RiverJordan
Inactive
You and me both!
What Do We Really Know About Our Beliefs?
- Thread starter followerofchrist72
- Start date
It all sounds good to me...freedom to believe is a freedom indeed. God Bless you all.
Would you like to share with me where exactly is the objectivity in excluding God as the cause (as the Creator)?
And I would like you to also share how exactly do you manage to include God in naturalistic theories? Which by the way means to go against mainstream in the highest degree possible…
Fortunately, nobody tells them that. Tell me when you’re ready to read what I actually write, instead of what you imagine that I write.
You mean, “they're all ridiculously wrong” from the evolutionary perspective. But that would mean that if evolution is wrong, then those Creationist arguments are actually true, wouldn’t it?
Actually, that’s God’s attitude. Indeed, you either believe what God tells you, or not only you are not a true believer, but you’re actually going to hell.
Now that you know the danger for not believing God, could you tell for me the danger for not believing in human theories?
Indeed. And I do know a particular way to be lukewarm: doubting God’s Word (the Bible) and instead embracing worldly theories. Those people think that going each Sunday to Church makes up for it. They forget that demons also go to Church (even more frequently, although for different reasons) and that demons also believe that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, they actually know it…
You certainly meant “in no connection to” evolution.
And by the way, what exactly would you expect a mainstream atheistic source to claim? That the Grand Canyon was created by God’s Flood? Really?
Don’t worry, there is a lot of “freedom in worshipping”. For example, some openly worship satan. Now, would you like to tell me exactly what’s the “progress” in that?
And why exactly should there be a “progress in faith”? I mean, did Paul, Peter and all the others have it wrong and it is you who have it right?
RiverJordan
Inactive
??????
Where did I do that?"God did it" is not included in science because the supernatural is not testable. If you disagree, please state a means by which the supernatural can be scientifically tested.
I'm talking about Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis organization, not you.
They're ridiculously wrong from a factual perspective. They say things that aren't true, and deliberately distort the work of scientists (see "creationist quote mining" for thousands of examples). I don't care what one's stance on the issues is, such blatant dishonesty is unacceptable.
I'm well aware of your mode of black/white thinking.
Believe what you wish; that's not my concern. My concern is over those who associate falsehoods and ignorance with Christianity. The consequences of that are evident in the survey data I linked to earlier.
Actually, God is more “fundamentalist” than any human fundamentalists. For example, it was God, not people, who flooded the entire Earth. And it will be God who will destroy, very soon, this world too.
So if you think God is tolerant, think again.
Would you like to share?
When you embraced naturalistic theories about the universe.
I think you’re severely confusing “science” with the truth.
You’re ridiculously wrong from a factual perspective. This factual perspective: it’s God who created the universe, not Lyell, Darwin, Lemaitre etcetera.
How about God’s mode of black/white thinking, are you aware of that too?
Wouldn’t you agree that excluding God as explanation (naturalistic theories) is “falsehoods and ignorance”?
If not, how could you claim you believe in God?
RiverJordan
Inactive
That's not the same as "excluding God as the creator" as you accused me. For example, I can accept volcanoes as an explanation of how mountains are formed, but that doesn't mean I'm "excluding God".
In your black/white mode of thinking, apparently everything is a deliberate act of God. That makes me wonder....do you believe anything happens on its own, or is God making everything happen?
You're dodging. Can you give me a way to scientifically test God or not?
No I'm not (I guess this is how you like to operate..."You're wrong" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" "No I'm not").
????????
Who has ever said any of those guys created the universe?I realize that believe that not only do you know the mind of God, but that you know it better than anyone else, but I hope you'll understand if I don't believe you.
Again, give me a way to scientifically test God. Otherwise, God is outside science's ability to investigate.
No, not everything. For example, people not believing in God are not a deliberate act of God. People having so little faith in God and so much faith in other people just like them are also not deliberate acts of God.
If by “scientifically test” you mean naturalistic test, you’re running in circles. In a very absurd way.
But if maths is enough, I think I already gave that to you: the Bible predictions. Now, can you show me mainstream predictions with a chance of fulfillment of 1 in 10^80?
So why exactly would you believe mainstream theories, instead of the Bible?
You, each and every day since you embraced their theories. Because if you drop the Bible (the Creator God’s Word) and instead embrace worldly theories, then you obviously credit the authors of those worldly theories more than God.
Oh don’t worry, I understand completely: you apparently think that God is how you claim He is, instead of how He actually is. You seem to forget that a pet god is not god at all.
If you want to find out how God is, read the Bible - not use your imagination. And make sure you don’t skip the Old Testament.
RiverJordan
Inactive
So some things do indeed happen all on their own, without God?
You're complaining that science doesn't include God. In order for science to include God, God would have to be testable. If you can't explain how God is scientifically testable, then your complaint is without merit.
I already explained how those are bogus calculations.
There it is again....black/white thinking. It is possible to believe the Bible and accept reality, you know.
LOL! You are hilarious. So now I think Darwin created the universe, eh? Wow. o_O
Yep, everyone who believes differently than you is 100% wrong. It can't be any other way.
Ban,
What do you think it means to 'believe'? Even the Demons tremble my friend. What sets you apart from them...Only one thing- Being born again and having Christ in you. That does not happen by some proclamation of 'believing in Him'. You are a believer when God does a work in your heart and you believe through Him.
Jesus said He is the way- and to 'believe' His gospel is to obey Him.
Jesus said that unless you repent you will perish. Do you 'believe' Him?
Jesus said that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of Heaven' Do you 'believe' Him?
Jesus said that you must be born again- Do you 'believe Him'?
Jesus said that any tree that does not produce fruit is withered and cast into the fire...Do you 'believe' Him.
He said He is the author of Eternal Salvation to those who obey Him- Do you 'believe' Him?
He said that the Lukewarm will be rejected- Do you believe Him?
Jesus said wide is the gate and narrow is the way- that few find it- Do you believe Him?
Jesus said In that day many will call Him Lord and He will tell them that He does not know them- Do you believe Him?
Jesus said that a time would come when they would not endure sound doctrine and would fall away- Do you believe Him?
( Paul said it but Paul 'conferred not with flesh and Blood' It came from Jesus)
Those who think that He died for their sins and 'all is well' are in deep trouble.
TC
I'll just ask again in the hopes that you will make some attempt to understand my point given the context of this topic.
Where does it say that we must believe in something more that Christ? Show me where it says that if you believe that the Earth is flat, or that Dinosaurs once roamed the planet that you cannot be saved?
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like you two are talking about two different things.
My “complaint”? Really?
And I find your statements truly ironic. I mean, for a Christian you certainly go a long way to exclude God from His own Creation…
So there are people like you, who claim “science”, to be precise: naturalistic “science”, and there are people like me, who claim God.
We’ll very soon find out who was right…
You didn’t. In any amount. Not even the tiniest.
Not only that, but you also didn’t show how the Hindus or the Muslims (or any others) have predictions that even come close to the Bible predictions.
So in your view the Bible is different from reality. Away from reality. Not reality.
I understand…
You tell me. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing: taking their word for origins, instead of God’ Word.
Isn’t that the very claim you are making? So what could you be possibly talking about?
I think I repeatedly stated that people should follow their own advice prior to asking others to do it.
Nowhere. That’s why human theories aren’t welcomed - least of all those concerning origins.
Sorry, but the flatness of the Earth is an atheistic myth, it never had anything to do with Christianity.
And dinosaurs indeed roamed the Earth, but they did so with mankind. From the beginning.
Ban- I was responding to your comment above where you said:
"So then, it is required to believe a specific set of things to be saved? Please show me the list of those things clearly mentioned in Scripture, because if they are that important, that we cannot be saved without accepting them, then they must certainly be listed carefully in Scripture.
Do you see my point? If there were such a list, then the Pharisees were right. That's what they wanted. That's what they were looking for. That's what they tried their best to enforce. They thought the list consisted of a very narrow interpretation of the Mosaic Laws. A list of rules is pointless.
In fact, since you pointed out Galatians, take a look at the warning that Galatians issued. Why was it written? Because people thought they needed to enforce a specific list of rules and laws to be saved. Galatians repeatedly teaches that is is the Gospel, Christ Crucified that saves, not adherence to a specific list of laws and rules that are utterly incapable of saving us."
I answered that with a list that cannot be refuted- Understanding the gospel of grace is key to that. Having said that...
The last part has two different issues:
Your first comment:"Where does it say that we must believe in something more that Christ?"
I agree- nowhere in scripture does it say you can believe in something other than Christ- His name is the only one by where you may be saved.
Your second comment: "Show me where it says that if you believe that the Earth is flat, or that Dinosaurs once roamed the planet that you cannot be saved?"
I would say this- If you believe in some 'scientific theory' that clearly says contrary to scripture, then you are probably listening to the wrong spirit- thereby not saved( given that salvation is dependent on having the Holy Spirit). If you think that the sky is green, sure you can still be saved- after all it may very well be green lol who are we to decide such matters!
I say stick to the gospel and Apostle Paul's advice about not striving in unprofitable things such as 'science so falsely called'. These conversations lead to more ungodliness.
TC
RiverJordan
Inactive
There's that black/white mode of thinking again. Because I'm not a young-earth creationist and geocentrist, I must therefore be completely excluding God from creation.
Like I said, you exhibit a mode of thinking that I just can't relate to.
There it is again. It's either science or God. One or the other, black or white.
I did both, but you just didn't look. But that seems to be how you approach everything that isn't what you want to hear...you don't look at it.
No, your black/white interpretation of the Bible is different from reality.
There it is again...black/white. Wow.
Nope. I would LOVE to be the person who demonstrates evolution to be wrong. I'd be the most famous scientist in history and by being a Christian, I would help change the anti-science persona that people like you give to the faith.
No, River, it’s not because you’re not a YEC and geocentrist that you exclude God from Creation. It’s because you embrace naturalistic theories that you therefore exclude God from His own Creation.
Compared to Christians like you, who add a meaningless god to the naturalistic paradigms, atheists are more intellectually honest. At least they believe the whole of what they’ve been “taught” in the schools. While you cherry pick both from the Bible and from the formal paradigms.
As for b&w, you tell me: how did God see the world when He decided to destroy it with a global flood? And how will God see the world again - very soon?
You don’t need to relate to my way of thinking. Just make sure you relate to God’s way of thinking.
Actually, no. I wasn’t referring to science, I was talking about naturalistic “science”. That’s an entirely different thing.
And yes, YEC is a position defendable scientifically. But obviously not if you already believe in evolution…
No, you didn’t. You didn’t mention a single Hindu prediction, and you didn’t mention a single Muslim prediction. Try again.
1. You quoted text clearly showed that: you making a difference between the Bible and reality. Read it again.
2. Yet again, how did God see the world just prior to flooding it?
I’m so tired of repeating myself, so I’ll address this in a different way:
Ironically, it’s your universe that’s black & white. Do you have any idea why? I think you don’t, so let me help you. All those beautifully colored pictures that you see on TV, in magazines or on the internet, all those pictures that you believe in, usually from NASA or Hubble telescope, are all fakes. Why? Simply because all the pictures of space (taken from space) are black and white. All of them.
And for your information, they not only ‘artistically’ add colors, but also stars and many other celestial bodies, including entire galaxies - a common practice. Have you even heard of the (in!)famous ‘mkobjects’ command?
So you see what happens when you believe in people, instead of God? You believe in a meticulously fabricated illusion…
So tell me again about my b&w world…
1. By simply claiming that you cannot prove evolution to be wrong, evolution becomes non-scientific. Are you even aware of that?
2. Your naivety is amazing.
You really think that mainstream “science” has anything to do with finding out the truth?
And do you really believe they will ever publish anything that runs against their views?
If you do, can you please show me anti-evolution articles in mainstream publications? If evolutionists would indeed be scientific, their publications should be full of articles criticizing evolution, don’t you think? So show me those articles and papers, please. Not only in core publications or sites, but even in popularizing magazines such as National Geographic.
Do you even know what happened to people such as Robert Gentry, or Stephen Meyers?
No, you wouldn’t. You’d be just what Gentry is for mainstream: already dead.
Not only I am not against science, but I don’t really know anybody that’s actually anti-science.
But you see, there’s science, actual science (practical science), and then there’s “science”, pseudo-science. Evolution, since it doesn’t relate in any way with anything practical, belongs in the latter.
I don’t really care what people believe. The world has always been full of fools. I can’t straighten the ways of all of them. But they shouldn’t call their philosophies science, and they shouldn’t teach their beliefs in schools. If they do, then I want my belief (the Biblical God) to also be taught in schools.