12 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayEvery single scientific article is placed within a certain frame of reference.
Let me guess every single journal of bioscience refutes anything that has anything to do
with creation?
It accepts the laws of science, and they form the basis of each article.
YEcism denies that Frame of Reference, and proposes its own - the goddidit card.
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustOh, again I'm good with that. I thought you had something worth talking about.
Every single scientific article is placed within a certain frame of reference.
It accepts the laws of science, and they form the basis of each article.
YEcism denies that Frame of Teference, and proposes its own - the goddidit card.
12 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHow can you call "baptism in Jesus name only" "cultish", when every single instance of baptism in the New Testament, without exception, was done in Jesus name only?
... even though the book of acts reports the baptism in the name of Jesus, some could have baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as is the custom of many Christian Churches of today in strictly adhering to the literal words of Jesus reported in Matthew 28.
So to say you must [b]ONLY be baptized in the name of Jesu ...[text shortened]... is not in scripture even though the name of God is within the Hebrew version of Jesus (YaHshua)[/b]
Christ was declaring his deity and the diciples acknowledged it. The diciples new exactly what they were doing and why; they were proclaiming that the singular name of Jesus Christ is the given name (singular, not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
It really is quite easy to see this special truth if you allow God to show you.
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI know that. All I was saying is to leave out the "only" and there is no problem with that part. The cult part is thinking they are the only true Christian church because they baptize using the name "Jesus" only and so the baptism by other Christian churches will not be accepted by God.
How can you call "baptism in Jesus name only" [b]"cultish", when every single instance of baptism in the New Testament, without exception, was done in Jesus name only?
Christ was declaring his deity and the diciples acknowledged it. The diciples new exactly what they were doing and why; they were proclaiming that the singular name of Jesus ...[text shortened]... y Spirit[/i].
It really is quite easy to see this special truth if you allow God to show you.[/b]
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustAre you referring to what we creationists call a worldview when you say frame of reference?
Every single scientific article is placed within a certain frame of reference.
It accepts the laws of science, and they form the basis of each article.
YEcism denies that Frame of Reference, and proposes its own - the goddidit card.
12 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayTwhitehead suggested that perhaps I do not fully understand creationism, and maybe he is correct.
Oh, again I'm good with that. I thought you had something worth talking about.
Would you be prepared to enlighten me as to your particular brand of it, which seems to differ from that of Smugface? I think it has something to do with the Gap Theory, that you are prepared to accept the 4 billion years age of the earth (4.321 M to be more exact) but that you also take humankind to be here from about 6000 years. Am I correct?
Anyway, if we postulate the following situation (just for the sake of this discussion):
1. The world is indeed 6000 years old, and Noah lived about 5000 years ago.
2. There was a worldwide flood that killed of everything except sea creatures
3. That the gene pool that Noah took into the Ark (kinds) was used to populate the entire earth and resulted in the species distribution that we encounter today.
If we accept that God did it, then do you also accept that no matter how he did it, the results and eventual outcomes of that action and event are possible to be examined today?
Would you be prepared to enter such a discussion, to examine the evidence around us and how it could possibly fit into the postulated event? You must have an explanation for the fauna around us, and I would really like to hear that.
The only thing that I suggest should not be admissible in such a discussion, would be to say: "God must have done it somehow," if we get stuck for an explanation.
OK with you?
12 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsBut the disciples ONLY baptised in Jesus name, this was their understanding from Christ and they ALL did it, EVERY time, without exception.
I know that. All I was saying is to leave out the "only" and there is no problem with that part. The cult part is thinking they are the only true Christian church because they baptize using the name "Jesus" only and so the baptism by other Christian churches will not be accepted by God.
Clearly it was important to Christ for them to use his name (Jesus) and to associate his oneness of deity with the three TITLES (father, son and holy ghost) of his revealed godhead.
Are you saying that it is possible they misunderstood Christ?
Or are you saying it OK for you to provide an new interpretation onto Christ's instruction to his diciples?
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustI believe God created everything, I even believe in the young earth and universe, but I do
Twhitehead suggested that perhaps I do not fully understand creationism, and maybe he is correct.
Would you be prepared to enlighten me as to your particular brand of it, which seems to differ from that of Smugface? I think it has something to do with the Gap Theory, that you are prepared to accept the 4 billion years age of the earth (4.321 M to be more ...[text shortened]... be to say: "God must have done it somehow," if we get stuck for an explanation.
OK with you?
not KNOW if I'm right or not. I know more than a few people who believe in what is
described as the gap theory, where between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 they believe in millions
or billions of years took place.
Is it possible, sure!
I think the gap theory as described solves some issues, but it creates others.
I believe God created all life, He programmed into it the ability to adapt to what it found
itself into, and if it didn't it dies off. The "kinds" of life within scripture was the starting
place for life each with the ability to do populate the earth and spread out covering it.
When life settled within the boundaries of evolution life would adapt into the niches they
found themselves in, but they would not change from one kind into another. There would
not be a blade of grass over time turn into a jelly fist, things of that nature.
That is how I see it.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI can't be bought but i can be rented.
Ah, I know your kind, not cheap but can be bought....I'm thinking....two day old jelly
donuts. With most of the jelly left inside. 🙂
*A subtle 'Rentaghost' joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentaghost
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNobody can and should pontificate that they are RIGHT, and you are correct to say so. I don't either.
....... but I do not KNOW if I'm right or not.
When life settled within the boundaries of evolution life would adapt into the niches theyfound themselves in, but they would not change from one kind into another. There would not be a blade of grass over time turn into a jelly fist, things of that nature.
But that does not prevent us from approaching "Rightness" assymptotically, so to speak, by examining facts and evidence and drawing some conclusions.
My question to you was whether you are willing to pursue such an approach, and to see whether your statement that they would not change from one kind to another can be verified.
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustYou have done this with other topics, and you are not wrong to do it either if this is what
Nobody can and should pontificate that they are RIGHT, and you are correct to say so. I don't either.
But that does not prevent us from approaching "Rightness" assymptotically, so to speak, by examining facts and evidence and drawing some conclusions.
My question to you was whether you are willing to pursue such an approach, and to see whether your statement that they would not change from one kind to another can be verified.
you believe. You judge God Word by the views of man, you put more faith in man's theories
than you do the Word of God. So with that you reject out of hand various pieces of
scripture and I guess like others you like.
The one who thinks they are without a doubt correct about things like the distant past,
will have no excuse on all the things they use it to justify themselves. It will be no different
than the one that claims they believe in God and hates people around them, they will
have no excuse.
I believe we will are better off looking at scripture a little differently than that. Can I say
I know without a shadow of doubt that scripture is correct, no I believe you have to take
it on faith. I also believe what man says also will have to be taken on faith, because we
don't know if man is getting it right or not.
We could possibly be missing key pieces of information, we maybe looking at X thinking
it means this instead of that, there are a million ways we can be wrong.