Science and God

Originally posted by whodey
I realize that you view evolution and creation as mutually exclusive and probably think those that embrace any part of evolution as heretical. However, I warn you that none of us knows the mysteries of creation, only God. The text is ambiguous as to his workings. Creation is covered in just 2 brief chapters in the Bible. Notice how God speaks to the water ...[text shortened]... o explain how God had created the universe and we would not be having this discussion right now.

Heresy is a strong word. I think you are in error, that's all. A big error.

There's nothing in the creation account of the Bible that indicates creation didn't happen just as described. The very first verse is a snapshot. The creation of time, space and matter occurred in a moment. Not beyond God's ability, no?

Originally posted by whodey
This is another misconception about Christianity.

Christians have not divorced their minds and do look at evidence. It is like a court of law. You sit there and decide if the "evidence" is sufficient for a verdict. This evidence is then shared via our testimonies.

Again, the Bible is full of stories where man has known that God exists. You have Adam ...[text shortened]... e knowledge of his existence just like our ability or inability to put faith in those around us.

And why do you think these stories (!) in the bible have any truth in them?

Adam and Eve..... you can't really use that as evidence, can you? You can't have the story of Adam and Eve without incorporating God into in, can you. Sounds like a circular argument to me.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
is being convinced by your thoughts and feelings proof of gods existence?

Let's leave the feelings out of it, shall we?
It appears you labor under the misconception that all believers are simply emoting their way through life, clinging to whatever ideas make them feel good...

Okay, maybe you have a point.
But let's forget the majority of our modern day believers, who don't have a clue as to what they believe let alone why they believe.
Let us instead consider the thoughtful believer, the one with half a discerning brain, who has given it considerable thought--- though their numbers be few.

Those faithful have not forsaken common sense in exchange for party favors and noise makers, and in light of all the evidence both for and against, have answered in the affirmative for faith... on the basis of the evidence put before them.
I consider such people's thoughts as proof enough for them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

1. But let's forget the majority of our modern day believers, who
don't have a clue as to what they believe let alone why they believe.

2. Let us instead consider the thoughtful believer, the one with half
a discerning brain, who has given it considerable thought--- though
their numbers be few.

3. Those faithful have not forsaken common sen ...[text shortened]... he evidence put before them.
I consider such people's thoughts as proof enough for them.

All 3 statements made me laugh but statement 2 wins! 🙂
Keep up the good work! And ponder on these:-

1. How arrogant. Are you a telepath who has sampled everyone's thoughts?
And what does "not knowing what you believe" even mean?

2. Ahhh. "The Thoughtful Believer" that'll be someone who agrees with YOU then!

3. More arrogance, telepathy and stupidity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure the universe has never changed size? How do you explain doppler shift in the stars, the further away they are the redder they become. That is consistent with a universe that was smaller in the past. And it just goes on getting smaller and smaller the deeper into the past we go. No getting around that. Of course you might have your creationist ...[text shortened]... e opinion pieces, not science. Show me with SCIENCE the universe is young or never changed size.

The Holy Bible records that God stretched out the heavens, which is an indication that the universe changed size from what it was at the beginning. However, that does not mean it had to change size due to a "Big Bang" explosion.

http://creation.com/young-universe-evidence

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible records .... that does not mean it
had to change size due to a "Big Bang" explosion.

Yes we can agree there was no "explosion".

Originally posted by sonship

Well I guess then the only explicit statement from Christ is that you are a foolish man.

I absolutely agree that to not build the house on the rock of His teachings is like the foolish man.

Of course that would be [b]ALL of His teachings. Not simply words found in your favorite chapters.[/b]

You have said this before and I already told you that it is YOU who accepts certain parts of the Bible and rejects others you dont like.

This Sermon on the Mount is a very good example.

I accept the Sermon on the Mount as advice from Christ himself, the judge of who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

You do not accept it. You said some time ago that it applies only to Christ 12 disciples. Not to anyone else.

Here is another which I have seen you quote:

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

This verse you claim is proof that your once saved always saved doctrine is true and that it applies to all those who accept Christ with their mouth.

However you ignore the verses preceeding as it will conflict with your doctrine

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Christ's sheep gets eternal life and they will never perish. Who are His sheep? You would say those who accept Christ with their mouth as in Romans 10:9. But here is is clear His sheep as those who follow Him. Follow is not to walk in a straight line behind Christ. It means to do the good works and live the Christ-like life of love and charity which Christ commanded of his followers.

You on the other hand says that to love God and love your neighbour are not required to get eternal life.

I accept the whole passage in John.
You pick those parts which you like.

You have said this before and I already told you that it is YOU who accepts certain parts of the Bible and rejects others you dont like.

Give me an example of a passage you say I REJECT.
Maybe I reject your interpretation of a passage.

Your task is to convince readers that to reject YOUR interpretation of a verse is to reject the verse.

This Sermon on the Mount is a very good example.

Probably elements of your interpretation of the so-called "Sermon on the Mount" I do not hold.

I accept the Sermon on the Mount as advice from Christ himself,

As I do also. Why would I not say that it is a teaching from the mouth of Jesus Christ ?

?!?

the judge of who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Here is the interpretation problem.

You exactly equate "eternal life" with "the kingdom of the heavens".
The scope of one is exactly the scope of the other, in your mind.
The circumference of one is exactly the circumference of the other.

I do not agree that everywhere you see "the kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew you can insert "eternal life" and have a good understanding of Matthew.

For example, New Jersey is in the United States. So to be in New Jersey is also to be in the United States. But one may be in the United States and not be in New Jersey. The scope of the United States is larger than the scope of New Jersey but contains New Jersey.

In a similar way, in the New Testament the scope of eternal life is wider that Matthew's unique phrase - "the kingdom of the heavens". But it contains it.

Secondly, I believe that there is a difference between one entering into eternal life and eternal life entering into someone.

The sheep [people] of the nations in Matthew 25:31-46 enter into eternal life. I do not believe that they have the divine life enter into them.

You do not accept it. You said some time ago that it applies only to Christ 12 disciples. Not to anyone else.

The introduction of Matthew 5 says that He spoke to His disciples FROM the larger gathering crowd -

Matthew 4:25 - And great crowds followed Him from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.

Very next verse:

Matthew 5:1 - "And when He saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His DISCIPLES came to Him.

Verse 2 - And opening His mouth, He taught them, saying, ... etc.

My opinion is that the evangelist Matthew intends to portray that it was not to the great crowds in general that He gave this teaching. But He went up further on the mountain and those who were serious about being His disciples came up higher with Him. And to them He opened His mouth and delivered the teaching.

Here is another which I have seen you quote:

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Praise the Lord for this. That is in John's Gospel which for the most part has a somewhat different burden to impart.

This verse you claim is proof that your once saved always saved doctrine is true and that it applies to all those who accept Christ with their mouth.

The problem with this debate is really with the word SAVED.
SAVED or salvation does take on different connotations in the New Testament.

The letter to Timothy says the woman will be SAVED through child bearing. Does this mean that every mother will be "saved" in the sense of eternal redemption? I say NO.

"He who endures to the end will be saved" is another utterance out of the mouth of Jesus. I think He was talking about SAVED from physical harm of persecution in that particular passage.

So "SAVED" takes on a number of nuanced meanings in the New Testament. Such that the very expression "Once Saved Always Saved" is suspect to the question - "Well What do you MEAN by SAVED there?"

Do you or do you not recognize that the word SAVED can carry more than one meaning in the New Testament ? Yes or No?

However you ignore the verses preceeding as it will conflict with your doctrine

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Christ's sheep gets eternal life and they will never perish. Who are His sheep? You would say those who accept Christ with their mouth as in Romans 10:9.

"Saved" in Romans 10:9 I believe should be taken to mean eternal redemption. That is one is saved from perdition of damnation.

However, in the same chapter "The same Lord of all is rich to all who call upon Him; For "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (vs.12,13) need not be RESTRICTED to the matter of being saved from eternal perdition.

You may be tempted to have n argument with your spouse. Yet by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus - "O Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus" He is RICH to you and you can be SAVED from losing your temper.

You may be tempted to glance at some suggestive photograph of a scantily clothed female. But you call "Lord Jesus! O Lord Jesus. Lord You are so rich!" and be SAVED from lust getting the best of you.

This is beyond just my theology. This is my experience and the experience of many Christians. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord can be saved, and that many times a day, many times a week, again and again.

So the point is that in the New Testament "SAVED" carries different connotations.

Is "Once SAVED always SAVED" appropriate to the DAILY need to be saved from many things? Obviously not. How can I say "Once Saved Always Saved" from my temper, my anxiety, my lust, my envy, my depression? I cannot say that ONCE I opened my mouth and called "Lord Jesus" and afterward NEVER needed any further saving from daily problems.

So I prefer to address the problem of The Assurance of Eternal Redmption. Or even perhaps "The Assurance of Eternal Life".

"Once Saved Always Saved" is problematic to the various nuances of the word SAVED in the Bible.

And the rest of your post I may address latter.
I think you should read this response TWICE carefully.

Originally posted by sonship

You have said this before and I already told you that it is YOU who accepts certain parts of the Bible and rejects others you dont like.

Give me an example of a passage you say I REJECT.
Maybe I reject your [b]interpretation of a passage.

Your task is to convince readers that to reject YOUR interpretation of a vers ...[text shortened]... est of your post I may address latter.
I think you should read this response TWICE carefully.[/b]

Full of rubbish and too long.
Did not read it once.
I read the first 5 lines and the last five.

Originally posted by sonship

You have said this before and I already told you that it is YOU who accepts certain parts of the Bible and rejects others you dont like.

Give me an example of a passage you say I REJECT.
Maybe I reject your [b]interpretation of a passage.

Your task is to convince readers that to reject YOUR interpretation of a vers ...[text shortened]... est of your post I may address latter.
I think you should read this response TWICE carefully.[/b]

Nicely done, sonship.

Good stuff.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"In the end, the Father reveals to whom he desires, just like he did to Peter." -whodey

Please clarify the meaning you intend or attach to the exclusionary phrase "reveals to whom" in context. Thanks.

My view is that God knows who will choose him and thus acts accordingly.

It's kinda like predestination with the added twist that we have free will, only, God knows what we will choose.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nicely done, sonship.

Good stuff.

Sarcasm - I like it, but still prefer your old comic style.
Don't forget your comedy roots!

Originally posted by Great King Rat
And why do you think these stories (!) in the bible have any truth in them?

Adam and Eve..... you can't really use that as evidence, can you? You can't have the story of Adam and Eve without incorporating God into in, can you. Sounds like a circular argument to me.

The Biblical text is a valuable document telling us about the history and culture of that time.

In fact, most ancient myths around that area have similar stories like that of a paradise garden and a great flood etc. There obviously was a flood, otherwise they would have no knowledge of what a flood was. The question becomes, how big of a flood? I think paradise lost is another example. We all can harken back to a simpler time and arguably a better time. The question becomes how good was it?

Another example is the existence of the Philistines. No where was there documented that they existed except the Bible. Then Biblical Archaeologists recently dug them up based upon Biblical descriptions of where they should dig.

Ignore historical texts such as this at your own peril, for there are precious few of them and to assume that truth is absent is fool hearty and arrogant. The better question is, how much truth?

Originally posted by whodey
There obviously was a flood, otherwise they would have no knowledge of what a flood was.

Cast iron logic. Succinct and brutally efficient.

(Googlefudge is running to the hills now.)

And obviously there was a Garden of Eden , otherwise they would have no knowledge of what a garden was!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Cast iron logic. Succinct and brutally efficient.

(Googlefudge is running to the hills now.)

And obviously there was a Garden of Eden , otherwise they would have no knowledge of what a garden was!

It's like Homer writing about the ancient city of Troy that was discovered. The ancients are not given the credibility that they have so richly deserved.