Thank God...maybe

[mulimulix]

I'm being about as accurate as most scientists

You serious?

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

 

[razeontherock]

Why are you being so vague? Surely you have an opinion on the creation of Earth and origin of life.

I'll chime in on that, even though you weren't asking me. I "went through a phase" where I thought this was critical to my Faith. I was wrong.

Now I see that no part of the Bible was written to address that, and we must distort it's intent to try to put it into such a framework. I do not insist that G-d hid no meaning about any of this in there somewhere, but if so, He hasn't shown me. It is quite contrary to my nature to be content with not knowing, but apparently in this instance it marks a step towards Spiritual maturity.

Also, even if the latest claims of science on the origin of life (which I find to be fascinating, btw) turn out to be correct, in no way does this mean G-d did not Create it, every step of the way, just as the Bible proclaims. All it does is tell us HOW He did it. It also should give you some insight into why C's find it offensive when NC's use the hateful term "magicmandidit." Thank you for not being like that

So just like the early C pioneers of science said, science looks for and discovers the hand of G-d. On a related note, one of the first things G-d showed me after being filled with the Holy Ghost, was that the greatest Blessing in this life is to see the hand of G-d working.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

You serious?

Take a look at this - Radiometric Dating

And, here's a nice video for you
YouTube - ‪Radiometric Dating Flaws (Potassium-Argon)‬‏

 

[mulimulix]

Take a look at this - Radiometric Dating

And, here's a nice video for you
YouTube - ‪Radiometric Dating Flaws (Potassium-Argon)‬‏

You're telling me some stuff made by creationists can discredit something which 99.99% of relevant scientists swear by? You gotta be kidding me...

 

[razeontherock]

You're pretending 99.99% of scientists agree? You've gotta be kidding me ...

 

[mulimulix]

You're pretending 99.99% of scientists agree? You've gotta be kidding me ...

If you are going to discredit with the work of the vast majority of relevant scientists who agree that radiometric carbon dating and radio-carbon dating is accurate, then don't blame atheists or other non-Christians for discrediting Christianity! This is quite unbelievable, actually:

I am not allowed to talk too harshly about your religion, yet you are free to say anything you want about the already proven hypotheses of these methods of carbon dating.

Please explain to me the credentials you have to discredit such a well-proven hypothesis and why I am not allowed to do the same thing to your religion.

 

[razeontherock]

This is relevant to the thread how?

This is exploring Christianity in what way?

This is responsive to anything said how?

 

[mulimulix]

This is relevant to the thread how?

This is exploring Christianity in what way?

This is responsive to anything said how?

Excuse me, but you were the one who interrupted the discussion. I directed a question at EphesiaNZ and you butted in. Don't question me about going off-topic when you weren't even involved in the discussion. I'm happy for you to answer the questions I ask, but don't then go on about how it is off-topic. What is the difference if it goes off-topic to the original question?

This is my thread, not yours.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Excuse me, but you were the one who interrupted the discussion. I directed a question at EphesiaNZ

A question directed at me? I'm starting to feel important and wanted

 

[mulimulix]

A question directed at me? I'm starting to feel important and wanted

haha. Just fyi, razeontherock and I have a very poor history of 'Civilised' discussions on these forums.

 

[mulimulix]

Can you please make time for this, it is extremely important that we are referencing the same material.

Coincidentally, I just came across a verse which pretty much demonstrates that a non-Christian cannot be saved:

Acts 4:12:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

 

[oi_antz]

Originally Posted by mulimulix

But, according to your Bible, it quite explicitly says that no matter how good a person you are, if you don't accept Jesus as your saviour, you will go to hell.

Acts 4:12:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Good work. Yes this states that there is no other person on earth who is capable of saving a sinner (for there is no other name that can forgive sin).

I have two questions for you

Who has the right to administer this forgiveness? The believer, the preacher, the Lord?

When does it happen? The moment they come to the light, the moment they die, the moment they are judged?

What do you think?

 

[mulimulix]

Originally Posted by mulimulix

Good work. Yes this states that there is no other person on earth who is capable of saving a sinner (for there is no other name that can forgive sin).

I have two questions for you

Who has the right to administer this forgiveness? The believer, the preacher, the Lord?

When does it happen? The moment they come to the light, the moment they die, the moment they are judged?

What do you think?

I wouldn't have a clue; I am not a Christian, nor believe people need to be forgiven for sins which are beyond their control.