just be a robotic entity.

What an extraordinary thing to say! How could love ever be "a robotic entity"? Why does it require hate to bring it alive? For a definition of love, see 1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Skaloop is right, why do these things have to be polarised? You could argue, I suppose, as darkness is not the opposite of light, but is the absence of light, that hatred is the absence of love, but I don't see this either. No, love and hate are like chalk and cheese, totally different in taste and texture with the only common feature being their physical existence and that the one cannot be the other — see Matthew 6:24.

 

[Ar Cosc]

By its definition, "Just" means fair, as in, you do the crime, you'll do the time. A "just" God owes His created children their due punishment for ignoring His Word, seeking to supercede His position in the Universe, trying to be as powerful as Him, or to attain a position that no longer needed a sovereign Creator, One who possesses the right to bless His children, punish them, or wink and look the other way.

A just judge does not release guilty criminals onto the street so they can go out and offend again. Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death," and if you read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", written and presented by Jonathan Edwards in July of 1741, you have a graphic representation of the premise that God owes us nothing, in light of man's selfishness in setting himself up for a fall. He owes us no ray of sunshine, no breath of air, no drop of water...we deserve eternal separation from Him...and not fifty or sixty or seventy years down the road, when we shuffle off this mortal coil...but RIGHT NOW.

So that is what a "Just" God would do in response to our selfishness and disrespect of our Creator.

So what did He do? He didn't cast us all into the outer darkness...that wretched sentence is reserved for those who wish to deny God completely or at least argue against His sovereignty, claiming He has no right to ask anything of us...that He is at best an absent landlord or a product of an overactive imagination. He did not give us the punishment we were due...which would have been the just and fair response...and in His love and restraint He showed He is MERCIFUL. He did not give us the sentence we deserved...He showed mercy in His great love for us.

So...how to clean up the mess we made in our rejection of His authority, not unlike what much of the world practices today, as they deny Him or hold Him at arms' length, trying to rationalize the systematic theft and denial of His sovereignty? God said a sacrifice would be required...and there was only One that would suffice on all levels, that of Christ Himself. We could never afford the cost of the atonement through the sacrifice of our Savior on the cross...it is offered by a just and merciful God at no cost, based on God's limitless GRACE. He is a gracious God, affording us a means of regaining our lost righteousness, that we would be capable of being in His presence, despite our past failings.

How does anyone, when referring to the Creator of the Universe, acquire the arrogance to say, "Why am I guilty because someone supposedly ate a fruit she was told not to several thousand years ago? This doesn't seem fair."

What do we know of fair? On what do we base our brazen evaluation of God's motives, intents, or power? What allows us to thumb our nose at Him and shake off the responsibility we have to our Creator?

Either He is real...or He is not. If He is not, you're in the clear with that line of thinking. But I am convinced the opposite is true, and that it is His love for us and His desire to spend eternity with us that ultimately produced the opportunity to make it right, to pay our debt in full, though the sacrifice was not ours, but Christ's...and that of God Himself.

If God is real, and I believe He is, and if He created the universe and all within it, and I am certain He did, then He can make the rules...all of them. It's His playground, baseball diamond, bat, ball, bases, gloves, and even the snowcones after the game. He's large and in charge...He is...sovereign.

It cracks me up to hear people who say He doesn't exist generate paragraphs on what He was thinking, or how He isn't really all THAT powerful, or explain how He does what He does as if they were talking about their dachsund and why he always does his business in the left corner of the yard and not the right one.

The God of the Universe is going to defy understanding and analysis by those who mock Him, deny Him, or reject Him. You can no more know the mind of God than your cat could divine your plans for the coming weekend.

Whether Eve made the decision to commit the first sin or not isn't the point. We have free will, we tend to be self-involved and to deny outside expectations of how we live our lives...it was a matter of time. Could God have made us into sinless automatons, incapable of failing on any level to follow His instructions? Absolutely!

If He did...our salvation would not be contingent on a decision about whether or not to accept God's gift of Grace through the death of Christ on the cross in our place and His existence as the Son of God, the one Lamb whose blood could restore our righteousness in God's eyes. We would be robots...programmed to do no wrong. But we have the ability to fail, to be self-serving, to disappoint the God who loves us...and...we have the ability to decide...for ourselves...just who Jesus Christ is.

That is the most important decison any of us will make in our lifetime...and don't believe what some will tell you. God will not send a single person to hell...however...you will get to punch your own ticket...if that is truly what you choose. In the end, you can't blame anyone else for your poor decision. It's all yours.

A few points:

-Rejecting your creator is not equivalent to eternal torment. We do something relatively minor to some entity that supposedly cannot be hurt, and get literally the worst possible punishment for it. By my standards, that makes God guilty, and in my book, might does not make right. Just because God is in charge doesn't justify hell.

-It would be possible to be sinless without being an automaton. The fact that God wants people to have a sinful nature, so it's nicer for him when some turn back to him is something I find downright evil. Why would a just god create people who were going to go to hell, just so he'd feel a little better about the ones who saw through all of the deliberately-planted evidence against the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

-Rejecting your creator is not equivalent to eternal torment. We do something relatively minor to some entity that supposedly cannot be hurt, and get literally the worst possible punishment for it.

There's a lot more to it than just 'a minor rejection of our Creator' -- much more.

 

[Gracchus]

There's a lot more to it than just 'a minor rejection of our Creator' -- much more.

Indeed, there is more to it, AV1611VET, much more. There is the monstrous and unforgiveable fault of rejecting your nonsense.

 

[corvus_corax]

If you look at the OP you will see that we're discussing how the science of evolution ('Darwinism') is viewed by young earth creationists — in this instance it is described as the work of the Devil.

Yes. through religious colored glasses.
Simple enough

Young earth creationists both use and abuse science, as it suits and depending on the situation, but there's one science they despise above all else and that is evolution.

Yes, again, religious colored glasses.

They abhor evolution and challenge almost all those sciences ending in "ology" that demonstrate the Earth is old. The OP is suggesting that the main reason for this is the supreme importance placed on Original Sin in their religion.

Yes, yet AGAIN, their "religious colored glasses"

So why is the ancient story of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Curse so central to its followers that they have to deny every science that points to a completely different direction for man's origin? What is it about SIN that grips these people and makes it a pivotal theme in their lives? Why blame 'Darwinism' for what is claimed to be an increase in non-belief in God, when there are host of other possible explanations. Why tell us 'evolutionists' that we are, like Eve, part of the Devil's strategy?

(all emphasis mine, to make my point)
Once again, their religious colored glasses!

This has to be is a central question in the evolution/creation debate. It's not 100% science, but where else to discuss it if not in the Creation & Evolution forum?

Discussing the Fall, the Devil, Adam and Eve, and even the existence of a deity......really M E?

Science?
Nope.

Apologetics, pure and simple.

The forum for that does not exist any more. You are perhaps discussing the YEC rejection of science, but when you bring in God, The Fall, The Devil, etc, it becomes nothing more than a non-science apologetics thread.

Don't worry, I'd rather debate on this subject than report you to mods for bringing up a banned subject. No worries mate

 

[eleazar57]

A few points:

-Rejecting your creator is not equivalent to eternal torment. We do something relatively minor to some entity that supposedly cannot be hurt, and get literally the worst possible punishment for it. By my standards, that makes God guilty, and in my book, might does not make right. Just because God is in charge doesn't justify hell.

-It would be possible to be sinless without being an automaton. The fact that God wants people to have a sinful nature, so it's nicer for him when some turn back to him is something I find downright evil. Why would a just god create people who were going to go to hell, just so he'd feel a little better about the ones who saw through all of the deliberately-planted evidence against the Bible?

Hey Ar...hope you had a good weekend. I believe I understand the sentiments behind the statements you're making. I made virtually the same ones for over two decades. I said, "I figure Jesus for a great teacher and a nice guy who came to a bad end...but the Son of God? Sure, but no more than I am." And I was famous for this one, "A God who claims to love us would not send anyone to hell. That must have been an exaggeration or interpretation or something they added to the scriptures later. I'm a nice guy, why would God send me to hell if He says He loves me?"

The flaw in that line of reasoning is that you're looking at the expressions and actions and words of a perfect and all powerful creator and then trying to invalidate His sentiments because they don't match your experience in the very short time you've lived on earth. We can't demand that God behave in a way that is familiar and acceptable to us, and we sure can't tell Him what to do. We didn't make Him, He made us. There are, I would suggest, at least some implied rights of direction, supervision, instruction...I won't say "ownership" though it might as well apply. The sovereign God of the universe can not be expected to behave as we expect Him to.

You also said, "Just because God is in charge doesn't justify hell."

I would say that's unequivocably true, if God has no more power, presence, wisdom, authority, or eternal presence than say, your uncle Bob...but that isn't how we are to evaluate Him...as we would the man who lives next door. He is something very different.

Of course, that only applies if you believe he exists in the first place. However, speaking for myself, the years I spent arguing and debating against His sovereignty over the lives of men were primarily based on the fact that though I was a nice guy, I did what I wanted, got involved in some things I knew He wouldn't approve of...and I felt I was too dirty to be in His house.

God didn't tell me that. The pastor didn't tell me that. But the father of lies loves to take those who aren't living their lives in obedience to God, which He has a right to request or expect, and then tell you, "You're not good enough. Maybe you can come back when you quit all this other stuff."

But the problem was, I had not intention of quitting all that other stuff. I couldn't be comfortable close to God living my life as I was, so I selfishly wandered out into left field for a couple of decades, until I was ready to honestly do some seeking of my own.

The good news there is, God tells us in His Word that He is longsuffering. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to understand and accept the Son He sacrificed in our place. There are a lot of people in this world that would love to convince you for all time and eternity that God isn't fair, doesn't love you, and just looks at you like an ant...no value, and no plan for your future, your eternity.

But heck, if somebody as negative and skeptical and jaded as I am could absorb enough information to show me beyond any reasonable doubt that Christ is my Savior, and died for me...and you too, of course...I figure anybody has a chance to soak it up. I just said that one prayer...by myself...I just wanted to get that ONE

I asked God to prove to me who Christ is. And I said, sincerely and honestly, "If He's not your Son, that's fine, no problem. But I need to know. And if He is your Son, that's fine too, I will adjust accordingly over time as I come to accept and understand the truth. But...please...I need to know...for certain. I don't want to go through the rest of my life wondering about something that important. I want to know that I know that I know."

That was part of my prayer, word for word for word...and you know what? God did what I asked. And, because He knew I was stubborn and would need plenty of time, He took over two years, and in the process sent a stream of messengers into my life I could never have anticipated. I asked questions. I read books. I studied the Bible. I listened to TV and radio programs. And mind you, I had already studied World Religion some years before, so I was doing an evaluation of the tenets of each faith I had learned about.

Trust me, Ar...the people I knew that were witnessing to me back then seemed a bit crazy to me. But I didn't just one day say, "Oh what the heck, I might as well just accept it." It was nothing like that. I was able to really dive into the matter, and what I heard, what I read, the questions I had answered, and the testimonies I heard along with the measure of Grace and Faith that God was willing to give me, despite my innumerable shortcomings and my running from Him for so long...convinced me completely that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, and He died for our sins and is alive today and will return for us.

Yet, I still continue to listen to people who don't believe that. And as I said, I completely understand why they say what they do about not being able to put too much stock in the whole concept. I even read books and articles by people like Bart Ehrman, who goes all over the country, if not the world, giving lectures and writing books about the Bible being less than fully trustworthy, full of incongruencies and errors and misinterpretations, etc...but I'm not threatened by someone who believes differently. Know why? If I'm wrong, I want to know! But I'm fully convinced I have been shown the truth.

I don't know all of it, of course...I have a lot of work left to do, and I'm not proud of every one of my words and actions on a good day...oh, but if you could have seen me twenty years ago...you would probably not have liked me very much. But I'm much better now.

I mean you no disrespect by saying this, but you were brash enough to say that you don't deserve eternal separation from God, implying that He has no right to treat you in such a manner, then refer to rejection of God's gift of salvation and eternal life through the shed blood of Christ as "relatively minor" because God "supposedly cannot be hurt", and along with the other statements I mentioned, went on to say we COULD live sinless lives without being a robot (I'm really curious how you arrived at that conclusion, with no sinless people to use as a study group or anything) and then mentioned what you perceive as the "fact that God wants people to have a sinful nature" (PLEASE let me know where you researched that one because I can't find anything to suggest God wants people to fail and disappoint Him)

The Bible does give us a great amount of information about the nature of God and the things He loves and those He can't tolerate.

For example, you say, "Rejecting your creator is not equivalent to eternal torment. We do something relatively minor to some entity that supposedly cannot be hurt, and get literally the worst possible punishment for it.

By my standards, that makes God guilty, and in my book, might does not make right. Just because God is in charge doesn't justify hell."

In that last sentence alone, you used the phrase, "By my standards" and immediately followed it with "in my book". I want to say again, I know where you're coming from. It's not very likely your position on the matter now and mine twenty years ago would be very different. I was basing my opinions on what made sense to ME and not taking into consideration that I was making these statements about an all-powerful Creator, who knit each of us together in our mother's wombs, numbered the hairs on our head, and gave us an opportunity after just a short time on the earth to spend eternity in His presence, which is what He says He wants.

I know where you're coming from, and as long as both you and I can agree to disagree...keep open minds...seek the truth...I am in hopes we will both find it. As I said, if I'm wrong I want to know. But after speaking with literally hundreds of atheists, agnostics and other non-believers, not one was able to create a reasonable doubt in my mind. I'm not stubborn, friend...I'm just convinced.

I wish you the absolute best that eternity can provide. For now we can agree to disagree. I understand you and it doesn't bother me in any way to talk to someone with a different opinion. Some places I go, the non-believers will be unbelievably profane in their attacks on the believers, and I guess that doesn't help convince me either.

Take it from a stubborn man who, like doubting Thomas...had to see things close up and clearly. He was a tough customer. I think I may have been even tougher in terms of what it took to let me see what I believe to be the truth.

May God richly bless you and protect you, and surround you with friends who love you enough to share God's love with you, as happened to me as well.

Best wishes,


eleazar57

 

[Mike Elphick]

The forum for that does not exist any more. You are perhaps discussing the YEC rejection of science, but when you bring in God, The Fall, The Devil, etc, it becomes nothing more than a non-science apologetics thread.

Don't worry, I'd rather debate on this subject than report you to mods for bringing up a banned subject. No worries mate

Hi corvus_corax! Discussing a recent article from Creation Ministries International that calls evolution the work of the devil can hardly be a 'banned subject'. Neither can discussing God, Sin, and the Fall, because these impinge on the origin of man and the nature of society as it is today. Are we not permitted to quote from the Bible?

The OP seeks an answer to the question of why sin is apparently such central issue in young earth creationism, but so far no one has enightened me. Anyway, I'd be astonished if this is a banned subject.

Your profile quotes my favourite poem .

 

[Ar Cosc]

Hey Ar...hope you had a good weekend...

snip...

eleazar57

Thanks for your post eleazar. People like you are a credit to christianity.

When I said people could lead sinless lives without being robots, it is from personal experience. If homosexuality is such a sin, why does God make people who have a predisposition towards being homosexual (or let the Devil make them homosexual), the same with being violent, or covetous, or having sexual urges towards people you're not married to. You could still have such a huge variety of people, and they wouldn't have to be identical robots.

Also, the concept of original sin irritates me. I know you say that we cannot judge God because he is not the same as us, but I am very sorry, I cannot see how any being who was just in any way would hold me responsible for a crime he knew I didn't commit. Fine, for all the bad things I have done in my life, but for the fruit tree dispute? I had nothing to do with that.

Your other question was: "PLEASE let me know where you researched that one because I can't find anything to suggest God wants people to fail and disappoint Him". To me, if God is all-powerful, and people are sinful, it is because God wants us to be sinful, or at least, doesn't mind it. Back when he created us, he would have known exactly how everything was going to pan out. The forbidden fruit, Sodom and Gomorrah, continuous Jewish rebellion, me losing my faith aged about 16. All of it. He could have created us literally any other way. With less of a tendency to give in to our sexual urges, with less violence towards our fellow man, with the ability to comprehend his creation and how it seems not to line up with his holy book. Because he didn't, I believe that he either does not exist, or else is perfectly fine with billions going to hell. The former is far easier for me to live with.

 

[corvus_corax]

Hi corvus_corax! Discussing a recent article from Creation Ministries International that calls evolution the work of the devil can hardly be a 'banned subject'. Neither can discussing God, Sin, and the Fall, because these impinge on the origin of man and the nature of society as it is today. Are we not permitted to quote from the Bible?

The OP seeks an answer to the question of why sin is apparently such central issue in young earth creationism, but so far no one has enightened me. Anyway, I'd be astonished if this is a banned subject.

Your profile quotes my favourite poem .

My apologies M E!
For some reason, I thought the OP was in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. Apparently, for some reason, I missed the fact that this was posted in the Creation(ism) and Evolution sub-forum, where, by definition, forms of GA are allowed.

My bad
Carry on my friend.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You mean like -- for instance -- where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea?

I mean -- they could have crossed anywhere -- right?

I immediately thought of this picture after I read this.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Answers in Genesis has an article that explains the origin of E. coli as evidence for creation, and its pathogenicity as the direct result of God's Curse.

We read in Genesis 1 that God made everything "very good." If everything God made was good, where did pathogenic E. coli come from? What is the origin of this frightening germ? Where does it fit into the creation account? Was it created along with the rest of life, during the first week of Creation, or later, after the Fall of man? Is E. coli a result of the "Curse"? These and other questions have been asked by professional creation microbiologists (i.e., Francis 2003; Gillen 2007; Gillen 2008). Their answers may surprise you.

The article goes on to tell us how E. coli was designed by God to produce Vitamin K , Vitamin B12, Niacin (Vitamin B3), Vitamin B-Complex (thiamine, biotin, and riboflavin) and Lactase (to break down milk sugar). We are told about all these good things, but not about one very important function — that of preventing infection from other pathogenic bacteria though competition. If God made man "very good" why did he have to provide supporting organism when we should be able to make our own vitamins and enzymes? If the world was "good" why was it necessary for us to have a massive population of E. coli in our guts to prevent infection from 'bad' bacteria?

Ignoring that last point, creationists are still puzzled about the origin of pathogenic forms of E. coli. The solution for this sort of problem is typically the Fall and Curse.

E. coli were made to adapt to a changing world. In order to "survive," they have mutated, changed, and adapted (although they remain the same basic kind of bacteria). Sometimes in the process of changing, they cause disease in their host organism. They do not change to harm their hosts, but they sometimes do because they have themselves become subject to the Curse’s law of decay and corruption, as have their hosts.

No doubt, E. coli and other microbes will continue to adapt and change over time. This adaptation is and will always be "within their kind." New diseases will come and go. However, the microbe itself has been designed for stability and continuity. E. coli are still a part of their original created kind. Someday, E. coli and man will be free from the Curse, and we believe that our new body will be free of germs. In the new heaven and earth, disease will be removed, and we will have no worry about pathogenic microbes (Revelation 22:2).

Thus we see how the theme of Original Sin affects the thought processes of YECists and interferes with their attempts to rationalise the fact the the world is not perfect (from the human point of view). It never was and never will be. But that's YECist 'science' for you.

Disease and parasitism are perfectly natural components of the living world due to the opportunistic nature of organisms in finding new environmental niches. Eventually a balance is reached in which the parasite does not kill its host.