The Modern Era Scientist don't help me, but I still have my faith in God

[AV1611VET]

Wow.
All these years, and you still have not learned a thing about me.
Do I seriously look like a one dimensional character from a Jack Chick comic?

I'd sure like to see another one of your videos!

Any on the horizon coming up soon?

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'd sure like to see another one of your videos!

Any on the horizon coming up soon?

I have new ones on my youtube.
Not all are suitable for this forum.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'd sure like to see another one of your videos!

Any on the horizon coming up soon?

This goes back a year.

I hope I was clear. It was early

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope I was clear. It was early

Okay, thanks.

Watched it.

Morning tea and Beethoven?

I think not.

 

[ruthiesea]

That is definitely what we are told and indeed Mohammed would have leveraged Yahweh for Allah. I think the issue becomes how Yahweh-Allah consider your salvation.

Yahweh apparently requires that you believe that Jesus died for your sins as the key to salvation (and church doctrine demands that Jesus be of the same substance, homoousios, with God).

That’s according to Christianity not Judaism.

 

[ruthiesea]

But when the Christians refused to convert to Islam, the gloves came off and Mohammad's convert-or-die doctrine became a reality.

That’s also what happened with Christianity and Judaism. Antisemitism started early in church history because most Jews rejected Christianity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That’s according to Christianity not Judaism.

I thought you said recently they were all the same god?

 

[BerthaSeven]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

I think your view that so many scientific topics can still be under the control of God is perfectly reasonable if one wishes to maintain a role for God.

Why people might come up with a negative view of the BIble is another thing. I think what people are expressing is a struggle to understand the Bible's totality. There's obviously a lot of good stuff in the BIble, but there's also some really horrific stuff...that God appears to WANT to happen. So the frustrationg people feel is expecting a more theologically consistent concept of God who is worthy of worship.

That sounds kind of harsh, if you will. But it's kind of true. If I am told that God is love and God loves all people regardless, then much of the OT becomes very problematic. And when we are told that God is the arbiter of ALL THINGS, that He defines good. It makes it hard to accept.

The other aspect is that there doesn't need to be a God to explain the world. Yes it is a nice place to store all they "mysteries" (things we don't currently know), but that "god of the gaps" view is weak theology as well. It makes God smaller with each advance of science.

 

[BerthaSeven]

Academia breeds hostility towards fundamental Christianity.

That is a really interesting signal that should be better understood. It may not result in the conclusion you like.

It has a zero-tolerance for Biblical doctrine.

If Biblical Doctrine (whatever that actually means) has value it will arise without anyone's tolerance being required.

Yet ... while telling us to "leave our Christianity at the door" when we step into their arena, they have no qualms about stepping into ours to do DNA checks on wafers, or double-blind prayer tests, where they say praying to God is no different than praying to a milk carton.

You act as if religion has always "stayed in its lane" and not tried to have any control over what science investigates or how science operates. You know that is 100% incorrect.

They even claim they went and searched for evidence of a global Flood and found none.

That is correct.

The truth is, they don't even know what to look for.

That is incorrect. Geologists know what "flood deposits" would look like. They see small floods all the time in the geologic record. They also know to look for a world wide flood that resulted in a single devestating "thanatocoenosis" or death-assemblage of remains. We find nothing like that within the range of human history.

And yet, Christian-talk is off-limits on their property.

All things which cannot be falsified are usually off-limits in science. Religion cannot be falsified. It is constructed specifically to avoid falsification.

 

[ruthiesea]

I thought you said recently they were all the same god?

He is the same G-d. What confuses you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

He is the same G-d. What confuses you?

Sure. It's the same "actual god", but 99% of the followers are getting things completely wrong. Got it. Like the majority of those believers in your god, you also believe that this Jesus person is also God, right? (No, of course you don't. I'm not dim.)

I've never been Jewish, so I don't know what you guys think about the Christians who take your god and add non-monotheistic elements to it and then tell you that you're getting your own god wrong. I have been a Christian, and they very clearly think that you guys are just not properly understanding your own god. (That's the *best* view they have of your people.)

From an external point of view, it is very clear that Christianity is based on the Jewish god, and Islam is a revision of the same god, changing things from both prior groups. If you are in the believer group and follow the Judeo-Islamic-Christian god, the best you can do is to assume that at least 40% of the other followers are getting things completely wrong.

 

[BerthaSeven]

He is the same G-d. What confuses you?

Then why does He have different paths to salvation (and obviously paths for damnation) for different people?

If I am a Christian I won't get into heaven if I treat Jesus in the same manner as Islam does. He is the SAVIOR and only through Him can one get to the father vs he is one of the father's prophets but not necessarily the only path to salvation and worshipping him as coequal/part of God would be a form of polytheism which is kind of "out" for them as I understand it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

He is the same G-d. What confuses you?

That's just a convenient assertion. The various iterations may be based on the same god, but the venerated beings are not one and the same. God is tri-partite, Yahweh isn't. How can they be the same god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's just a convenient assertion. The various iterations may be based on the same god, but the venerated beings are not one and the same. God is tri-partite, Yahweh isn't. How can they be the same god?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the soup label has very little to do with the actual soup in the can ... unless the label is somehow also "in" the soup?

"Nah! That's impossible," I said smugly.

 

[BPPLEE]

I was very disappointed to hear that many scientists, such as Carl Sagan have a negative view towards the Bible.

However, reading the Bible nowhere have I ever found the Bible a statement about how old the Earth is, or the Universe. Or about how the process God created creatures and humans.

Organic matter evolving into lifeforms, which then lifeforms evolving into other things is still creation. Surely there can be God who set out the biological blueprints for this process. because the argument that matter randomly collided and formed such complex life by chance 1 in whatever extremely large number, sounds far more absurd.

How did the genetic information know how to evolve? Do we really live in a universe with infinite possibilities? if so where is the proof of that.

We have faith in God, not proof in God. There was no video recording of the resurrection, but there were plenty of documents, testimonies, and witnesses of it.

And from my finding it is believable, that this event has occurred. and if I am wrong at the end there was no harm in believing it. However, if I was right, then I am rewarded infinitely.

At the same time of course, I want to believe in what is the truth at the end of the day.

Just seeing people with very high IQ, and scientists having a negative view towards the Bible makes me feel a little uneasy, and I start to have some doubts come to mind.

When you are on a forum where the majority of the people tell you God did not create man, we evolved from ape like creatures, there was no Biblical flood and if there was God is immoral because he drowned women and babies, and a good many that deny there is any God at all it can cause some doubts.

 

[BerthaSeven]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the soup label has very little to do with the actual soup in the can ... unless the label is somehow also "in" the soup?

"Nah! That's impossible," I said smugly.

If God were a container and not the contents I would agree with you.

But if you pick the wrong can it won't save you and you'll wind up in whatever the RIGHT God's hell is.

If all variants of God were essentially a creator being who loves all people that would be one thing, but each variant of God has special requirements unique to, and often in DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION to what another variant of God wants.

I am uncertain how perfected truth beyond all space and time would be estimated by looking at our various gods that we've invented over the millennia.

 

[Estrid]

When you are on a forum where the majority of the people tell you God did not create man, we evolved from ape like creatures, there was no Biblical flood and if there was God is immoral because he drowned women and babies, and a good many that deny there is any God at all it can cause some doubts.

A person rightly should dount he has it all
figured out when every physical fact shows
he got it wrong.
You may even hope for that if youre ever on trial for your life.

 

[BPPLEE]

Mohamed's convert-or-die doctrine was invented by 19th century missionaries being sent to the Ottoman Empire.
It continues to not exist outside adventure novels, movies, and propaganda.

I think those 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would disagree

 

[BPPLEE]

A person rightly should dount he has it all
figured out when every physical fact shows
he got it wrong.
You may even hope for that if youre ever on trial for your life.

I don't think I've got it all figured out but if someone is trying to strengthen their faith this forum may not be the best place to do it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God were a container and not the contents I would agree with you.

But if you pick the wrong can it won't save you and you'll wind up in whatever the RIGHT God's hell is.

If all variants of God were essentially a creator being who loves all people that would be one thing, but each variant of God has special requirements unique to, and often in DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION to what another variant of God wants.

I am uncertain how perfected truth beyond all space and time would be estimated by looking at our various gods that we've invented over the millennia.

Consider my context, Bertha. Because as it stands in distinction to my response to Bungle Bear, you've misunderstood my allusion. And that's ok. I get it. You don't know me yet.

As for the rest of your post, I'd get all Pascalian on you, but ... this isn't the Philosophy forum or the Christian Apologetcs forum (both of which are now closed). Unlucky us.