[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ______________________ (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/30/2009 4:31:43 AM EDT
| ________________________ |
|
This "Religion" forum here on AR15 is not a religion forum, and should be renamed. It is nothing more than a pissing match. It would be great if it was a place that believers in Jesus Christ could come to discuss the Bible, rather than a place where those that do not believe, like to come and spue, to convince "themselves" that they are correct about what they don't want to believe in......God, and that He created all things. They are truely pitiful, and so are their attemps to cause the children of God to stumble. It's the religion forum, not the Christianity forum. |
|
I see your point MsBug but I kind of like our atheist friends hanging around.
The purpose of this forum if for the discussion of not just people who agree…but people who disagree. Remember, mankind does everything in its power to discredit and disprove the message of the Bible and the Cross. From finding the fake bones of Jesus…..to using a pigs tooth to help their claim that mankind was not Created but evolved. When they accept God they often simply transform Him into a god of their likening…a god of their own creation. Don’t get to upset….this fourm like the people who post will pass away like a vapor. But Gods word will stand! Atheistic Evolution will have the same resting place as the DaVinci Code and every other attack on Christ….the dust bins of forgotten history. The Bible tells us that God is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end; The One who Was and Is and Is to come…the Almighty. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life and that life was the Light of Men. My faith has found a resting place! |
|
Quoted: No, I'm saying this is not a "Christian only" forum. It's for the "respectful" discussion of religion. This forum accomplishes its' purpose quite well.Quoted: This "Religion" forum here on AR15 is not a religion forum, and shouldbe renamed. It is nothing more than a pissing match. It would be greatif it was a place that believers in Jesus Christ could come to discussthe Bible, rather than a place where those that do not believe, like tocome and spue, to convince "themselves" that they are correct aboutwhat they don't want to believe in......God, and that He created allthings. They are truely pitiful, and so are their attemps to cause thechildren of God to stumble. It's the religion forum, not the Christianity forum. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh, thanks for clearing that up for me. So, you are saying that Atheisium and Evolutionisium are "religions"??? Huh ~ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, I'm saying this is not a "Christian only" forum. It's for the "respectful" discussion of religion. This forum accomplishes its' purpose quite well.
Quoted:
This "Religion" forum here on AR15 is not a religion forum, and shouldbe renamed. It is nothing more than a pissing match. It would be greatif it was a place that believers in Jesus Christ could come to discussthe Bible, rather than a place where those that do not believe, like tocome and spue, to convince "themselves" that they are correct aboutwhat they don't want to believe in......God, and that He created allthings. They are truely pitiful, and so are their attemps to cause thechildren of God to stumble.
It's the religion forum, not the Christianity forum. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh, thanks for clearing that up for me. So, you are saying that Atheisium and Evolutionisium are "religions"??? Huh ~ I will agree with that. |
|
Quoted: ... This "Religion" forum here on AR15 is not a religion forum, and should be renamed. It is nothing more than a pissing match. It would be great if it was a place that believers in Jesus Christ could come to discuss the Bible, rather than a place where those that do not believe, like to come and spue, to convince "themselves" that they are correct about what they don't want to believe in......God, and that He created all things. They are truely pitiful, and so are their attemps to cause the children of God to stumble... Respectfully, that was not what this forum was created for. (And I did not create it, nor was I even active in it at first, so please don't ask me the whys and wherefores.) There are plenty of websites and forums for just that purpose elsewhere on the 'net, just not here at AR15.com. This forum is a place for believers of all faiths, and/or none at all, to be able to discuss religious beliefs and practices without the inevitable "static" (to be kind) that such topics bring out in GD. You don't have to agree with anyone here (Lord knows that almost nobody here subscribes to the same doctrine I do), but you do have to be respectful of their right to hold and defend their beliefs. For the most part, most of the non-believers who are active here assert/defend their position without attacking believers generally... and those who cannot do not last long here. (Just as believers who cannot defend their position with proselytizing or attacking others do not.) I've learned a lot here about the various faiths and beliefs of others. It works pretty well IMHO when used for what it is. When someone on either side of the fence climbs on a soapbox, not so much.  JMHO. (Ironically, you seem to be suggesting the name should be changed because it isn't "religious" enough when a non-believer recently suggested strongly that it be changed because it is too religious/Christian.  ) |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
Based on this statement though........"the respectful discussion of religion".......would mean that "atheisium" and "evolutionisium" are "religions". Are they? And, I NEVER said or insinuated that it was, or should be, a "Christian only" forum. Please reread my op. Believers in Jesus Christ, classifies as a "religion". Just as believers in Buddah, classifies as a "religion". The last time I checked, the definition of "Religion" was this......"The belief in and reverence for a "supernatural" power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe". Atheism is not a religion. Some atheists are interested in religion because the practice of religion and the belief systems adhered to have real world implications. Your faith has consequences, and many think that they are not beneficial. |
|
Quoted: I apologize if I was mistaken, but this.......And, I NEVER said or insinuated that it was, or should be, a "Christian only" forum. Please reread my op. Believers in Jesus Christ, classifies as a "religion". Just as believers in Buddah, classifies as a "religion". This "Religion" forum here on AR15 is not a religion forum, and should makes it sound like you do want this to be a Christian only forum.be renamed. It is nothing more than a pissing match. It would be great if it was a place that believers in Jesus Christ could come to discuss the Bible, rather than a place where those that do not believe, like to come and spue, to convince "themselves" that they are correct about what they don't want to believe in..... I'd also like to apologize for derailing your thread that was suppose to be about evolution and not about the purpose or intent of this forum. |
|
Quoted: I wouldn't go to Ken Hamm for ANY info regarding evolution. That's like going to Iran to learn about Isreal. or science in general. He seems to be unaware that science makes the assumption of methodological naturalism because it has proven to be useful for acquiring knowledge. This assumption is an epistemological one, and is unrelated to whatever religious or metaphysical views someone might hold. It is the reason people of every religion, and no religion at all, can participate in scientific inquiry. |
|
Quoted: ...It's is amazing how anyone that even comes close, and not even intentionally many times, to proselytizing....in regards to God, gets called to the carpet, and when someone makes a joke about causeing someone to possibly be loosing there "faith" or "belief" ........it just get breezed by. Very common practice in these times we are living in, for sure. I have not problem debating with people, but I do when they so obviously find humor in trying to make me, or others, question their belief in Christ... In my experience here, the non-Christians perceive this directly opposite of what you describe above, and complain similarly from their own perspective. It is uncanny (to me, anyway) of how parallel your assertions are to those of a recent (and now gone) poster here who asserted that it should be renamed the "Religious Forum" due the unfair restrictions imposed on non-Christians here (according to him). As to the forum name, I strongly suggest you take it up directly with the Site Owners/Senior Staff who create forums and created this one. I have ZERO authority when it comes to creating/deleting/naming/renaming a forum here (witness my long-time efforts to no avail to have a PCC sub-forum established under The Armory forum  ).While I disagree with your premise, I certainly support your right to pursue that name change if you believe it is what the forum needs. |
|
Hardshell, the reason is there are people on both sides of the house who like to feel special. Being persecuted makes them feel special. It doesn't matter how many times you point out that their claims are ludicrous, they will still believe they are a part of a persecuted group. I'd tell you to just humor them, but you seem to have that under control hehe. |
|
Quoted:
That's just what I don't understand though. If Atheists believe in NO God, and therefore not having to answer to one for their actions in life, why do they even care about "religion"? I think you are making excuses for people that are scared because of their lack of faith and feel that if they can reason with enough people and convince them that what they are saying, is true.........that it will actually mean it IS true. Or, maybe they are just so bored with their lives, or just plain mean, that they find pleasure in finding as many bowls of cornflakes to shoot (or squat) in, as they can. The fact that YOU (and a majority of the multitude) have "Religion" has sociological implications. Religion influences human behavior. More accurately, religious based group affiliations and the cultures that go along with membership to that group influence human behavior. The religious ideology you consume and promote leads you to behave in certain ways. Anyone at all interested in human activity will be interested in religion. I don't care that your god commands you to eat corn flakes on Tuesdays BUT I am interested in the historical precedents that resulted in that commandment being adopted by your religion and I am also interested in how the belief in that "holy and unquestionable fact" causes you to behave. I'm assuming you are not a Mohammedan, but I also assume that you may be interested in aspects and interpretations of Islam that lead to 9/11 and the current conflicts in the ME. You are not Islamic but you are likely interested at some level in Islam, because the worship of that religion is often identified as an influence on the course of recent political events. I may be overestimating your intellectual ability and innate curiosity here, but I think you would agree that it is quite normal for people to try to make sense of the world and question why it is that people do the things they do and believe the things they believe. I do think you are foolish for wasting a great deal of time, energy, and intelligence in the service of a glorified fairy-tale. I think you are foolish for submitting to the "will" of an imaginary creature. You think I am foolish (and evil?) for not recognizing the glory and light that is your god. I act one way, you act another, sometimes we do the same things. Cool huh? Now as to one other thing you said "If Atheists believe in NO God, and therefore not having to answer to one for their actions in life...", I have lots of things to answer to in life. I have myself, my family, my friends, my neighbors, my city, my state, my country, my species. In fact, the consequences of my behavior are likely to give me immediate feedback in a very material way. I also do hold core beliefs that are likely founded on things equally as irrational as your religious ones. Religion has an influence on how I behave as well. I was raised in the fine "lazy arse Catholic" tradition, where church was something you went to on Christmas eve, and if very unlucky once more around Easter. Heck I even went to Sunday school for a year. The religion was more a cultural artifact that my parents dragged around with them from their childhood rather than something they lived and breathed (or in my father's case believed in). I would be an ignoramus to ignore the fact the beliefs of my ancestors and those around me did not have any influence on my behavior. The existence of the human creation known as Religion influences everyone. Just like the very human institution of the modern bureaucratic government does. |
|
And I wouldn't go to any so called scientist who assumes "naturalism". Science in general might be swell for making cars or airplanes, or subduing the rest of nature, but it can never find truth. All scientific pronounements are based upon "induction", which is always a logical fallacy.
Personally, I find it impossible to respect anything an atheist would say because of what the scriptures say about unbelievers, and I would never consider them friends, since God doesn't consider them friends. It is war, always has been, always will be. We could learn alot about this from the Reformers, their fight was life and death (literally). |
|
Posted by TomMcC
Personally, I find it impossible to respect anything an atheist would say because of what the scriptures say about unbelievers, and I would never consider them friends, since God doesn't consider them friends. It is war, always has been, always will be. Oh, cool! Wasn't that one of the rationalizations for the Inquisition? What happened to the "respect others beliefs (or lack of them)" rule that we're supposed to follow? Never mind. Let's kill the infidels. It is war, always has been, always will be. 
|
|
Quoted:
Posted by TomMcC
Personally, I find it impossible to respect anything an atheist would say because of what the scriptures say about unbelievers, and I would never consider them friends, since God doesn't consider them friends. It is war, always has been, always will be. Oh, cool! Wasn't that one of the rationalizations for the Inquisition? What happened to the "respect others beliefs (or lack of them)" rule that we're supposed to follow? Never mind. Let's kill the infidels. It is war, always has been, always will be. As long as he is speaking metaphorically, or is not actively waging a 'war' of violence, I'm fine with him holding those beliefs. All tolerance (in the classical sense) means is that he allows us to go about our business without fear of reprisal (violence or damage to our property). He doesn't have to like me, or you, or anyone else. I agree that such talk is kind of off putting, but as long as he is willing to let Jesus take care of the heathens and not hasten along the process his attitude is not necessarily dangerous. Clarification would be helpful as to what he means by "war", and more importantly, what his behavior is (or will be) as a result of his participation in the war. |
|
The war is spiritual, I've said this in other posts. I'm a Protestant, not a Papist.
As for respecting others views, where does this flacid sentimentality come from? Let's see, did Jesus respect the Pharisees, or the Sadducees? Did the Apostle Paul respect the Judizers? Does God respect the illogical denial of His person by atheists. Anti-biblical things never deserve respect, they deserve to be exposed, refuted, and ash canned. Those that like to use the words of wretched thinkers like Richard Dawkins to describe God will receive no quarter from me. Those that control themselves I will deal with them respectfully as made in the image of God. This not a game, real people get hurt or killed by the application of bad thinking. |
|
Quoted: And I wouldn't go to any so called scientist who assumes "naturalism". any scientist who doesn't use naturalism as his working rule of thumb isn't a scientist.... The people who invented the modern scientific method all came to the conclusion that methodological naturalism as a working assumption was the best way to find out how the world works. None of them believed in metaphysical naturalism, to a man they believed that God worked through the natural processes in our world. Any actual scientist who retains theistic beliefs would look at it the same way. Pseudo-science charlatans like Kent Hovind don't care that people are too ignorant to know the difference, they will continue to leech money from the faithful as long as they are willing to be led around like sheep. also you said that inductive reasoning is always a logical fallacy? Where did you take philosophy 101? |
|
Quoted: And I wouldn't go to any so called scientist who assumes "naturalism". Science in general might be swell for making cars or airplanes, or subduing the rest of nature, but it can never find truth. All scientific pronounements are based upon "induction", which is always a logical fallacy. Personally, I find it impossible to respect anything an atheist would say because of what the scriptures say about unbelievers, and I would never consider them friends, since God doesn't consider them friends. It is war, always has been, always will be. We could learn alot about this from the Reformers, their fight was life and death (literally). I think God might disagree with you. The parable of the Prodigal Son shows that God would loves his wayward children better than the ones who have always been loyal. Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. – (Luke 15:32, KJV) |
|
Quoted:
I think God might disagree with you. The parable of the Prodigal Son shows that God would loves his wayward children better than the ones who have always been loyal. Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
– (Luke 15:32, KJV) Just a comment on your exegesis on Luke 15. You have completely missed the same point the other son misses. God doesn't love the prodigal better. He loves him as He would as if he never left, but is celebrating with great joy his return, regardless of what he did with the inheritance. The other son is jealous because the Father is making much of the prodigals return only to be reminded that all the Father has has always been his since he never left. Also he is jealous because the prodigal is being treated equally as a firstborn son, but not better. The older son still retains his firstborn status as well. Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Of course the main point of the parable is the open arms welcome and restoration of His son, the mercy and grace of the Father, not the level of affection shown in the celebration of his return. (although it is there for a reason it is not the main point) I think we would have been better off naming this parable "The Parable of the Patient Loving Father" instead of "the Prodigal Son". The emphasis is supposed to be on Him not us. |
|
Posted by TomMcC:
This not a game, real people get hurt or killed by the application of bad thinking. As examples, I offer the Albigensian Crusade, the Sack of Magdeburg, the Inquision, the Saint Bartholomew’s Massacre and “the troubles” from Northern Ireland.
"Bad thinking" takes place on both sides of this question. |
|
Where to start.............
And what is the definition of "best" as in "naturalism is the best assumption", how do you know that? Atheist scientists defining themselves as the only real scientist, I would severely insult you for this, but then I would be banned.......what arrogance. Again, Protestants are blamed for the misdeeds of the Papacy. Does anyone read history. My read on history is that protestants were on the defensive, always. Just to be clear, I consider the Papacy to be the anti-Christ, along with all the Reformers. I have great affection for God's people, I would welcome any son brought home......the only reason I post on this board is to hopefully be used by God to bring a son home, To defend God's truth is an act of love toward Him and a warning to sinners ,me included ,to repent.......... sadly this place is mostly populated by hardened sinners. |
|
Quoted: And what is the definition of "best" as in "naturalism is the best assumption", how do you know that? Atheist scientists defining themselves as the only real scientist, I would severely insult you for this, but then I would be banned.......what arrogance. Atheist scientists didn't determine that naturalism was the best assumption. Christian scientists (many of them clergy)did. They noticed that nature seemed to obey certain rules. It appears that God set up a natural order that didn't require his constant intervention. Instead of saying "God did it" we could look for a naturalist explanation and explain "how God did it". Honestly I don't think you have the capability to severely insult me. You can IM me if you want. I could use a good laugh. |
|
Quoted:
Where to start............. And what is the definition of "best" as in "naturalism is the best assumption", how do you know that? Atheist scientists defining themselves as the only real scientist, I would severely insult you for this, but then I would be banned.......what arrogance. Again, Protestants are blamed for the misdeeds of the Papacy. Does anyone read history. My read on history is that protestants were on the defensive, always. Just to be clear, I consider the Papacy to be the anti-Christ, along with all the Reformers. I have great affection for God's people, I would welcome any son brought home......the only reason I post on this board is to hopefully be used by God to bring a son home, To defend God's truth is an act of love toward Him and a warning to sinners ,me included ,to repent.......... sadly this place is mostly populated by hardened sinners. sigh...... and you live in my state 
|
|
Dino
You do understand that "naturalism" assumes no God at all ? Are you saying that atheistic scientists actually assumed naturalism because some Christian assumed it, and thought the Christian was on to something? If a Christian did assume this, which I doubt (please give an example), it would just mean he was thinking in an un-biblical way. Junnbugg Wow we agree on one thing, only 1,999 things to go before we fulfill the Lord's command to be unfied. Scold Is that your deep thought for the day? Or do you actually have a refutation of something I have said? |
|
Dino
You do understand that "naturalism" assumes no God at all ? Are you saying that atheistic scientists actually assumed naturalism because some Christian assumed it, and thought the Christian was on to something? If a Christian did assume this, which I doubt (please give an example), it would just mean he was thinking in an un-biblical way. Junnbugg Wow we agree on one thing, only 1,999 things to go before we fulfill the Lord's command to be unfied. Scold Is that your deep thought for the day? Or do you actually have a refutation of something I have said? Tom |
|
Quoted: Dino You do understand that "naturalism" assumes no God at all ? Are you saying that atheistic scientists actually assumed naturalism because some Christian assumed it, and thought the Christian was on to something? If a Christian did assume this, which I doubt (please give an example), it would just mean he was thinking in an un-biblical way. Trust me I understand far better than you do. You would have to understand the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I would recommend google. Methodological naturalism is the view all scientists use for performing work in science. Methodological naturalism is also called scientific naturalism and was invented by the fathers of the scientific method. Almost to man, they were Christians and many were clergy. Methodological naturalism makes no claim about God as he isn't in the area that methodological naturalism can address, the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism does make the claim that there is no God. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. examples? try any theory in science. What makes it rain? God? Meteorology says no. What produced gravity? Intellligent falling down? Physics says masses attract each other. Newton was very religious btw... The only time ignorant people seem to care about the "atheistic" nature of science is when science is contradicting the Bible, not God. It's because they worship the Bible, not God (read the statement in red you wrote. Why didn't you say "he was thinking in an un-Godly way"?). The naturalistic assumption that science makes leaves room for God as the designer. The problem is science is proving some of the stories in the Bible are meant as allegory. Conservative Protestant Christianity tied itself to Sola Scriptura and THAT is the source of the problem. God and science work together just fine. Science and unthinking idolatry of a book written before the scientific method do run into conflict on occasion. |
|
And I'm the ignorant one.
Your whole arguement assumes the delusion of neutrality. We can have assumptions about the nature of things that just ignore God. No creation scientist I know of says things like "God did it". I am personally moving to a consistent occasionalism. Do you really think so call evolutionary scienists are really just interested in "methodological naturalism" and are leaving room for God? I heard an example on news, Scientists did a study that shows spanking your children causes a 5 point drop in I.Q., No axe to grind there, right? Gee wiz it seems that just about the whole of the god like scientific community would just have us genuflect at their awesome truth pronouncements. As for worshipping a book, just a scurrilous assertion. You seem to be good at making bogus assertions. I would also think God has a higher view of His word than you, since He says we can't live without it, and told us the so called wisdom of the world is counted as dung, and told us to look out for "knowledge.......so called". What are you a Papist? |
|
Quoted: And I'm the ignorant one. Your whole arguement assumes the delusion of neutrality. We can have assumptions about the nature of things that just ignore God. No creation scientist I know of says things like "God did it". I am personally moving to a consistent occasionalism. Do you really think so call evolutionary scienists are really just interested in "methodological naturalism" and are leaving room for God? I heard an example on news, Scientists did a study that shows spanking your children causes a 5 point drop in I.Q., No axe to grind there, right? Gee wiz it seems that just about the whole of the god like scientific community would just have us genuflect at their awesome truth pronouncements. Umm, that is sociology not biology. You won't hear me defending the work of most any sociologist. You do understand the difference between hard sciences like physics and biology and the social sciences? As for worshipping a book, just a scurrilous assertion. Not really. The natural world would be God's word just as much as any book. You choose to ignore the natural world and worship a book. You seem to be good at making bogus assertions. I would also think God has a higher view of His word than you, since He says we can't live without it, and told us the so called wisdom of the world is counted as dung, and told us to look out for "knowledge.......so called". And those words were written long before the scientific method was in use. They were concerning the Gnostic (gnosis means knowledge) heresies the early Church was fighting against. Try learning some history, you will have a much more informed opinion. What are you a Papist? Your book also contains the words in my sig... Did you really just say Papist? Wow, you are off the mark. We have a lot of Catholics who come to this board who might take offense at the word papist. Next thing you'll be yapping at me about the "whore of Rome". |
|
Quoted: ... What are you a Papist?  After I got through laughing at the initial comment (only because I'm familiar with Dino's beliefs), I had to look this one up. I just thought it was an old/archaic term –– didn't realize it was offensive/derogatory. (All the online dictionaries I looked at described it as such.) Stop the name-calling altogether, and please tone down the rhetoric in general. |
|
Look, how about a "Philosophy" forum? Atheism, evolution, aliens, etc. are really philosophical questions....as is, (ahem) the existence of GOD! I don't believe God exists because the bible says so or because the Pope says so...I believe God exists because my reasoning leads me to conclude he must exist..... so faith is based on PHILOSOPHY or if you will, reason.
Now, once you have the conclusion that God (or "a" god) must exist, religion becomes the necessary "therefore". But it becomes less and less an exercise of syllogisms and arguments and more and more a matter of experience. We can't help but have different experiences, values, and thus, opinions on religion. So one would assume arguments are inevitable.... in my experience this site is much CALMER than some all "Catholic" sites I've been on because we're all aware we're talking to a group of people who DON'T share most of our beliefs.... in a sense, arguing here is like arguing on a plane or public forum - aware of the general public and thus restrained from avoiding 'inside baseball' issues.... as opposed to arguing in a living room with family.
|
|
Quoted: Now, once you have the conclusion that God (or "a" god) must exist, religion becomes the necessary "therefore". But it becomes less and less an exercise of syllogisms and arguments and more and more a matter of experience. Many would say religion is necessary for a lot of people, even if they determine God probably does not exist (or doesn't/can't exist). There are a lot of non-theists who practice Eastern religions. I'm a UU who happens to be an atheist. I get the same needs fulfilled from my religion as anyone else does. I agree 100% that the existence of God is a philosophical question and I can see how someone could follow a logical process to the conclusion that God exists. The problem is when people (theists and atheists alike) assume their philosophical position is the only logical one. Dawkins is a prime example of that kind of thinking on the atheist side. Arfcom abounds with examples on the other side. The part that always interests me is how people get from "there is a God" to "that God is the God of religion A" I believe philosophy and religion fulfill many of the same functions. Some religions have a philosophical wing and a mystical wing (Taoism for instance) and people who share the same religion can have totally different views on things. I'm not sure a separate philosophy forum would have as discussions as varied and interesting as the ones in the RF. |
|
Gee Dino I haven't really kept up with all your spiffy posts, so your attack on "sola scriptura" had me quessing. The word papist is still used among the reformed, I don't always use it in a pejorative manner, but evidently implying I am an idol worshipper, or did you actually call me that seems to be ok.
My primary presuppostion is not bare theism, my starting point is the scripture. I believe it and it alone can produce a total world view. |
|
Dino
You do understand that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, and the creation is cursed and marred, so to equate the two as information sources, is well............ So a science that is hard, like physics, which is heavily dependent on mathamatics, does not suffer from faulty presuppositions? No really, the big bang is true. I have actually really personally heard physicists say that the stuff of the universe actually sprang out of nothing, and they weren't talking about creation ex-nillio (sp). They just couldn't bring themselves to admit the universe is eternal I suppose. But aren't there scientists that believe the universe is eternal, I have a hard time keeping up with what's hip and trendy. I told you earlier that science can be useful, I really like my AR's, but then those scientists just got to start talkin' about what is the truth, WHO to believe, Jesus or them? Fallible men, or God? |
|
Quoted:
Dino You do understand that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, and the creation is cursed and marred, so to equate the two as information sources, is well............ Wow... you cannot even argue (or discuss) with a person with this mindset. So a science that is hard, like physics, which is heavily dependent on mathamatics, does not suffer from faulty presuppositions? No really, the big bang is true. I have actually really personally heard physicists say that the stuff of the universe actually sprang out of nothing, and they weren't talking about creation ex-nillio (sp). They just couldn't bring themselves to admit the universe is eternal I suppose. But aren't there scientists that believe the universe is eternal, I have a hard time keeping up with what's hip and trendy.
I told you earlier that science can be useful, I really like my AR's, but then those scientists just got to start talkin' about what is the truth, WHO to believe, Jesus or them? Fallible men, or God? And a big invisible man in the sky is a more likely scenario? Each one is just as preposterous as the other. And who created god? And don't give me that "he just always was, is, and will be" crap, because if you do you are just siding with the scientist saying that something can come from nothing. |
|
Scold
Dino was asserting that I ignore the physical universe (completely bogus of course), and only get my information from the book. I believe both were, the book and the universe, from God..........but the two are not remotely equal in the information they impart, for the reasons I stated. God is eternally existent according to the scriptures, He is not part of the substance of this universe, and does not exist in time, time is His creation. The point of my last post is that scientists can never quite come to a final answer on the nature of things, their opinions shift constantly. God's word is final. |
|
Quoted: Dino You do understand that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, and the creation is cursed and marred, so to equate the two as information sources, is well............ That is your interpretation, but many Christians see it differently. The Affiliation of Christian Geologists view the natural world as God's testimony to us as well. So do men like Francis Collins (Christian and leader of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala (ordained Dominican Priest and Geneticist), and Ken Miller (Roman Catholic and Cell Biologist who testified at the Dover ID trial). Saying I believe someone is an idolater isn't an insult. Its a simple statement of what I see. The 2nd definition of idolater is "a person that admires intensely and often blindly one that is not usually a subject of worship" In my view, the object many Protestant Christians worship isn't Jesus, it is the Bible. You may not agree, but it a completely honest statement of my views and said in as non-inflammatory a manner as I can find to say it. Its no different than someone calling me an atheist or tell me they they I will go to hell. According to what they believe, I will be going to hell. I don't believe hell exists, so it doesn't bother me. You don't believe you are an idolater, so why does it bother you? If idolater is somehow offensive to you, then give me another term that would work that wouldn't be offensive? Bible-worshipper? 1st Commandment Challenged? Those seem more offensive than the simple idolater... Papist is understood to be a pejorative term, and you know that as well as I do. You could always say Catholic or Roman Catholic, but you chose to use Papist. It is no different than any other epithet people apply to disliked groups. I understand it is still used among "the reformed", I was raised Church of Christ and heard it quite a bit growing up. |
|
Dino
For pete sake, are you actually reading what I write? I UPHELD that nature has information to be found out. It is just not infallible becaused God cursed it. It must be interpreted in light of the infalliable revelation. I am not particularly upset that you called me an idolator, although you seem pretty quick to slander someone, I don't think much of the moderators letting it slide, when they have warned me a time or two. The definition of papist according to my American Heritage dictionary is: A Roman Catholic. USUALLY used disparagingly. Again I said I use it disparagingly, but not always, which is in accordance with the dictionary meaning. |