What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?

[JohnR7]

Of course I know the difference. Any church which commits any act which you would consider embarassing to your faith gets labeled at the "dead, harlot, apostate church" after the fact.

Do you really know that little about the teachings of Jesus and how Christians are to follow His teachings? If you do not follow the teachings of Jesus, then your not a Christian. The new and living way is a highway of love. Christians do not do violence to others.

You should have learned all of this in your sunday school class. What did they do at the church you attend, give you crayons and a picture to color in? Where they just a baby sitting service and not a real sunday school class?

At the church I attend you have to take a college level course in teacher training just to qualify to be an assistant. Then you have to have three college level classes in teacher training to qualify to be a teacher.

You must have attended one of those churchs that the only think you need to do to qualify to teach childen is show evidence that your breathing and still have a pulse.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you really know that little about the teachings of Jesus and how Christians are to follow His teachings? If you do not follow the teachings of Jesus, then your not a Christian. The new and living way is a highway of love. Christians do not do violence to others.

You should have learned all of this in your sunday school class. What did they do at the church you attend, give you crayons and a picture to color in? Where they just a baby sitting service and not a real sunday school class?

At the church I attend you have to take a college level course in teacher training just to qualify to be an assistant. Then you have to have three college level classes in teacher training to qualify to be a teacher.

You must have attended one of those churchs that the only think you need to do to qualify to teach childen is show evidence that your breathing and still have a pulse.

Hmmm.... lots of personal insults; not one denial.

What conclusions should I draw from this?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you really know that little about the teachings of Jesus and how Christians are to follow His teachings? If you do not follow the teachings of Jesus, then your not a Christian. The new and living way is a highway of love. Christians do not do violence to others.

[various personal attacks snipped]

While I don't necessarily disagree with your criteria, the problem is twofold:

1: It can only be applied after the fact.
2: It leads to a revisionist view of history.

Let me illustrate with an example:

Suppose that I, in the tradition of Martin Luther, decided to break from the "dead, harlot, apostate, etc, etc," church and start my own sect of Christianity: Poeism (A poor name, I grant you, but nevertheless....)

The Poeist Church follows the teachings of Chirst faithfully. We do good deeds and help people. We turn the other cheek, we judge not, lest we are judged, we give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and give to God what is due to God.

Above all else, we love one another as God loves us.

And so the Poeist Church, with myself as its leader, brings peace and love to the world.

Tell me John, is the Poeist Church a true church in Christ? Are we guided by the Holy Spirit of god? Yes or no will do.

(Feel free to cut my quote and answer here)

Now let's fast forward a few decades. Times change, the world changes: a little for the better, a little for the worse. The sun continues to shine on the good and the wicked; the rain falls on the just and unjust alike.

I die. A new leader rises to assume control of the Poeist Church. This leader, let's call him Gregor, gradually takes the Poeist Church in a much different, more militant direction. Gregor always believed that I didn't follow all of Christ's words; he thinks I tended to skip over Matthew 10:34-37, for example:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Radical Fundamentalist Poeism sweeps the country, and believe me, there is no more dangerous fanatic than a fundie Poeist. Any action that advances the cause of Poeism is acceptible to Gregor, even theft, because, in Luke 19:29-34,

And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

If Christ's disciples can steal a horse for Christ, then Gregor wouldn't object to a little grand theft auto if it advanced the Poeist cause, now would he?

And violent? Fundie Poeist are never unprepared for a fight, in accordance with Christ's words in Luke 22:36:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Has Poeism under Gregor's leadership changed from Poeism under my own? Certainly. Has Poeism under Gregor's leadership misinterpreted the words of Christ? Most likely.

The same Poeist church which, once upon a time, even you would've applauded as a "true church of Christ," is now doing some very naughty things, claiming Christ's approval for each one of them.

So..... whatever happened to the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Is it possible for a person who once had the HS to lose it? You would say no.

Is it possible for a church who once had the HS to lose it? Did the same people who once followed me, who now follow Gregor under the same name, lose the Holy Spirit? You would say no.

So, dogmatically, there's only one conclusion you can draw: The Poeist Church was never a true, Spirit-guided, church of Christ at all. Which means that all the good it did under my leadership is now null and void.

But since yours is a true church of Christ, then you get to explain to everyone how all those earlier acts were just a sham. And, being a true church of Christ, your followers will believe you.

"He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past." --George Orwell, 1984.

 

[Nathan Poe]

JohnR7,

I would very much like to continue this discussion over in the Apologetics forum, as it has nothing to do with science. Seeing as how you have, once again, been thoroughly trounced in a debate regarding science, I refuse to encourage your usual tactic of changing the subject to who's got the better church.

See you in GA... if you decide to open a new thread there.

 

[JohnR7]

But since yours is a true church of Christ, then you get to explain to everyone how all those earlier acts were just a sham. And, being a true church of Christ, your followers will believe you.

We are not making any claim regarding myself. I am simply telling you, that if any individual does not follow the teaching of Jesus, than that individual does not represent Jesus.

It is no insult to you, as you would suggest, because I have confidence in you that your able to discern truth. Otherwise, if you did not know right from wrong, how could God hold you accountable.

You can try to lie to God, but He can not be lied to. He knows the truth, and you can not put on over on God.

In Christ, all are one. Apart from Christ everyone stands alone. Those who build up, encourage and edify, belong to Christ. Those who tear down, destroy and bring ruin, do not belong to Christ. God will destroy, those who destroy. As they say, what goes around, comes around.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:

Isaiah 60:18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders;

Matthew 5:44-45a
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:

Romans 12:14
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

1 Peter 3:8-9
Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; [9] not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.

 

[Plan 9]

C'mon, John! Posts of this nature really do belong in Apologetics.

 

[Jet Black]

C'mon, John! Posts of this nature really do belong in Apologetics.

anywhere is a soap box for john

 

[Plan 9]

anywhere is a soap box for john

Has Hyde Park become too crowded?

 

[JohnR7]

C'mon, John! Posts of this nature really do belong in Apologetics.

You will have to take that up with Nathan, but I think he realizes that already.

This is a forum for a discussion between christians and non christians. He accused Christiainity of "excommunicating, persecuting, imprisoning, torturing, and setting on fire anyone who dares to try to correct them".


Now, it only stands to reason that if Nathan is going to try and bring a charge like that against christians then the christians on this board are going to have to take a stand for the truth.

In general, yes, this is usually the type of subject we talk about over on the apologetics board.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You will have to take that up with Nathan, but I think he realizes that already.

This is a forum for a discussion between christians and non christians. He accused Christiainity of "excommunicating, persecuting, imprisoning, torturing, and setting on fire anyone who dares to try to correct them".


Now, it only stands to reason that if Nathan is going to try and bring a charge like that against christians then the christians on this board are going to have to take a stand for the truth.

I was not standing against Christians, merely your previous assertion (Post #124):

The group your accepting has not been tested and tried and over time has proven to be wrong and constantly needs to correct themselves.

The other group as you testify has been steadfast and consistant for 2000 years now unwavering and unchanging.

In which you implied that the religious POV is correct because it has not been changed in 2000 years.

I simply wanted to remind you why it had not changed in 2000 years, for reasons which had nothing to do with whether or not it was correct.

My view wouldn't change either if I killed everyone who disagreed. But an Ad Baculum argument (appeal to force) does not prove your case. Might does not make right.

Then you lapsed off into your "True Church of Christ" routine, and we've been waiting for you to come back to the topic at hand.

Nice try, Johnny, but you're not pinning this one on me.

 

[Sinai]

science isn't the one desparately clinging onto to a literal translation of some 2000 year old manuscript.

Perhaps the problem lies not so much with the manuscript as with those who elevate their own particular interpretation of that manuscript above everything else--including both (A) the physical evidences presented in and by God's creation and (B) the actual manuscript itself.....

 

[emjohn45]

Why would God make the universe as he did?

Good question...but just because it is a good question it doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is just a good question.

The scriptures describe God in one place as a potter...an artist if you will.

Thus God the potter, created the universe in the way he wanted to...that is not deception. It is simply his choice.

He told us quite plainly in his word how he did it.

He said let there be...and then there it was.

He said let there be light and there was light. That was the first thing that he did. Before there were stars or the sun there was light.

How did he do that? Can science explain this...probably not. Does that mean God did not do it. No.

Some say that he had to defy every natural law to do this. So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Jesus walked on water. That is against natural law.

Philip was taken from one place to another in an instant. That was against natural law.

Jesus raised people from the dead. That was against natural law.

So does the creator have to go by natural laws? If so why? He is the creator.

Is it deception to make a universe so great and large that man thinks it took billions of years to form? No.

It is just man's foolishness trying to bring God down to our level by saying because it is so large, because light could only get so far in x amount of time it must be older than God has related to us.

Is that God's fault that we don't believe him? No.

Rather it is just our ignorance and pride that say it cannot be because this and that prove it cannot be.

How did Jesus walk on water? How did Peter walk on water and why did he begin to sink?

Jesus walked on water because he believed the Father was greater than the creation. Jesus had faith. Likewise Peter had faith until he became afraid and then his faith lapsed.

How did Jesus calm a storm with just a few words?

Faith.

How did he raise a man dead for 4 days who was decomposing already?

Faith.

How did he give sight to the blind without any type of surgery?

Faith.

In order to understand that God is able to create such a vast universe we must have faith.

The scriptures tell us in Heb 11:3:

That it is..."By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible".

By faith we believe this...not by proof of science, but by faith....and without faith it is impossible to please God.

He is the ancient of days. He has existed forever. The fact that the universe may appear in our feeble minds to be billions of years old only proves that it has the signature of God on it...eternity.

It is not deception, it is his signature. The signature of the Potter.

God does not lie. He told us how he did it and how long it took. If one does not want to believe that it is their choice. However, man's wisdom, man's observations and man's lack of ability to perceive does not negate the word of God.

God's power is very great. His very word created all that we see. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because we choose to bring God down to our level. We say to God...it cannot be because we (man) perceive that it must have taken at least this long and since we (man) perceive it to be that way it must be.

Let's see should we put our trust in man's observations, wisdom and perceptions or in God?

Ps 118:8
8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

However, should one want to put ones confidence in man then that person will begin to doubt God in all areas of their life...sad but true.

Remember, man's wisdom (which includes science) is foolishness to God. Until we can understand how God did, until we can duplicate several times over how he did it (which by the way is one of the principles of science) we are only making conjectures and vain arguments.

God is far greater than we have yet discovered so to limit God's abilities to our simple and childlike observations is foolishness.

Are we so "enlightened" now that God's word has become myths and fables? How did we become so wise that we can "pooh pooh " the very God who keeps our hearts beating and say that his word is "old fashioned".

Sorry to say but it is not wisdom to disestablish God and his word...it is only foolishness. But if one wants to believe in foolishness that is their choice and their faith.

This is what I think.

 

[Arikay]

I think you missed the point.

Can you explain to me how it is Not deceptive for god to plant evidence in his world that makes it appear 750,000X older than it is. Evidence that does not need to be there if he was not trying to decieve us.

 

[JohnR7]

Then you lapsed off into your "True Church of Christ" routine, and we've been waiting for you to come back to the topic at hand.

You mean you have been waiting for me to come back to your twisted and warped way of looking at things. You seem to be uncomfortable with the truth and the light.

John 3:20-21
For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. [21] But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

 

[JohnR7]

He said let there be light and there was light. That was the first thing that he did. Before there were stars or the sun there was light.

Rev. 21:23
The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

 

[Jet Black]

Perhaps the problem lies not so much with the manuscript as with those who elevate their own particular interpretation of that manuscript above everything else--including both (A) the physical evidences presented in and by God's creation and (B) the actual manuscript itself.....

that's why I said literal interpretation, to distinguish the difference between the manuscript itself, and what people think of it. I find it interesting that creationists are so quick to point out how it is scientists "misinterpretation of the evidence" that makes us think the world is billions of years old, when they cannot give another, physically or even theologically adequate explanation for the way things look the way they do, and simultaneously refuse to accept that they may have misinterpreted their sacred document.

 

[Plan 9]

that's why I said literal interpretation, to distinguish the difference between the manuscript itself, and what people think of it. I find it interesting that creationists are so quick to point out how it is scientists "misinterpretation of the evidence" that makes us think the world is billions of years old, when they cannot give another, physically or even theologically adequate explanation for the way things look the way they do, and simultaneously refuse to accept that they may have misinterpreted their sacred document.

What is interesting to me is that readers almost always recognize metaphors in the Bible and rarely take them literally (with the notable exception of Finas Dake, who believes that Heaven is a planet). One example is Ruth 2:12: " May rich recompense be made to you by Yahweh, the God of Israel, to whom you have come, to find shelter beneath His wings". (Jerusalem Bible). There are many similar O.T. passages, but I, so far, have met no one who concludes from them that God has literal wings.
Bible readers are also accustomed to reading Jesus's parables in the N.T. and, again most do not think that there is a literal man who found a treasure in a field and bought it or that Jesus was referring to literal wise and foolish virgins.
Similes are used regularly in both the O.T. and the N.T.
In addition there are some N.T. passages which make use of hyperbole:
John 21:25: "There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written." (Jer. Bible)
My dictionary (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition 1997) defines a parable as "a short, simple story, usually of an occurrence of a familiar kind, from which a moral or religious lesson may be drawn."
Although some may not choose to do so, Christians who interpret the some Genesis accounts as teaching stories still remain othodox believers as long as they accept the lessons taught by them as fact, just as most Christians who assert that they interpret the N.T. literally, accept the message of Jesus's parables as truth, while knowing them to be teaching stories.

Are we so "enlightened" now that God's word has become myths and fables? How did we become so wise that we can "pooh pooh " the very God who keeps our hearts beating....

If by "myths and fables" emjohn means strories which teach moral, ethical and spirtual truths without without being literally true, then Christians have a responsiblity not to automatically "pooh pooh" them, since Jesus used parables to teach.

I don't see how it harms me (or anyone else) to entertain the idea that I may have misinterpreted my sacred documents long enough to listen as objectively as possible to what others have to say about them. Even if I don't change my mind as a result of hearing someone else's viewpoint, I still stand to learn a great deal from doing so. I also find it fun.

 

[emjohn45]

I think you missed the point.

Can you explain to me how it is Not deceptive for god to plant evidence in his world that makes it appear 750,000X older than it is. Evidence that does not need to be there if he was not trying to decieve us.

To the contrary my friend, I think it is you who has missed the point.

Why does it bother anyone that God choose to make the universe so large?

Why does it bother anyone that God but the universe in full motion?

It doesn't bother anyone that he created Adam as a full grown man. Nor does it bother anyone that he made the animals full grown and mature.

Why should it bother anyone that he made a mature universe?

If we look at it, it is massive. It shows the very greatness of God.

That is not deceptive.

Now, if he told us when he made it...which he did...and if he told us how he did it...which he did...then it is not deceptive.

Deception is when someone is trying to hide the true facts from someone or the true nature of a situation.

To declare all the facts is not deception...it is truthful.

Now, you say because the universee appears much older then God must be deceptive...why is that?

To whom does it appear much older and why? Because it is grand in it's expanse...is that what makes it "appear" older?

Perhaps it is because science says that it is older through their speculations and theories...none of which can be proven by the way...is that what makes it "appear" older?

We are not called to evaluate God's work.

It is not wise to say to God that because his work is so great and because our puny knowledge says that such greatness cannot exist without billions of years of time having elapsed...it must not be as He says in His word.

To say that God is being deceptive because one cannot believe the account he has set forth...is not God's fault. Rather it is the fault of the one who chooses not to believe.

So, if one chooses to say that the creation account in the Bible is not true, if one chooses to dismiss it as fable or myth and if one chooses to disregard the greatness of God for the tedious simplicity of science...then that is their choice.

However, one cannot blame God for being deceptive for then that is putting ones self in the place of God. They are saying that their knowledge, obtain by inferior means, which makes the universe "appear" to be older is superior to God wisdom and knowledge...the very God who keeps them alive.

This can never be. The created cannot say to the Creator that I am greater than you or that my knowledge is superior.

Therefore, it is you who have missed the point. The point being this...

IF one believes in God...then believe in God. Believe his words, believe his Son and believe his Spirit.

IF one doesn't believe in God...then it doesn't matter because whatever that one believes in will fight against any knowledge of God.

For be certain of this...if one doesn't believe in God...one is still believing in something.

This is what I think.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To the contrary my friend, I think it is you who has missed the point.

Why does it bother anyone that God choose to make the universe so large?

Why does it bother anyone that God but the universe in full motion?

It doesn't bother anyone that he created Adam as a full grown man. Nor does it bother anyone that he made the animals full grown and mature.

Why should it bother anyone that he made a mature universe?

If we look at it, it is massive. It shows the very greatness of God.

That is not deceptive.

And just look at what He supposedly made: a vast infinite emptiness, filled with a whole lot of nothing.
How fitting.

Now, if he told us when he made it...which he did...and if he told us how he did it...which he did...then it is not deceptive.

Deception is when someone is trying to hide the true facts from someone or the true nature of a situation.

Which is precisely what the book of Genesis has done: it tries to explain how God created, but its explanation doesn't agree with the creation itself.

God might be deceptive, but Genesis is. Or is Genesis=God?

To declare all the facts is not deception...it is truthful.

Only if you declare true facts.

We are not called to evaluate God's work.

I'm sure He will be glad to hear that, because a lot of His work seems jury-rigged at best. How it has managed to cobble along this far is a tribute to luck.

( various other nonsense snipped)

have a nice day.

 

[emjohn45]

Which is precisely what the book of Genesis has done: it tries to explain how God created, but its explanation doesn't agree with the creation itself.

God might be deceptive, but Genesis is. Or is Genesis=God?

And why doesn't the account in the Bible agree with creation itself? Because man says so...not good enough.

Man has yet been able to comprehend the smallest part of the vastness of God. Man's wisdom it total foolishness to God. No doubt God chuckles at man's feeble attempts to deride his wisdom.

Man cannot even duplicate the simplest things that God has done...yet man tries to put himself on God's level and tells God that he is deceptive. And why does man do this?

Because man can not understand how God did it and since man can not understand and because man puts his trust in man's feeble wisdom and trite sayings...God must therefore be deceptive.

Quite foolsih from my point of view...but again my point of view doesn't really matter. Only God's point of view is that which really matters.

It all boils down to faith. Do we or do we not believe that God is able to do what he has said he has done? If not that is each ones choice. However, it is not God being deceptive, rather it is man being deceived by man's own foolishness.

This is what I think.