To be named religious thread

[lockmat]

My question was vague, let me rephrase.

If the Christian God is real and He is powerful, why does He put His creation to suffer for not believing in him? Why does He do it in such a way that we have to believe Him or suffer the consequences?

If He is really powerful and He really cares about us, can He not eliminate the suffering, so that we can choose to believe in Him or not, without the consequences? Why does He feel the need create a punishment to those who do not believe in Him?

It's usually compared to our present day justice system. You do something wrong, there's a penalty for it. He did not commit the sins for us. We did it ourselves. Many think salvation is a right. It's not. It all stems because he is a Holy God by nature and he cannot look upon sin or just wipe it clean without a the penalty being fulfilled. Jesus took our place by sacraficing himself in our place. That's like you or I taking the death penalty for someone elses murder.

We've brought all this evil upon ourselves.

[Heights2Bastrop]

This is an assumption. Nobody there to see it and write it down. Also, evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be tested and verified in a lab. Evolution is a faith also.

You are right in that nobody was there to see it, but so much of the history of Evolution has been written down and preserved in ways the bible has never been. Evolution is (as I said earlier) written in the rocks and strata and bones and fossils of the past.

That is a concrete proof that no theology can distort or deny, unless done so with a blind eye (or two). And, despite opinion to the contrary, it can be tested and verified in a lab, and has been so. Evolution is fact because it is based on science rather than faith.

BTW, I have heard the term “God-breathed” before, and when I questioned the source, I was given chapter and verse where it said that in the bible. I then checked the passages out in my bible – both of them, in fact – and realized the passages had been altered from their meaning in the King James bibles I have.

This “new” bible, it seems, also purports that Jesus was God, which is something else this new version changed from KJ. So it seems those who wrote this “new wave” bible decided to take liberties with the texts in old ones.

[lockmat]

You are right in that nobody was there to see it, but so much of the history of Evolution has been written down and preserved in ways the bible has never been. Evolution is (as I said earlier) written in the rocks and strata and bones and fossils of the past.

That is a concrete proof that no theology can distort or deny, unless done so with a blind eye (or two). And, despite opinion to the contrary, it can be tested and verified in a lab, and has been so. Evolution is fact because it is based on science rather than faith.

BTW, I have heard the term

[RedScare]

Also, all the fossils and such that evolutionists get their evidence from can all be explained through the great flood of the Bible. That's why they find the fossils they do.

Classic!

Do they really tell you that in your church? More importantly, do you really believe that?

[Heights2Bastrop]

Also, all the fossils and such that evolutionists get their evidence from can all be explained through the great flood of the Bible. That's why they find the fossils they do.

Well, that pretty much wraps it up for me. I see now that nothing anyone can say would make a bit of difference to you no matter what proof was presented.

[lockmat]

Classic!

Do they really tell you that in your church? More importantly, do you really believe that?

Are you laughing because you've seen the argument and came to the conclusion that it was false or are you laughing before so?

A giant flood that covered the entire earth including the highest mountains and kills every living thing easily explains all the fossils.

Well, that pretty much wraps it up for me. I see now that nothing anyone can say would make a bit of difference to you no matter what proof was presented.

I've seen evidence from both sides. The difference when studying evolution is that they give you no alternative. They tell you exactly what they want to and nothing else. Shouldn't science explore all possibilities? Yet I'm present something that's not even spiritual and it's immediately dismissed. That's not good science. It should at least be explored and considered, should it not? Especially since there are many ancient civilizations that record such a flood, not just the Bible.(source(s)

From ole faithful:

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

Is it possible that a world wide flood produced most if not all of these fossils?

[Heights2Bastrop]

I've seen evidence from both sides. The difference when studying evolution is that they give you no alternative. They tell you exactly what they want to and nothing else. Shouldn't science explore all possibilities?

I

[RedScare]

I'm done, too. Too claim that every fossil was created within 40 days, even though many are dated millions of years apart shows a belief system that not even most Christians adhere to.

And your understanding of archeology and the study of evolution is so far polluted by the propaganda you have been fed that no one would have the time to explain it to you. I will correct one statement, though. It is not evolution that gives no alternatives. It is your "faith".

Enjoy your thread. I'm out.

[lockmat]

You guys have just seen and been presented different facts, or at least not all of the facts. Why would an evolutionist present facts that support a world wide flood? I've been presented with the same facts you guys have seen and been presented counter arguments.

Just consider all the fossils created by the eruption of Mount St. Helens. I don't think evolution scientists like considering that.

I'm sorry, but that is just too ridiculous to even respond to.

So even though many ancient civilizations have stories about a world wide flood, you still won't consider and study it? Why not? Shouldn't science take into consideration all possible factors?

[TJones]

But Jesus isn't "the God of the Bible". That's YHVH. Lots of Jews, Muslims and Christians consider him to be the same god for all of those religions.

No Meme, the "God of the Bible" is God, the creator. Jesus is his only son who God sent down to pay for our sins. Allah, is the "God of the Koran" and Mohammed is who is believed by them to be the "one true prophet." of Allah. Christians DO NOT believe in Allah, nor do they believe in Mohammed. We believe that he may indeed exist for the dreadfully misled Muslims and if you have ever read either books, you would find their fundalmental teachings to be worlds different, but the stories in the two books are kinda similar. The Jews believe in the same Christian "God of the bible" but his name is Yahweh in the Hebrew language. Jews, like editor said, do not believe Jesus was the prophet though.

I am not as extreme as lockmat is in his explaining of all things Biblical. I don't think Noah didn't put two Brontosauruses on the Ark, because they just wouldn't fit, so they drowned in the flood. I think they were here a long time before Adam and Eve existed. One of my beliefs is that we are God's antfarm, and sometimes he likes to shake it up and start over.

Try to wrap your brain around this, think of us as a atom on a molecule on a spec under someone else's thumbnail that God controls.

[20thStDad]

Ugh. I knew it was only a matter of time before this got ugly.

The Bible is great, it has a lot of great lessons and history (for one group of people at least), but it was written by people, not God. The creation story in the Bible is just that. It's a lesson about sin, good, and evil.

Science, chemistry, life, and all of that are God's most amazing creations. I look at great scientific discoveries and am amazed at the way everything was made. The one thing that brings me back to the concept of a greater existence and a God is the infinite concept of space and time. Someone in a previous comment mentioned that everything is made from star dust that was just sitting around in space at one time. Ok, but where did that come from...you can ask the "and what was before that" question to no end. Something, somewhere, is bigger and more than the physical realm that we perceive. Time works the same way.

I believe that all the geologic and evolutionary records/evidence shows us how everything got to this point. Just because the Bible doesn't explain that doesn't mean that God (whatever people want to call it) didn't create all of that. To me there is no reason to have to pick God or science. I find it much more amazing to believe they are one in the same, that God is so freakin cool that he didn't just do some magical finger snap to create everything, he used math, physics, chemistry, and all kinds of other sweet forms of "order" to do it.

That's just my take. Obviously many will disagree, and surely you can poke holes in it all day. but like Editor said - some of us don't want proof - it would kind of defeat the purpose and make life not near as great.

[lockmat]

I am not as extreme as lockmat is in his explaining of all things Biblical. I don't think Noah didn't put two Brontosauruses on the Ark, because they just wouldn't fit, so they drowned in the flood.

Is it possible that he took two baby brontasauruses onto the ark?

Also, it's not really possible for there to be any other living thing before Adam and Eve. Before sin there was no death. Adam and Eve were the first sinners. So if there were dead dinosaurs before Adam and Eve then the Bible is not true because that means there was sin and death before the Adam and Eve account.

[memebag]

A giant flood that covered the entire earth including the highest mountains and kills every living thing easily explains all the fossils.

Not only does it not explain all the fossils, it doesn't explain the complete lack of evidence for a global flood.

If you're going to answer every question with "God did it", just stick to that. Don't try to make it sound like science. Why are there fossils? God did it. Why do they look like the earth is billions of years old when it's really 4000 years old? God did it. Why does every animal, plant, bacteria and virus we look at seem to have evolved through natural selection? God did it.

It all works if you accept that YHVH is just messing with our minds and trying to tempt us into thinking he didn't do it. Once you start letting a little bit of scientific rigor into your answers that all falls apart. Either you reject observed reality and rely entirely on faith, or you accept that the earth is much older than the Bible says and that its creation myth is just one of many stories people made up to explain where everything came from. You can't straddle those two boats.

[TJones]

Is it possible that he took two baby brontasauruses onto the ark?

Also, it's not really possible for there to be any other living thing before Adam and Eve. Before sin there was no death. Adam and Eve were the first sinners. So if there were dead dinosaurs before Adam and Eve then the Bible is not true because that means there was sin and death before the Adam and Eve account.

Did he take the baby brontosauruses on the Ark for millions of years ? Lockmat, there is a new thing out called a Carbon-14 test, look into it.

[lockmat]

Not only does it not explain all the fossils, it doesn't explain the complete lack of evidence for a global flood.

If you're going to answer every question with "God did it", just stick to that. Don't try to make it sound like science. Why are there fossils? God did it. Why do they look like the earth is billions of years old when it's really 4000 years old? God did it. Why does every animal, plant, bacteria and virus we look at seem to have evolved through natural selection? God did it.

It all works if you accept that YHVH is just messing with our minds and trying to tempt us into thinking he didn't do it. Once you start letting a little bit of scientific rigor into your answers that all falls apart. Either you reject observed reality and rely entirely on faith, or you accept that the earth is much older than the Bible says and that its creation myth is just one of many stories people made up to explain where everything came from. You can't straddle those two boats.

Why not meme? I'll admit that some things cannot be fully explained, not even by science. But if it can be explored with science, why not? Everyone wants evidence but won't accept or even consider it when presented.

God may have caused the rain to come down, but the actual water did the damage. I don't see a problem with explaining that. I really don't.

[memebag]

Is it possible that he took two baby brontasauruses onto the ark?

No. Humans and brontosauruses didn't live at the same time. Unless YHVH is just messing with our minds.

Also, it's not really possible for there to be any other living thing before Adam and Eve. Before sin there was no death. Adam and Eve were the first sinners. So if there were dead dinosaurs before Adam and Eve then the Bible is not true because that means there was sin and death before the Adam and Eve account.

And as long as you take it as axiomatic that the Bible is true, you will have to keep making up more and more complicated theories to reconcile the obeserved facts. Or you can just say "God did it".

[lockmat]

Did he take the baby brontosauruses on the Ark for millions of years ? Lockmat, there is a new thing out called a Carbon-14 test, look into it.

I'm not a scientist, one. So I can't perfectly counter every argument. While I look into carbo-14 dating, I'd also ask some to at least search and consider if there is a evidence of the possibility that it is faulty. I'm not asking for one to believe it as fact, just do a little research and consider it. See what all sides have to say about it.

If there was any living thing before Adam and Eve, then God is a liar and Christianity is dead and I'd tell every Christian to reconsider their faith in the God, Christ and the Bible.

[sevfiv]

Wow - leave for several hours and the thread explodes!

Thanks for the replies to my questions - I feel like I'm a little disjointed with my questions, but for me it is a lot to swish around upstairs...

I understand the points about the existence of god+faith. I think my hesitance comes down to stories as real event and literal belief of certain stories - and also putting the stories of the bible within context of time.

Lockmat previously wrote: "...although it is true God draws those whom he will save towards him, he still holds men responsible for seeking him out. As said before, he did not make us robots. We have the ability to make right and wrong decisions, including obeying him and turning from our sins."

So that means I am ultimately responsible for seeking out god (ie the god you write of) and if I don't it is a "wrong" decision and I am therefore damned?

I am not trying to instigate knee-jerk/defensive reactions, I just want to know where you are coming from, since everyone has different theories...

And creationism, evolution, religious texts, and so forth...

To me it is silly to ignore science and (what I see as) obvious patterns and developments in nature.

True, there are no answers for how these patterns ultimately began (the beginning of the beginning, or infinite time and space), but religious texts have two goals: to give answers to what I consider the unanswerable (think Greek mythology), and to establish a basis for "morality" (which must be placed in context of the time the text was written).

Nothing wrong with that, but if something is "unanswerable" (imo) then an "answer" cannot be the end all be all.

I consider secular humanism to hold a lot of what I feel to be important tenets, but I also know that something beyond my understanding has gone on/is going on in the world. That, coupled with science is fascinating to me, even if it doesn't produce immediate answers...

[TJones]

Is it possible that he took two baby brontasauruses onto the ark?

Also, it's not really possible for there to be any other living thing before Adam and Eve. Before sin there was no death. Adam and Eve were the first sinners. So if there were dead dinosaurs before Adam and Eve then the Bible is not true because that means there was sin and death before the Adam and Eve account.

Keep in mind lockmat that only MAN can commit sin. Beasts are immune to sin, so YES, they can die without sin. Your interpretation of the passage is wrong. There was no death for mankind before Adam and Eve because, according to the bible, there was no mankind before Adam and Eve.

[lockmat]

And as long as you take it as axiomatic that the Bible is true, you will have to keep making up more and more complicated theories to reconcile the obeserved facts. Or you can just say "God did it".

If one ioda of the Bible is untrue, the whole thing is untrue.

While I took a look at what evolutionists present as fact I think others should also look at other facts they have not yet seen concerning these things. I'm not asking anyone to believe. Just look at the rest of the facts objectively and evaluate. Don't just take it from a sorry laymen like me. There's plenty of alternative evidence out there.

[lockmat]

Keep in mind lockmat that only MAN can commit sin. Beasts are immune to sin, so YES, they can die without sin. You interpretation of the passage is wrong. There was no death for mankind before Adam and Eve because according to the bible, there was no mankind before Adam and Eve.

Beasts do not commit sin, but they were effected by Adam and Eves sin. Death was in no way shape or form existing before they sinned.

Do you deny what Genesis says about God creating animals? If that's false, what else does it mean? It's not poetry. He did not create animals before he said he did.

20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

21God created ^(AB)the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

22God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24^(AC)Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the ^(AD)beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

[memebag]

Why not meme? I'll admit that some things cannot be fully explained, not even by science. But if it can be explored with science, why not?

Because science won't work if you aren't willing to accept the results. You can't explore the history of life with the caveat that your explorations can't contradict Genesis. You end up with a muddle of untestable hypotheses and dogma.

Take the global flood as just one example. If a global flood was responsible for the formation of ancient fossils, why is there no evidence of a global flood? Why do all of the radiometric dating techniques show that fossils were created over billions of years and not 40 days? There's nothing in the Bible to explain any of that because the authors of the Bible didn't know about it. If you take the Bible as infallible, then you have to reject the evidence. It must be a trick.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Keep in mind lockmat that only MAN can commit sin. Beasts are immune to sin, so YES, they can die without sin.

TJones, I beg to differ, but how are animals any different from Man? Considering all things deemed sinful, aren

[memebag]

If one ioda of the Bible is untrue, the whole thing is untrue.

That's not true. It's easy for parts to be true and parts to be fiction. It's no different from any other document in that respect.

While I took a look at what evolutionists present as fact I think others should also look at other facts they have not yet seen concerning these things. I'm not asking anyone to believe. Just look at the rest of the facts objectively and evaluate. Don't just take it from a sorry laymen like me. There's plenty of alternative evidence out there.

Don't assume that we haven't looked at those alternatives. I was raised as a Christian and taught that the world was created in seven days. I tried to reconcile scientific observations with those teachings. I tried very hard, because I believed my soul was at stake. I read a lot of attempts to merge both views, and I continue to read creationist attempts at presenting their beliefs as science. But eventually I had to accept that either the Bible was wrong or that the world was carefully created to deceive us. You can see the choice I made.

[lockmat]

I understand the points about the existence of god+faith. I think my hesitance comes down to stories as real event and literal belief of certain stories - and also putting the stories of the bible within context of time.

Lockmat previously wrote: "...although it is true God draws those whom he will save towards him, he still holds men responsible for seeking him out. As said before, he did not make us robots. We have the ability to make right and wrong decisions, including obeying him and turning from our sins."

So that means I am ultimately responsible for seeking out god (ie the god you write of) and if I don't it is a "wrong" decision and I am therefore damned?

I am not trying to instigate knee-jerk/defensive reactions, I just want to know where you are coming from, since everyone has different theories...

Like I recently stated. Either the entire Bible is true, or it's not. There's no wiggle room. That's our first premise. The next is understanding, that if the Bible is true, that God created man. He is the creator, we are the created. That's our initial relationship to him. We also need to understand who God is. He is holy, righteous and there is no sin in him. He cannot even look upon sin because it contradicts who he is and it's just not possible. We have to remember that when he created us, he created us with the ability to make our own decisions. However, Adam and Eve sinned, separating men from God physically(no longer allowed in the garden of eden) and spiritually(eternal death, the penalty for sin). However, God loves his creation. For that reason, he sent his Son (God) to earth to be the sacrafice for our sins. We deserved(we earned it by sinning) physical and eternal death, but because he lived a perfect life(the only way to avoid eternal death, which we cannot do) he is the only person who has the ability to be a sufficient sacrafice for our sins. He payed the price for the sins we committed. He has given us the opportunity to repent from our sins and be reconciled(the theme of the Bible is God reconciling man to himself. I have an excellent sermon I'd be willing to burn and send to anyone) to him. It's up to us to make that decision.

"Sin" is just a term applied to acts offensive to a particular group. And those acts may be sinful in one country, but acceptable in others. And things sinful today were not sinful years back.

Sin is a relative term. Since Man is an animal, why should he expect to act any differently?

Sin as defined by the Bible is not relative. It actually means, "to miss the mark." The mark is perfect holiness.

Don't assume that we haven't looked at those alternatives. I was raised as a Christian and taught that the world was created in seven days. I tried to reconcile scientific observations with those teachings. I tried very hard, because I believed my soul was at stake. I read a lot of attempts to merge both views, and I continue to read creationist attempts at presenting their beliefs as science. But eventually I had to accept that either the Bible was wrong or that the world was carefully created to deceive us. You can see the choice I made.

I don't think we can really agree unless we're in the same presence looking at the same material/facts. I don't know what exactly you have looked at and you don't know what I have.

Because science won't work if you aren't willing to accept the results. You can't explore the history of life with the caveat that your explorations can't contradict Genesis. You end up with a muddle of untestable hypotheses and dogma.

Take the global flood as just one example. If a global flood was responsible for the formation of ancient fossils, why is there no evidence of a global flood? Why do all of the radiometric dating techniques show that fossils were created over billions of years and not 40 days? There's nothing in the Bible to explain any of that because the authors of the Bible didn't know about it. If you take the Bible as infallible, then you have to reject the evidence. It must be a trick.

You don't believe that scientists who believe in evolution don't practice science with those same presuppositions that evolution is true?

The fossils are evidence of a global flood. I requested that we take a look at the possibility of carbon dating's faultiness. What about the Grand Canyon? That's possible evidence of a global flood.

[TJones]

lockmat, you aren't taking into effect what a day for us is, and what a day for God is. A day for God is an eon to us. So, yes, even if I agree that God created all life, he created it at different times, where Brontos didn't exist in the same time frame as humans so Noah couldn't have put even a brontosaurus EGG on the Ark.

[memebag]

I don't think we can really agree unless we're in the same presence looking at the same material/facts. I don't know what exactly you have looked at and you don't know what I have.

Oh, I don't think we can agree. I don't think there is anything that will cause you to doubt the axioms of your system. Unless you're willing to challenge the beliefe that the Bible is the word of YHVH, this is all just a time killer.

If you're curious what I've seen from the creationist camp, I've spent a lot of time reading "Answers in Genesis".

[lockmat]

lockmat, you aren't taking into effect what a day for us is, and what a day for God is. A day for God is an eon to us. So, yes, even if I agree that God created all life, he created it at different times, where Brontos didn't exist in the same time frame as humans so Noah couldn't have put even a brontosaurus EGG on the Ark.

How do you reconcile the following then?

Exodus 20:9-10

9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

If a day is an eon...why am I at work?

One must study the Hebrew, Aramaic and the context to understand the different words used for "day" in the bible. In Genesis, it's literal.

In other places like 2 Peter 3:8, it's a trope, not to be taken literally.

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

The key word is as. In this context, it's a simile. In Genesis, it's not.

edit: also, in the Genesis account, after each day he says, It was morning and then evening after each day. How are we supposed to take that? Morning and Evening seem pretty simple and clear.

If you're curious what I've seen from the creationist camp, I've spent a lot of time reading "Answers in Genesis".

Not buyin what he's sellin? Anything in particular?

[memebag]

You don't believe that scientists who believe in evolution don't practice science with those same presuppositions that evolution is true?

No, I don't believe that. Scientists don't need to presuppose that evolution is true because they can use observation and experiment to challenge any assumptions. No one believed in natural selection until Darwin figured it out. It wasn't like Darwin set up camps to brainwash scientists into thinking the way he wanted them to. Scientists started to accept his theories because they explained existing observations, predicted future observations that were later confirmed and fit perfectly with biology and chemistry that wouldn't be discovered for decades. Scientists accept evolution for the same reasons they accept any other scientific theory. They can test it.

The fossils are evidence of a global flood. I requested that we take a look at the possibility of carbon dating's faultiness. What about the Grand Canyon? That's possible evidence of a global flood.

How are fossils evidence of a global flood?

How is the grand canyon evidence of a global flood?

We can (and should, and do) challenge the accuracy of radiometric dating.

[TJones]

I'll reconcile like this. A day for us is 24 hours, a day for God is an eon. The Lord is resting now, his 7th day, this is the eon we live in, and 7 days for us collates with our calendar. Remeber, Do as he commands, not as he does. Again, the interpretations you have been taught are off a bit. I am no theologian, but your beliefs are those of the hardline rightwing variety. Besides, you have just contradicted yourself by using Exodus then quoting Peter. Which is it for you.