YEC's Unite Continued

[L'Anatra]

Chi_Cygni, is there ever a time that you aren't condescending or rude? Look at your signature, people are stupid. Great statement of judgement for a Christian to go around with.

In his defense, I'm sure he's including everyone (even himself) in the "people [who] are stupid." (No offense, Chi... ) It's called a sense of humor. I'm also going to respond to your entire post, if you don't mind, GodSaves.

Everyone who believes in evolution easily dismisses ICR as being fools or foolish. Who is it Chi that you, who claims to be a Christian, are calling a fool? Hmm, lets see ICR is made up of other Christians and you are calling other Christians fools. Doesn't seem too healthing for Christians as a whole. ICR has many well educated men/women of science with, yes a biased opinion on the creation of the world because who do they believe, GOD.

It isn't really that simple. The thing about ICR (or AiG, or CSE, or any of these other ministries) is that they misrepresent the words of professional scientists and they create strawman versions of scientific models and then try to refute them. This is an intrinsically dishonest tactic.

Let me make it known that there's nothing wrong with trying to refute or falsify scientific models and theories... that's one way science advances. But the way they do it is blatantly unscientific, as is their statement of faith. Scientists must not ignore data that falsifies their premises, and that includes fundamentalist Christians.

Then we have scientists who are not men/women of God(on an generalized scale of the total) claiming a big bang type theory and evolution. These people are also biased because they want to disprove creation.

This is a common misconception. Scientists on the whole simply want to figure out why the universe is the way it is... sure, they may have other motives, but why would an athiest scientist waste their time trying to "disprove" something they don't believe? Think about that for a moment.

Anyway... Young Earth Creationism was disproven 150 years ago.

Who do you put your faith in for the creation? The men and women who, on the majority, do not believe in God, and are trying to disprove the idea of God in creation.

What makes you think that most (or at least a very sizeable fraction) of scientists don't believe in God?

And what difference does it make if they don't?

Shouldn't science be unbiased and produce the same results no matter what your faith or non faith is? Of course. Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years. Some of these people are saying that aliens planted seeds in the ocean and that is where we came from. Maybe this will be your new opinion of how life came to be, when everyone realizes that a cell, as complex as it is, could not have evolved out of the primordial soup.

This is a little silly, to be honest. Firstly, you can't say that God did not use a natural process to create the first cell. Secondly, God can do it however He pleases.

One thing I'd like to mention in this thread (and I've mentioned it before): why is it that no one who isn't a fundamentalist Christian (or Jew, or Moslem) ever concluded that the Earth is 6,000 years old after looking at the "data?"

Or wait, maybe you will believe that God created this primative type ape and that is where we came from. Then God's image must be a primative ape, since God said He created man in His image. But that is proved wrong because Jesus was a man not a primative ape.

Ummm... no one believes that. No one asserts that God created an ape out of thin air and left it alone and let it become modern man. Who said that?!

Human evolution does not start with an ape. It starts with the first cell. Just because God may have used a long drawn out (in our terms) process to create man doesn't mean that we weren't created in His image. That's a particularly arrogant notion.

What I find to be convincing to me is that science keeps evolving and changing its "facts" on how things began. All because tomorrow brings more evidence that shows they were wrong with their previous assumptions.

Of course, because we find new "facts." That doesn't mean the old "facts" cease to exist. The old "myths" may become false, but the "facts" don't go away.

Creationism has never changed. (Genesis Literal) Creationism doesn't have to change to covers everything in a very logical way if you do believe in God, because God can do all.

Okay... let's just stay the same forever. Let's get rid of science and technology and progress.

God may be omnipotent, but He doesn't lie.

But I guess many need to have evidence of this so they can believe. And here it is yet again, FAITH. Faith that one believes God did what He says He did.

You know what? God says through the Creation itself that Young Earth Creationism is false. The entire reason YEC exists as a pseudoscience is because fundamentalists need evidence that fits into their worldview. The truth is, it doesn't exist.

Which claim gives adds ammo to those who do not believe, creationism or evolution? It is too easy for one to dispute the Bible and its authority if you say that if a part of the Bible doesn't produce evidence that we can see at this moment, then it must be taken allegorical.

This is not the case. Often, it is the evidence that falsifies in science that creates progress. Young Earth Creationism was falsified before the Theory of Evolution was even proposed. It will remain false forever.

And it must also be taken allegorical if we do not understand how it could have happened like it did. It also must be taken allegorical if our minds cannot grasp what happened. So one will say, as they have, that Jesus, salvation, God, hell and heaven, all must be taken allegorical as well, because we cannot grasp the concept of heaven and hell, we cannot understand how we can have salvation, and certainly we have never seen God so He is allegorical as well. Heck, it is all just a lesson in life created by man without any intervetion by the Holy Spirit, let alone God or Jesus. I am hoping that you are not apart of the believing in this 'new translation' of the Bible to come from and Angelican Bishop and a Baptist Pastor that turns almost all the teachings to teach the opposite.

I will not succumb to your slippery-slope argument. Neither will Chi_Cygni, or any other non-fundamentalist. It is simply an useless and unfounded argument, regardless of what you've experienced.

These are the type of statements I have come across on this forum as well as in life due in part to people saying such miracles are allegorical. I am aware that you will say that creationism adds more ammo to the non-believers because it is too big to comprehend, and there is no found proof. Of course there is no found proof for the big bang type theory, or evolution as far as where man evolved from. And you as a TE believes that God is all powerful and could have created everything if you took Genesis literal. So you still have the same argument as a literalists, is God all powerful, can He do miracles? Such as walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, feed 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish, call out demons.

God could do whatever He wants... I'm sure all TEs feel this way. The point we're making is that He didn't do it the way you think He did. Why? Because the Creation is the second Book of God. If we find evidence in the Creation that seems to be in dispute with the words in the Bible, we can be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is faulty. This premise has existed in Christianity for almost 2,000 years.

Creationism does not add ammo because it's too big to comprehend. It adds ammo because it is false. You think anybody can't read the Bible and comprehend it? Have we become dumber over the last four thousand years?
The computer screen you're staring at suggests otherwise.

L'Anatra, I am trying to put together a thorough answer to your question on Genesis 1 and 2. I could give a simple answer but that doesn't really help any. =)

God Bless

Thank you.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Chi_Cygni, is there ever a time that you aren't condescending or rude?

Yes - but I will be condescending to people who criticise what I do for a living that took me 4 years of undergrad + 5 years of grad + 4 years of post doctoral research + 12 more years of tenured research and yet these seem people cannot even get basic high school science straight.

As far as I am concerned they are either uneducated in the subject or on repeated cases of stating scientific nonsense they become dopes.

Look at your signature, people are stupid. Great statement of judgement for a Christian to go around with.

It's a joke - often very apt - but it's meant to be funny. I know that is something uptight fundamentalists cannot fathom but that is their problem not mine.

Everyone who believes in evolution easily dismisses ICR as being fools or foolish.

This is easy - it is because they are. My problem is really with the fact that I am pretty sure, on meeting some of these clowns, that they know the reality and are doing it to bilk the unwitting out of money.

Who is it Chi that you, who claims to be a Christian, are calling a fool? Hmm, lets see ICR is made up of other Christians and you are calling other Christians fools. Doesn't seem too healthing for Christians as a whole.

I am calling fools people who claim expertise yet exhibit little to none of it. Supposed physicists who cannot even understand the basic ramifications of their nonsense models i.e. vapour canopies, speed of light variability etc etc etc.

ICR has many well educated men/women of science with, yes a biased opinion on the creation of the world because who do they believe, GOD.

Very questionable as to their science background for the most part. Even when their background is good (Ge.g. Gish) he hasn't worked as a scientist for 40 years. He is an excellent example of someone completely blinded by dogma and is willing to lie for it. Yes I said lie because he has been caught many times lying not just holding a different opinion but lying about the data itself. A charlatan.

Then we have scientists who are not men/women of God(on an generalized scale of the total) claiming a big bang type theory and evolution. These people are also biased because they want to disprove creation. Who do you put your faith in for the creation? The men and women who, on the majority, do not believe in God, and are trying to disprove the idea of God in creation.

When it comes to science I put my faith in capable scientists of many faiths not the miniscule few (whom I might add seem to never have worked in science or left it straight out of grad school) who do not work in the areas of cosmology, evolutionary biology, physics or geology.

How do you explain the fact that a sizeable fraction of the 'evolutionists' or Big Bang cosmologists are Christians - i.e. myself.

Where is my axe that I am grinding to disprove God?

Whereas just read ICR or AIG statements of faith. Now there is a bloody axe to be grinding with. A complete rejection of scientific methodology sacrificed at the altar of dogma and literralism. No thanks - I'll keep my brain ticking over not letting it lapse into catatonia.

Shouldn't science be unbiased and produce the same results no matter what your faith or non faith is? Of course.

Exactly - you're catching on I hope.

Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years.

Agreed. Though personally I think the arguments on both sides are weak from a scientific perspective.

Some of these people are saying that aliens planted seeds in the ocean and that is where we came from. Maybe this will be your new opinion of how life came to be, when everyone realizes that a cell, as complex as it is, could not have evolved out of the primordial soup.

I'm not a big Panspermia fan myself.

Or wait, maybe you will believe that God created this primative type ape and that is where we came from. Then God's image must be a primative ape, since God said He created man in His image. But that is proved wrong because Jesus was a man not a primative ape.

Terrible analogy and theology.

What I find to be convincing to me is that science keeps evolving and changing its "facts" on how things began.

Here we go - the ignorance of science rears its ugly head.

All because tomorrow brings more evidence that shows they were wrong with their previous assumptions.

Ditto my above comment. This is a strangth of science and is basically responsible for the modern world around us - i.e. we have progressed beyond the wheel and lifespans averaging 30 years.

Creationism has never changed.(Genesis Literal) Creationism doesn't have to change to covers everything in a very logical way if you do believe in God, because God can do all.

This is a weakness. Logic my backside - only for the folks who don't understand the way the Universe behaves.

'God can do all' is technically a statement you have no basis for making. It may make you feel secure but really is an unknown. God may have limitations - in fact I would think he undoubtedly has.

But I guess many need to have evidence of this so they can believe. And here it is yet again, FAITH. Faith that one believes God did what He says He did.

Only the foolish accept 100% without reservation something they have read or been told out of a book written by men.

By the way - what did God sound like? Since you claim to have heard him say something!

Which claim gives adds ammo to those who do not believe, creationism or evolution?

Whose faith is so weak they need it to be protected from its enemies. This is likening Christianity to a house of cards. If you think a faith is so weak as to be damaged by criticism then it's a poor faith indeed.

It is too easy for one to dispute the Bible and its authority if you say that if a part of the Bible doesn't produce evidence that we can see at this moment, then it must be taken allegorical.

Quit Bible worshipping - a most annoying fundamental trait. The Bible has no authority in and of itself.

No it is allegorical because it is falsified in many places.

And it must also be taken allegorical if we do not understand how it could have happened like it did. It also must be taken allegorical if our minds cannot grasp what happened. So one will say, as they have, that Jesus, salvation, God, hell and heaven, all must be taken allegorical as well, because we cannot grasp the concept of heaven and hell, we cannot understand how we can have salvation, and certainly we have never seen God so He is allegorical as well.

Slippery slope nonsense. Have some backbone and don't fear the slope.

Heck, it is all just a lesson in life created by man without any intervetion by the Holy Spirit, let alone God or Jesus. I am hoping that you are not apart of the believing in this 'new translation' of the Bible to come from and Angelican Bishop and a Baptist Pastor that turns almost all the teachings to teach the opposite.

No - but I'm not someone desperate to cling to Medieval teachings (resurrected in 20th century America) at all costs.

These are the type of statements I have come across on this forum as well as in life due in part to people saying such miracles are allegorical. I am aware that you will say that creationism adds more ammo to the non-believers because it is too big to comprehend, and there is no found proof. Of course there is no found proof for the big bang type theory, or evolution as far as where man evolved from.

More misunderstanding of the scientific method.

And you as a TE believes that God is all powerful and could have created everything if you took Genesis literal. So you still have the same argument as a literalists, is God all powerful, can He do miracles? Such as walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, feed 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish, call out demons.

I don't necessarily accept God as all powerful. He needs to just be powerful enough. Omnipotence and omniscience are not implied automatically in Scripture or elsewhere.

Miracles are by definition out of the scope of science so it is impossible to determine which occurred or which are poetic licence.

 

[GodSaves]

Yes - but I will be condescending to people who criticise what I do for a living that took me 4 years of undergrad + 5 years of grad + 4 years of post doctoral research + 12 more years of tenured research and yet these seem people cannot even get basic high school science straight.

As far as I am concerned they are either uneducated in the subject or on repeated cases of stating scientific nonsense they become dopes.


It's a joke - often very apt - but it's meant to be funny. I know that is something uptight fundamentalists cannot fathom but that is their problem not mine.


This is easy - it is because they are. My problem is really with the fact that I am pretty sure, on meeting some of these clowns, that they know the reality and are doing it to bilk the unwitting out of money.


I am calling fools people who claim expertise yet exhibit little to none of it. Supposed physicists who cannot even understand the basic ramifications of their nonsense models i.e. vapour canopies, speed of light variability etc etc etc.



Very questionable as to their science background for the most part. Even when their background is good (Ge.g. Gish) he hasn't worked as a scientist for 40 years. He is an excellent example of someone completely blinded by dogma and is willing to lie for it. Yes I said lie because he has been caught many times lying not just holding a different opinion but lying about the data itself. A charlatan.


When it comes to science I put my faith in capable scientists of many faiths not the miniscule few (whom I might add seem to never have worked in science or left it straight out of grad school) who do not work in the areas of cosmology, evolutionary biology, physics or geology.

How do you explain the fact that a sizeable fraction of the 'evolutionists' or Big Bang cosmologists are Christians - i.e. myself.

Where is my axe that I am grinding to disprove God?

Whereas just read ICR or AIG statements of faith. Now there is a bloody axe to be grinding with. A complete rejection of scientific methodology sacrificed at the altar of dogma and literralism. No thanks - I'll keep my brain ticking over not letting it lapse into catatonia.



Exactly - you're catching on I hope.



Agreed. Though personally I think the arguments on both sides are weak from a scientific perspective.



I'm not a big Panspermia fan myself.


Terrible analogy and theology.




Here we go - the ignorance of science rears its ugly head.


Ditto my above comment. This is a strangth of science and is basically responsible for the modern world around us - i.e. we have progressed beyond the wheel and lifespans averaging 30 years.



This is a weakness. Logic my backside - only for the folks who don't understand the way the Universe behaves.

'God can do all' is technically a statement you have no basis for making. It may make you feel secure but really is an unknown. God may have limitations - in fact I would think he undoubtedly has.



Only the foolish accept 100% without reservation something they have read or been told out of a book written by men.

By the way - what did God sound like? Since you claim to have heard him say something!


Whose faith is so weak they need it to be protected from its enemies. This is likening Christianity to a house of cards. If you think a faith is so weak as to be damaged by criticism then it's a poor faith indeed.



Quit Bible worshipping - a most annoying fundamental trait. The Bible has no authority in and of itself.

No it is allegorical because it is falsified in many places.


Slippery slope nonsense. Have some backbone and don't fear the slope.


No - but I'm not someone desperate to cling to Medieval teachings (resurrected in 20th century America) at all costs.



More misunderstanding of the scientific method.


I don't necessarily accept God as all powerful. He needs to just be powerful enough. Omnipotence and omniscience are not implied automatically in Scripture or elsewhere.

Miracles are by definition out of the scope of science so it is impossible to determine which occurred or which are poetic licence.

So lets see what you have said:

1. God is not all powerful
2. God has limits
3. The Bible has no authority
4. The Bible is not of God but of fallible man
5. I faith in men to be right (scientists)
6. Only fools accept and believe the Bible
7. Anyone who believes the Bible to be God's Word and have authority is a Bible worshipper
8. My faith is weak
9. I have no backbone
10. "'God can do all' is technically a statement you have no basis for making."
11. "Omnipotence and omniscience are not implied automatically in Scripture or elsewhere."

So these are your beliefs of God and His Work. Do you call yourself a Christian? L'Anatra do you share these as well? Are these typical beliefs of most TE's?

I'm sorry but I am just blown away by your faith and belief. I think I find it to be a complement for you to say my faith is weak because of what I believe. Atleast compared to your belief, which, to me, seems to be lacking faith in God. Yes, I said it and believe it by what you have just said, you lack faith in God Almighty. This is sad.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

1. God is not all powerful
2. God has limits
3. The Bible has no authority
4. The Bible is not of God but of fallible man
5. I faith in men to be right (scientists)
6. Only fools accept and believe the Bible
7. Anyone who believes the Bible to be God's Word and have authority is a Bible worshipper
8. My faith is weak
9. I have no backbone
10. "'God can do all' is technically a statement you have no basis for making."
11. "Omnipotence and omniscience are not implied automatically in Scripture or elsewhere."

1) I don't know and you don't know the answer to this

2) Ditto

3) Correct it doesn't - it's leather bound and contains pages, I do not personify a text

4) Written by men is undeniable

5) I have faith in man using the tools God gave us to use not be slaves to a book

6) You are being childish on this one - or lying

7) Many fundamentalists worship the Bible - thats idolatry

8) Seems that way - you cannot handle the idea of YOUR interpretation being wrong

9) As #9

10) Correct

11) Correct

Are you a Christian or a Biblian? Do you worship the Lord or a book?

At least most Christians on this planet use the tools the Lord provided us as opposed to modern day American fundamentalism where ovine behaviour is commonplace!

 

[GodSaves]

Well Chi, you said this

Only the foolish accept 100% without reservation something they have read or been told out of a book written by men.

And you were refering to the Bible. So my #6 of what you said, is not me lying.

And it seems apparently if I or anyone believes what the Bible says, and use it for our daily lives we commit idolatry. Even though the Bible is God's written Word.

 

[L'Anatra]

So lets see what you have said:

1. God is not all powerful
2. God has limits

This is a possibility. Is it relevant? Absolutely not.

3. The Bible has no authority
4. The Bible is not of God but of fallible man

He did not say that the Bible has no authority, but that it has no authority in and of itself. This is a called circular logic.

You do not (or should not) believe the Bible because it says it is true, but because you believe it to be true.

5. I faith in men to be right (scientists)

I've already brought up the science, technology, and progress point. Please don't make me bring it up again. If you believe that science has not made a great deal of useful progress (in other words, scientists have been right), then throw your computer out the window. Seriously.

6. Only fools accept and believe the Bible

He never said that. He said that only fools accept 100% without reservation a book written by men. The Bible itself tells you to question your understanding of it... which appears to be flawed.

7. Anyone who believes the Bible to be God's Word and have authority is a Bible worshipper

No. I believe the Bible is God's word and that it has a great deal of authority. However, I am not a Bible worshipper.

I present this only as a possibility, not as an attack: you, however, may very likely be a Bible worshipper. Why? Because you think a literalist and inerrant interpretation is a tenable standpoint. This inherently means that your God could be a liar. In other words, you trust your interpretation of the Bible more than you trust God Himself.

8. My faith is weak
9. I have no backbone

This is possible.

10. "'God can do all' is technically a statement you have no basis for making."

You really don't. Technically.

11. "Omnipotence and omniscience are not implied automatically in Scripture or elsewhere."

They are not. It doesn't mean that He is any less our Lord.

My God doesn't lie... therefore, He is not omnipotent.

So these are your beliefs of God and His Work. Do you call yourself a Christian? L'Anatra do you share these as well? Are these typical beliefs of most TE's?

Being that Chi_Cygni has the Anglican icon in each of his posts, it's very likely that he calls himself a Christian. Who are you to decide whether he is or not?

The entirety of your post has nothing to do with Theistic Evolutionism. So don't bring that into the picture.

I won't even comment on your last paragraph. You should know better.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

L'Anatra,

thank you for pointing out the obvious about the 100% comment. GodSaves chose to deliberately ignore that point.

 

[L'Anatra]

L'Anatra,

thank you for pointing out the obvious about the 100% comment. GodSaves chose to deliberately ignore that point.

Another "quote" taken out of context, lol... I'm not surprised.

 

[L'Anatra]

Well Chi, you said this

Only the foolish accept 100% without reservation something they have read or been told out of a book written by men.

And you were refering to the Bible. So my #6 of what you said, is not me lying.

Do you do this to the Bible, too? Chop it up into pieces and take it out of context?

This is a very common fundamentalist tactic. It is very dangerous... read II Peter 3. The verses I refer to specifically can by found in my signature. (Know that I'm not calling you "unlearned" or "unstable," but rather pointing out something that is done by all Christians: misinterpreting the Bible.)

And it seems apparently if I or anyone believes what the Bible says, and use it for our daily lives we commit idolatry. Even though the Bible is God's written Word.

No. I believe what the Bible says and use it for my daily life. I only commit Bible idolatry when I put my interpretation of the Bible over others, pretending to know what God means. This I do not do... it is why I don't question the Christianity of those who do not interpret the Bible the way I do.

I do question whether certain interpretations are tenable and rational. Biblical literalism is neither of those.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"7) Many fundamentalists worship the Bible - thats idolatry"

"Another "quote" taken out of context, lol... I'm not surprised."

The first quote isn't true at all. The only was you could come up with support for that is to quote some "fundamentalists" out of context. Can't have it both ways. For a bunch of "Christians" though all I see is a bunch of insults. I don't post on here anymore because of the stuff that goes on even in the "Christian Only" sections. The Bible isn't compatible with goo to man evolution. Legit science isn't compatible with goo to man evolution. You can have a Ph. D in a evolution related field but evolutionist Christians find some way to make personal attacks on that other Christian. Just remember what the Bible states, which is God's word wether you like it or not, before instulting and/or accusing another Christian of something. By the way, typing and being verbal are both to be applied to these verses. God isn't limited to only knowing things said verbally.

---
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
---
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
---
Colossians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
---
Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Well sorry to burst your bubble but my mother in law has uttered the words to me that 'the Bible and God are one and the same'. In other words at least one fundamentalist Christian I know personally worships the Bible.

Nice paraphrasing of the AiG saying 'from goo to you via the zoo'. The usual Creationist tripe.

Of course the odds you would recognise 'legit science' are slim to none probably.

In fact - enlighten us all as to your scientific expertise/background that enables you to recognise 'legit science'.

 

[L'Anatra]

"7) Many fundamentalists worship the Bible - thats idolatry"

"Another "quote" taken out of context, lol... I'm not surprised."

The first quote isn't true at all. The only was you could come up with support for that is to quote some "fundamentalists" out of context.

That's not entirely true. Do you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant? If you do, then you worship the Bible.

Can't have it both ways. For a bunch of "Christians" though all I see is a bunch of insults. I don't post on here anymore because of the stuff that goes on even in the "Christian Only" sections.

You're not exactly reading the entire conversation then, are you? This topic lends itself easily to insults. All we can do is try to keep them to a minimum. If someone finds what I say insulting, then they aren't taking it as I mean it. Rather, I'm stating an opinion.

The Bible isn't compatible with goo to man evolution. Legit science isn't compatible with goo to man evolution.

Yeah... how about you tell me what "legit science" is? You seem to have an idea.

You can have a Ph. D in a evolution related field but evolutionist Christians find some way to make personal attacks on that other Christian.

Just like the creationist Christians make attacks on evolutionist Christians. It goes both ways. Don't pretend that it doesn't.

Just remember what the Bible states, which is God's word wether you like it or not, before instulting and/or accusing another Christian of something.

You're right.

By the way, typing and being verbal are both to be applied to these verses. God isn't limited to only knowing things said verbally.

There's a newsflash.

---
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
---

I've always liked that passage. That's one reason why I watch what I say. However, you should be careful. It appears to me that you could be calling non-literalists "evil," which is insulting.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
---
Colossians 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
---

Are you calling me a liar?

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

I think "seasoned with salt" is an important facet of that verse. I speak that way on a regular basis.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"'the Bible and God are one and the same'"

In the sense that the Bible is the primary way for God to speak with us this is true. Jesus quoted from it and as scripture says.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

" In fact - enlighten us all as to your scientific expertise/background that enables you to recognise 'legit science'."

What does it matter what my scientific background is? It doesn't seem to matter to you with anyone else that holds the YEC view yet has Ph. D's and others with degrees. If you need to get stuck on discussing things like that it really concerns me that you can't present me with any good arguments other then attacks such as you don't know legit science and the such for evolution.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

What does it matter what my scientific background is?

It most definitely does matter when the discussion involves you saying 'legit science' that you recognise but surprise surprise you wont pony up your expertise to make this assertion.

What a shock!

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"That's not entirely true. Do you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant? If you do, then you worship the Bible."

Your using bad logic here. Believing the Bible is inerrant doesn't = worshipping the Bible.

"You're not exactly reading the entire conversation then, are you? This topic lends itself easily to insults. All we can do is try to keep them to a minimum. If someone finds what I say insulting, then they aren't taking it as I mean it. Rather, I'm stating an opinion."

I have read many recent posts. Insulting is way to common. I know it's a normally heated topic but shouldn't prevent good conversation between various views.

"Yeah... how about you tell me what "legit science" is? You seem to have an idea."

Science is open to various possible views and doesn't omit that there could have been a creator such as God. I know not all scientists are this way but there are many that I can quote (in context) that state that you can't even let there be a possibility of the supernatural.

"Just like the creationist Christians make attacks on evolutionist Christians. It goes both ways. Don't pretend that it doesn't."

What you say is true. Both sides need to take note of the way we are called to behave.

"You're right."

I agreed with two things you said in a roll!

"There's a newsflash."

I'm taking this as a 3rd thing we agree on.

"I've always liked that passage. That's one reason why I watch what I say. However, you should be careful. It appears to me that you could be calling non-literalists "evil," which is insulting. "

If passages are doing something bad you'll have to take that up with God, not I. I didn't write the Bible!

"Are you calling me a liar?"

Did I? I didn't see where I did. I did quote passages relevant to what I was talking about though.

" think "seasoned with salt" is an important facet of that verse. I speak that way on a regular basis."

I guess depending on what you mean by that it's good that you do.

 

[Enigma'07]

'the Bible and God are one and the same'

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
John 1:1

 

[GodSaves]

I question the Christianity of people not because of their interpretations, but rather the statements of God is not all powerful, God has limits, God is not all knowing, etc. I never pretended to know God's mind. Notice what Paul said in Romans 1:18-22

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since creation of the world God's invisible qualities - has eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

I take the Bible to be the Words of God, who is the truth of all. He gave us His Words so that we can know Him and what He did. If I spend time reading alot of His Words, or if I take His Words as truth over other people, and you call me an idolater, fine by me.

I find no harm in taking God's Word to be literal when it uses literal phrasings. I see great harm when taking God's Word and changing the interpretations because it does not match what science has proven today, or what is seen on earth today. How many times will you change your interpretation when science and our world are ever changing? How many compromises must you make between man and God?

Paul said God made it plain to us, so we are without excuse. You notice right after he said God made it plain to us he talks of creation. I don't think God was trying to hide how he created this world, He wasn't trying to put it in a riddle type context where you have to try and figure out what He is saying. He didn't make it so we would have to wait and see what science had to say about it. He made it plain and plain implies literal. There has been many tablets found that also say the same things as Genesis creation. This was believed throughout history, until science made its way on the scene and said what a minute I need evidence to believe this creation thing.

I know our talk is but a waste. You do not believe God is all powerful and limitless, or even that it is relative to this discussion. You believe if one takes "is" in the Bible as "is" and defends why you would take "is" as "thing" (just an example) they are an idolater of the Bible, which is God's Word. I always thought we were suppose to worship God, and since the Bible is God's Word and apart of Him, I would be worshipping God if I was worshipping His word. Why else is His word called Holy. It's like saying when Jesus was here as man you shouldn't worship Him because you will be an idolater worshipping the figure of a man. The man was Jesus, but the man's image was not Jesus' true image, but rather just a shell. The Bible is God's Word, but in book form which is its shell.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I know our talk is but a waste. You do not believe God is all powerful and limitless, or even that it is relative to this discussion. You believe if one takes "is" in the Bible as "is" and defends why you would take "is" as "thing" (just an example) they are an idolater of the Bible, which is God's Word. I always thought we were suppose to worship God, and since the Bible is God's Word and apart of Him, I would be worshipping God if I was worshipping His word. Why else is His word called Holy. It's like saying when Jesus was here as man you shouldn't worship Him because you will be an idolater worshipping the figure of a man. The man was Jesus, but the man's image was not Jesus' true image, but rather just a shell. The Bible is God's Word, but in book form which is its shell.

The Bible is not part of God. It's a Trinity not a four fold God head.

This is idolatry and borderline heresy.

 

[L'Anatra]

Your using bad logic here. Believing the Bible is inerrant doesn't = worshipping the Bible.

Well... no. I said: "do you believe that your interpretation of the Bible is inerrant?"

That, to me, is Bible idolatry. However, you can believe the Bible itself is inerrant, just know that you could interpret important portions of it in a manner that God did not intend. In fact, we all do so on a regular basis.

I have read many recent posts. Insulting is way to common. I know it's a normally heated topic but shouldn't prevent good conversation between various views.

I was simply pointing out that since it's a heated topic, the discussion will, by definition, contain potentially insulting statements.

You can't just get rid of them. Not that you don't know that, of course. Besides, how boring would the discussion be if it wasn't edgy?

Science is open to various possible views and doesn't omit that there could have been a creator such as God. I know not all scientists are this way but there are many that I can quote (in context) that state that you can't even let there be a possibility of the supernatural.

Of course science can not determine whether deity exists. It is, by definition, a study of the natural world. God is a supernatural being, as you said.

Of course science is open to various views. It just isn't open to falsified theories. Young Earth Creationism was falsified 150 years ago by geology. Countless features of the Earth and of the Universe simply can not exist (unless God is a liar) if the universe is 6,000 years old and no older.

What you say is true. Both sides need to take note of the way we are called to behave. I agreed with two things you said in a roll! I'm taking this as a 3rd thing we agree on.

It's nice to see that we can agree from time to time.

If passages are doing something bad you'll have to take that up with God, not I. I didn't write the Bible!

Of course.

Did I? I didn't see where I did. I did quote passages relevant to what I was talking about though.

I was questioning it... the passages did mention "lies." I was wondering if you considered the scientific facts to be lies. As a result, my expressing those facts would, in essence, make me a liar. That was my thought process. I was just wondering...

I guess depending on what you mean by that it's good that you do.

Well... I think the passage means to speak with conviction and wit. I try to speak that way. I don't know whether I succeed...

 

[GodSaves]

The Bible is God's Word. Why would you even consider this to be a trinity? That makes no sense. It is not another entity, it is God's Word. The God's Word comes from God's mouth, it is His Holy Word, it demands our attention, respect, and obediance to what it says.