What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[46AND2]

(snip)... And if your viewpoint is correct, then there shouldn't be so many Bible passages upon which Christians disagree! (snip)...

And this is exactly my point. You all claim to have a divine translator at your disposal, and you can't even agree on HOW you get saved.

 

[verysincere]

And this is exactly my point. You all claim to have a divine translator at your disposal, and you can't even agree on HOW you get saved.

I don't think I understand the leap in logic. There is lots of disagreement on details but I wouldn't say that the "how you get saved" question is all that divergent! (I say that despite a grad degree in Christian Theology. You lost me on that one.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think I understand the leap in logic. There is lots of disagreement on details but I wouldn't say that the "how you get saved" question is all that divergent! (I say that despite a grad degree in Christian Theology. You lost me on that one.)

He could be referring to why some people rely on dispensation theology, while others rely on covenant theology, etc.

Albeit neither of those are related to soteriology per se.

 

[46AND2]

I don't think I understand the leap in logic. There is lots of disagreement on details but I wouldn't say that the "how you get saved" question is all that divergent! (I say that despite a grad degree in Christian Theology. You lost me on that one.)

Some people believe you have to be baptized, others that you have to show good works, others that you have to speak in tongues, and some that you only have to believe, some that you have to believe and repent. Just to name a few. There are many disagreements about the gospel message. Some Christians don't even believe in a literal crucifixion.

But it isn't just about how you get saved. There are countless disagreements about major doctrines. Whether there is a hell or not, or even a satan. It isn't just details, it's major plots of the Bible that people can't agree on.

And God said he is not the author of confusion, right?

 

[46AND2]

Some people believe you have to be baptized, others that you have to show good works, others that you have to speak in tongues, and some that you only have to believe, some that you have to believe and repent. Just to name a few. There are many disagreements about the gospel message. Some Christians don't even believe in a literal crucifixion.

But it isn't just about how you get saved. There are countless disagreements about major doctrines. Whether there is a hell or not, or even a satan. It isn't just details, it's major plots of the Bible that people can't agree on.

And God said he is not the author of confusion, right?

Not to mention the fact that many of them believe these things at the complete exclusion of salvation for all others who don't agree.

Free will/predestination

Some people think the rapture already occurred, some that we are in the tribulation, that it's already over, or is coming in the future.

Some think homosexuals go to hell, some not (makes a huge difference if you are gay, don't you think?)

The justification of slavery in the south by some, abhorrence by those in the north

differences in ideas about vengeance, judging of others, treatment of heathens.

the list goes on and on.

 

[Jamin4422]

you can't even agree on HOW you get saved.

It takes the resurrection power of God at work in us to raise us up from death.
None of us have that power on our own apart from God.

 

[Jamin4422]

When you have to go to the extremes of learning ancient Hebrew exegesis and Framework Hypothesis, which are outside the purview of the vast majority of people today (and even more so for people in antiquity), it begins to strain the credulity of divine authorship, imo.

God gives us what we need. WE have Smiths and Vines Dictionary and Strongs concordance. Most of the Hebrew words can be understood though context and looking to see how the word is used in other passages. There are basic rules to follow. Anyone at any age can understand the Bible. We have one year old's marching and singing Bible songs. There really is no limit to where you can begin. One girl I knew, liked to talk about how her mommy took her to church even before she was born. God provides a way because you will never get there on your own without Him. We do not need man, we can trust and depend on God to guide us and to lead us into all truth. I know people that say all they need is the Bible, period the end. They claim they do not need any other book.

the list goes on and on.

Each person is responsable for themselves. This is between them and God and no one will be able to blame anyone else. We can help or hinder others, but it us up to each individual to find God and to find the truth for themselves.

 

[46AND2]

It takes the resurrection power of God at work in us to raise us up from death.
None of us have that power on our own apart from God.

 

[46AND2]

God gives us what we need. WE have Smiths and Vines Dictionary and Strongs concordance. Most of the Hebrew words can be understood though context and looking to see how the word is used in other passages. There are basic rules to follow. Anyone at any age can understand the Bible. We have one year old's marching and singing Bible songs. There really is no limit to where you can begin. One girl I knew, liked to talk about how her mommy took her to church even before she was born. God provides a way because you will never get there on your own without Him. We do not need man, we can trust and depend on God to guide us and to lead us into all truth. I know people that say all they need is the Bible, period the end. They claim they do not need any other book.

Each person is responsable for themselves. This is between them and God and no one will be able to blame anyone else. We can help or hinder others, but it us up to each individual to find God and to find the truth for themselves.

The model of consistency.

 

[CabVet]

He could be referring to why some people rely on dispensation theology, while others rely on covenant theology, etc.

Albeit neither of those are related to soteriology per se.

Oh, I see, much like the small disagreements about details of evolution between don't invalidate the theory as a whole, right? Interestingly though, creationist websites keep insisting they do. I shall use this analogy from now on.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It takes the resurrection power of God at work in us to raise us up from death.
None of us have that power on our own apart from God.

And it's that kind of nebulous phrase that requires subjective interpretation to get a straight answer out of, hence all the different beliefs as to just how one gets saved.

 

[verysincere]

. And if you have a divine being as a translator, those major discrepancies should not exist.

If there is a language gap for people of today, at the very least God could have made certain that the people translating the Greek for us were getting the proper nuances across.

These statements represent outrageous misunderstandings of the nature of language and translation. (You might as well say something like, "An omnipotent God should be able to make 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 equally true at the same time.)

Ignorance of linguistics basics is rife when these topics are discussed. But as with evolutionary biologists, the uninformed have no vote.

 

[AV1611VET]

(You might as well say something like, "An omnipotent God should be able to make 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 equally true at the same time.)

You mean like His triune nature, where 1+1+1=1?

 

[verysincere]

You mean like His triune nature, where 1+1+1=1?

No. Try 1^3 = 1

 

[mathetes123]

And it's that kind of nebulous phrase that requires subjective interpretation to get a straight answer out of, hence all the different beliefs as to just how one gets saved.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[46AND2]

These statements represent outrageous misunderstandings of the nature of language and translation. (You might as well say something like, "An omnipotent God should be able to make 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 equally true at the same time.)

Ignorance of linguistics basics is rife when these topics are discussed. But as with evolutionary biologists, the uninformed have no vote.

Yeah, silly me thinking that a divine being should be able to clearly communicate his message to his people.

 

[verysincere]

Yeah, silly me thinking that a divine being should be able to clearly communicate his message to his people.

And what makes you think he failed?

(Yes, I realize this is probably a vain exercise as you have an agenda. No matter which end of the spectrum a fundamentalist might occupy, a fundamentalist is immune to evidence and reason. Unfortunately, such myopic fundamentalists only recognize fundamentalism in those at the opposite end of the same spectrum.)

 

[AV1611VET]

And what makes you think he failed?

(Yes, I realize this is probably a vain exercise as you have an agenda. No matter which end of the spectrum a fundamentalist might occupy, a fundamentalist is immune to evidence and reason. Unfortunately, such myopic fundamentalists only recognize fundamentalism in those at the opposite end of the same spectrum.)

Hey, professor, was Nymphas in Colossians 4:15 a male or female?

Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossians 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

If you can't answer that, why should I take your rantings in tongues seriously?

 

[46AND2]

And what makes you think he failed?

(Yes, I realize this is probably a vain exercise as you have an agenda. No matter which end of the spectrum a fundamentalist might occupy, a fundamentalist is immune to evidence and reason. Unfortunately, such myopic fundamentalists only recognize fundamentalism in those at the opposite end of the same spectrum.)

There's not a single Christian doctrine that is agreed upon by all believers. I thought I established this already. I gave you plenty of examples, and there are plenty more.

We aren't talking simple details here, but major tenets of the plots in the Bible.

I don't have an agenda. If there is a God, I'd certainly like to know about it. This was one of the major problems I had when I was losing my faith. The fact that you dismiss the clear issue of a divine God communicating clearly to his people is evidence of your fundamentalism, not mine. You're the one who can't explain why people have vastly different interpretations of the Bible, which is an observed fact, if all these people are guided by God himself.

We have two stances here:

1. God guides us in interpretation of the Bible and
2. God does not guide us in the interpretation of the Bible.

And there is evidence that we can look at to see which one is more likely correct: the interpretations of large sample size of believers. There are many different interpretations of the Bible among allegedly Spirit filled believers.

Mine is is backed up by the evidence, yours doesn't fit the evidence. So how am I the fundamentalist?

It's pretty simple. If the Bible is God's word, and if the Holy Spirit is guiding your interpretation of it, you should all understand what the heck he is trying to say. Yet no amount of theological schooling, as you like to appeal to, can clear this up, because there are plenty of people just as educated as you are, who disagree with your interpretations, as well as those of each other, of major plots in the Bible.

If a God was speaking to you, and he wanted you to know his message, why would he allow this confusion?

 

[verysincere]

There's not a single Christian doctrine that is agreed upon by all believers. I thought I established this already. I gave you plenty of examples, and there are plenty more.

We aren't talking simple details here, but major tenets of the plots in the Bible.

I don't have an agenda. If there is a God, I'd certainly like to know about it. This was one of the major problems I had when I was losing my faith. The fact that you dismiss the clear issue of a divine God communicating clearly to his people is evidence of your fundamentalism, not mine. You're the one who can't explain why people have vastly different interpretations of the Bible, which is an observed fact, if all these people are guided by God himself.

We have two stances here:

1. God guides us in interpretation of the Bible and
2. God does not guide us in the interpretation of the Bible.

And there is evidence that we can look at to see which one is more likely correct: the interpretations of large sample size of believers. There are many different interpretations of the Bible among allegedly Spirit filled believers.

Mine is is backed up by the evidence, yours doesn't fit the evidence. So how am I the fundamentalist?

It's pretty simple. If the Bible is God's word, and if the Holy Spirit is guiding your interpretation of it, you should all understand what the heck he is trying to say. Yet no amount of theological schooling, as you like to appeal to, can clear this up, because there are plenty of people just as educated as you are, who disagree with your interpretations, as well as those of each other, of major plots in the Bible.

If a God was speaking to you, and he wanted you to know his message, why would he allow this confusion?

You keep changing the subject. That's why I stopped with your very first sentence above. When I pointed out the error of your claims about soteriology, you changed the goalposts to general theology. No, I'm not playing that game. A game is all it is. Too lame for me. (Moreover, whatever fights you have with others on various theological battlefields are not my fights. Find someone else to play with.)