Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And here's the answer to the OP: nothing.I'm going to ask you to stop making vague comments and just answer the question of the OP
Compare:
Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
With:
Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
What is this cup He is talking about?
Death.That's bologna.
No one copied from anyone.
If so, where did Matthew & Luke get Jesus' genealogies?I won't.Read the next three verses.At one point in His ministry, Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two.
Later, Jesus went to the same cities they did.
Phillip Keller, in his excellent book, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, points out that when a shepherd wants to increase his flock, he will take them to a mountainside, where there are wild sheep and disperse them.
Later, when he comes and calls his flock, some of the wild sheep will come trotting in with them.These are dispensational passages.
"This generation" [obviously] does not refer to the present audience, but to the generation in existence when all these signs come to pass.
If you stick to "this generation" being the generation being addressed, then I take it you are a preterist?
In this case, the OP is not a complete question. So I won't do that.
If I do, I would make response similar to others in this thread. They did not address the real question of the OP, which has, basically, no content.
Do you know what is included in Creationism? I don't. If you do, you may help to clear the question of the OP.
And here's the answer to the OP: nothing.
And as I have said here many times before:
Until people learn to understand nothing (i.e., nihilo), they won't properly understand anything, (i.e., creatio ex nihilo).
What evidence could show that creationism was wrong?
And do you yhink it's a strength or a weakness, that nothing can falisify creationism?None: creationism ≠ science.
Yup.I see - so when he says cup he means death.
Well, I don't think He meant the FIFA World Cup.asheraSamaria said:If he says death does he mean cup - or some other random word?
Ya ... heard that many times.asheraSamaria said:You seem to be behind the times. It's accepted scholarship that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark - or should I say the anonymous authors that were given those names by the early Church.
Either that, or one gives Joseph's line, while the other gives Mary's line.asheraSamaria said:Glossing over the fact that they contradict each other ...
Genealogies are very important to the Jews.asheraSamaria said:I've always wondered why these were important at all.
He wasn't.asheraSamaria said:After Joseph wasn't even supposed to be Jesus's father -
Well, they certainly convinced me.asheraSamaria said:- however the inclusion of the geneologies suggest the authors were trying to convince the readership of some sort of history.
Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians to those who misunderstood the second coming of Christ, thinking the believers whoe died before Christ's return will miss out on the resurrection.asheraSamaria said:Of course .. Obviously. If it says "this generation" then it doesn't mean "this generation" to the ones who were being addressed - it means something else entirely - how stupid of me.
That is correct.Right, so according to you, it is unfalsifiable.
That is correct.
I can't say this enough -- the creation events have nothing to do with science.
Nothing at all.
Falsifying evidence is a scientific philosophy that does not apply in this case.
I think it is an absolute strength.And do you yhink it's a strength or a weakness, that nothing can falisify creationism?
That is absolutely correct.Yep. Just like it doesn't apply to Zeus, graviton fairies and the undetectable 7-headed dragon in my garage.
None of the religious texts from any religion has anything to do with science, if you believe one you have no reason not to believe them all because they all have the same amount of evidence backing them, NONE, if you can prove one is true you can prove them all to be true.That is correct.
I can't say this enough -- the creation events have nothing to do with science.
Nothing at all.
I'm sorry, Jan, I don't mean to be crass ... but do you really believe that?None of the religious texts from any religion has anything to do with science,
That is absolutely correct.
Anyone believing in those are going to have to do it by faith, not by science.
It's that simple.
It's amazing that children can understand this, but educatees cannot.
Part of that is because often people of faith also claim science supports their beliefs in a young earth, and creation. When this happens of cause one demands to see the evidence.I'm sorry, Jan, I don't mean to be crass ... but do you really believe that?
If so, you guys wouldn't be begging, cajoling, and demanding evidence from us.
In my opinion, they are doing nothing more than exhibiting a lack of faith.I think you'll find that you are one of the very few who's honest enough to simply admit this.
Most other creationists will insist on having a scientifically viable model.
That is a debate that should never have happened.DogmaHunter said:The whole Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate was literally about exactly that.
Well, I don't want to play Devil's advocate here; but frankly I'm glad you guys do demand evidence from those who claim it's scientific.Part of that is because often people of faith also claim science supports their beliefs in a young earth, and creation. When this happens of cause one demands to see the evidence.
depends on how this life is created.
in order to be valid, it must be created from the elements in one continuous reaction.
in my opinion, if science accomplishes the above, it will completely smash the god scenario forever.
the RNA world hypothesis is a failure.
mutations destroy it before it accumulates enough nucleotides for self sustenance.
this isn't due to lack of research, this is due to the extraordinary complexity of the problem.
as one famous scientist puts it:
"A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle."
I am complaining about the content simply because it was not accurately recorded.
Of cause if those of faith abandoned using science to justify their beliefs, this forum would be that bit more boring.Well, I don't want to play Devil's advocate here; but frankly I'm glad you guys do demand evidence from those who claim it's scientific.
We need to be put in our place as well.
I'll admit, I feel sorry for the likes of Ken Ham & Kent Hovind who, for some reason, think they're doing a service to the Faith by arguing in favor of scientific evidence for the creation events.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?