The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've already said an exact definition is not available.

You don't have a definition, exact or otherwise. Criticize the human classifications of species all you like, but at least they are actually defined grouping. You guys have nothing but guess work based on the Bible, as demonstrated by your little muddle over humans and other apes (are we the same kind or not, and if not why not). You don't even know what in biology divides up "kinds", or even if such a division even exists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is need of further data. We could of do as you do with species - decide arbitarily and then adjust as new information comes in. But we seek to honestly deal with the matter:

How are you being "honest"?

What reason to you have to believe that "kinds" exists in biology at all

Biologists would be the first to state that human classification such as species is simply a human method of classification, not something that actually exists in biology.

But Creationists claim that "kinds" are not only a human classification, but a grouping that exists in biology itself, despite having no definition of how animals are actually classified at all.

So how can you claim this? How can you possibly say that there exists a division in nature when you have no idea what this division is supposed to be, nor have you ever observed it, nor do you have any scientific models of how it operates or what this division does? How is that being "honest"

Not only do you claim it but you assert further things like saying that no organism can evolve outside its kind (which I'm not sure you have realised is a meaningless statement since you seem to accept infinite diversity within a kind thus making such a division meaningless). How can you possible assert that if you have no clue what makes up a kind in the first place.

Do you have any reason beyond the Bible (which itself just used the word "kind" as it is, not a biological classification) to say that division of "kinds" even exist in biology?

Come on Wolfsbane, you guys are being anything but honest here. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

You have pointed to the immediate causes. Example of immediate an cause: a bullet to the brain causing death. It would not be a good defence for the accused gunman to plead it was the bullet, not him, that killed the victim. The accused was the real, determining cause.

Actually, according to your logic, God is ultimately the determining cause. And this begs the question, if God is the ultimate cause of everything, the why would God cause something to happen which would cause someone to do evil? Why would God, who supposedly loves all humans equally and wants us all in heaven, knowingly cause someone to do something that could ultimately send them to hell (or whatever your alternative to hell is)? Are some people expendable? Are some people made purposely to be evil (and therefore go straight to hell), so that others may what? Rise up against that evil? look better by comparison?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well if he (J C) continues to portray evolution by his own definition of it (sounds like Hovind to me really) and imply that it is what we believe in (when we've repeatedly stated that we agree that "spontaneous evolution" is crap), then he is being misleading and I would hope that PDN will act on that. If PDN has not noticed, I'll draw his attention to it.

Spontaneous Evolution is indeed 'horse manure'........but it IS what Materialists believe in.....even though some, like your self may be in denial......other Evolutionists are quite open about Spontaneous Evolution and their reasons for believing in it:-

wrote:

Prof George Wald, prominent Evolutionist (and Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate):-
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"

Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist:-
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

...and the following quote from Professor Lipton discusses the religious aspects of Spontaneous Evolutionism!!!!!

wrote:

H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester:-
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."

…..anyway, what I would really like to know is......are we going to be lucky…..
......and will you adopt these devastating Evolutionist admissions as your signature…….just like you have adopted the devastating quote from Professor Gould on (the absence of) intermediate structures!!!:pac::):D

.....and I am also interested to see if PDN takes your advice.......and decides that Nobel Laureate and former Professor of Biochemistry at Harvard, George Wald, was 'misleading' when he used the word 'Spontaneous' to describe the Materialistic alternative to Special Creation?????

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution is indeed 'horse manure'........but it IS what Materialists believe in

And Christians like yourself believe there is no god and when we die we just die .. you are just in denial you see :pac:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

And Christians like yourself believe there is no god and when we die we just die .. you are just in denial you see :pac:

A Materialist who denies that they believe in Spontaneous Evolution ......is indeed like a Christian denying that they believe in God!!!!:D

.....as I DON'T deny that God exists.....my Christian and Creationist credentials remain intact....

......but your denial that Spontaeous Evolution exists (which I agree with BTW)......raises serious questions about your commitment to Materialism.......but perhaps you are a 'closet Creationist' after all !!!!:D

......maybe most Materialists are really 'closet Creationists' afraid to 'come out' because of what their fellow Materialists will say about them!!!!:D

.....but take heart.... look at Professor Anthony Flew.....he has been a 'new man' ever since he stopped denying reality......and abandoned Materialism for Theism!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

You are indeed correct that a Materialist who denies that they believe in Spontaneous Evolution ......is like a Christian denying that they believe in God!!!!:D

.....as I DON'T deny that God exists.....my Christian and Creationist credentials remain intact....

But it doesn't JC, you just think it does.

You see, you are in denial. While you say you believe in God, and you act like you believe in God, and you think you believe in God, you in fact don't. You are just kidding yourself. You actually believe in atheism.

Your non-belief in God exists, you just don't realise it yet





See what I did there :rolleyes:

bonkey

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't have a definition, exact or otherwise.

They do have a non-falsifiable source which uses the word "kind". What more could any respectable scientist want?

Criticize the human classifications of species all you like, but at least they are actually defined grouping.

Didn't we do this one before, and have to point out that this grouping is a nomenclature, rather than an absolute scientific definition which carries strict, tightly-defined properties?

You guys have nothing but guess work based on the Bible,

Oh, they'be a lot more...and less...than that. They have a word used in the bible, and then a lot of confusion to sow.

as demonstrated by your little muddle over humans and other apes (are we the same kind or not, and if not why not).

Now...be fair....There is no muddle. They say we're absolutely, categorically, unquestionably not of the same kind as any other creature.

Lets not forget, of course, that except when applying to the uniqueness of man, the definition of Kind can be as flexible as needed. I mean...evolution gets mocked for various alleged impossibilities with a timespan approximately 750,000,000 times longer than kindolution has had to populate the world, create and destroy untold numbers of unique subkinds, and all the rest of it.

As for life on Mars...pfah. Should we find microbacterial life on Mars, I predict a link from Wolsfbane to a "respected scientist" questioning whether or not we were finding something we brought with us on our own spaceship. Rapidly-kindifying smilies from JC will follow.

Kindolution...kindifying...hmmm...There's a joke in there about Creationism and kindergarten, isn't there. If only Creationism had a reference to a Garden somewhere...


Anyway....

But Creationists claim that "kinds" are not only a human classification, but a grouping that exists in biology itself, despite having no definition of how animals are actually classified at all.

Well...they can always shift their position and argue that kinds existed at the time of the Flood. Given that they've made all sorts of unsupportable claims about how things don't work the same any more, they can always allow for a different definition of kind today.

If, for example, a Creationist were to make some absolute "kinds cannot interbreed" comment, and then definitively put two creatures into seperate kinds, and someone was able to find a "chain" of interbreeding from one to the other (A with B, B with C, C with D and so on) that would show the definition to be bogus....why, they could just insist that we've fallen so far that the barrier beyond that protecting manchild has obviously broken down.

We are chosen and special after all.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous Evolution is indeed 'horse manure'........but it IS what Materialists believe in.....even though some, like your self may be in denial......other Evolutionists are quite open about Spontaneous Evolution and their reasons for believing in it:-

Once again, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate. I repeat this for the hundreth time because your quote by George Wald is referring to abiogenesis (which was once called spontaneous generation, before the term became disused because of its inaccuracy). Wald, were he still here, might revise his phrasing today, but I doubt he foresaw a creationist using one sentence from his 90 years of life in a semantic argument against evolution, which follows abiogenesis and is seperate to it.

Evolution is not spontaneous- whether abiogenesis might be defined as such will depend on a better understanding of that process. I suspect it requires many influences.

Did I meantion Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate? Also, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate. Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate and, furthermore, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate.

Second quote... Sir Arthur Keith was wrong, in this case. This does not invalidate him as a scientist and in his defence, the nature of genetic inheritence and the structure of DNA were not discovered until just two years before his death. He could not have known that the means to prove evolution were just a few years away.

J C wrote: »

...and the following quote from Professor Lipton discusses the religious aspects of Spontaneous Evolutionism!!!!!

I'm not sure who Lipton is. However, his comments on Evolution being accepted as a religion ignore that Evolution can be disproven. A person may have faith in it if they wish, as they may in any aspect of science. But they can also critically examine it if they wish. There's no dogma, there are only observations.

J C wrote: »

…..anyway, what I would really like to know is......are we going to be lucky…..
......and will you adopt these devastating Evolutionist admissions as your signature…….just like you have adopted the devastating quote from Professor Gould on (the absence of) intermediate structures!!!:pac::):D

Which devastating admissions? My sig is large enough already without adding in whatever random soundbites you think support your constantly shifting and ambiguous position.

J C wrote: »

.....and I am also interested to see if PDN takes your advice.......and decides that Nobel Laureate and former Professor of Biochemistry at Harvard, George Wald, was 'misleading' when he used the word 'Spontaneous' to describe the Materialistic alternative to Special Creation?????

Putting aside that Wald was not talking about evolution (Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate), if indeed he were misleading... what exactly are you suggesting? That PDN caution George Wald? That Wald should be banned from boards despite the fact that he a) has never posted here, b) is not defending his inaccurate comment (he might have used the edit button were he posting today) and c) is dead?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

But it doesn't JC, you just think it does.

You see, you are in denial. While you say you believe in God, and you act like you believe in God, and you think you believe in God, you in fact don't. You are just kidding yourself. You actually believe in atheism.

Your non-belief in God exists, you just don't realise it yet

See what I did there :rolleyes:

....yes you just ended up confusing yourself.....an occupational hazard for Spontaneous Evolutionists unfortunately!!!!:pac::rolleyes::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....yes you just ended up confusing yourself.....an occupational hazard for Spontaneous Evolutionists actually!!!!:pac::rolleyes::):D

There. Are. No. Spontaneous. Evolutionists. Here.

Just because you quote some biologists using the word "spontaneous" will not make evolution spontaneous. In fact, consider quoting biologists from their day-to-day lives or their speculative philosophies to be inadmissable evidence when attacking the theory of Darwinian Evolution. You can do it all you like, but it won't knock one tiny chip out of foundation of Evolution. The theory is a part of science and logic, not personal opinion. To disprove it, you must use science or logic.

Soundbites from biologists, irrespective of who they are and no matter what they say are never really going to matter. You can find soundbites that suggest Einstein was a man of faith. You can find ones that suggest he was agnostic. In science, what speaks for him, for all scientists, is the data. Their publications, their conclusions and the attacks, rebuttals and confirmations of their conclusions. This is where the fight ought to be taking place.

Why is it that you refuse to fight there? What are you afraid of?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Once again, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate. I repeat this for the hundreth time because your quote by George Wald is referring to abiogenesis (which was once called spontaneous generation......

Special Creation is the Creationist equivalent of BOTH Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution.......and BOTH the original Abiogenesis AND the Proto-cell to Man Evolution are supposed to be 'spontaneous' according to Materialists.....i.e. BOTH emerged from matter using only the Laws of Physics and Chemistry to produce them....and without any intelligent input!!!

.......so for Atheists to truly have an intellectually satisfying Materialism.......BOTH Spontaneous Generation / Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution need to have some scientific validity.......and NEITHER have so far succeded in achieving such a distinction!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Did I meantion Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate? Also, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate. Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate and, furthermore, Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate.

.....you DID mention that Spontaneous Evolution and Spontaneous Abiogenesis are separate.....but as NEITHER have been scientifically validated.....you haven't progressed your argument very much!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Second quote... Sir Arthur Keith was wrong, in this case. This does not invalidate him as a scientist and in his defence, the nature of genetic inheritence and the structure of DNA were not discovered until just two years before his death. He could not have known that the means to prove evolution were just a few years away.

......the discovery of the vast specific information densities of DNA is actually one of the prime scientific reasons why Spontaneous/Matreialistic Evolution is WRONG.....and so Sir Arthur Keith's belief that Evolution is unproved and unprovable.......remains completley valid today!!!!
Equally, his conclusion that both himself and his fellow Materialists believe in Evolution because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable......ALSO remains valid today!!!:D:)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not sure who Lipton is. However, his comments on Evolution being accepted as a religion ignore that Evolution can be disproven. A person may have faith in it if they wish, as they may in any aspect of science. But they can also critically examine it if they wish. There's no dogma, there are only observations.

......the dogma starts where the observations stop......and Materialists start speculating about 'Muck evolving into Man'.....when all they have observed are finches with different beaks.....and Moths with different coloured wings!!!!!!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Putting aside that Wald was not talking about evolution (Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate), if indeed he were misleading... what exactly are you suggesting? That PDN caution George Wald? That Wald should be banned from boards despite the fact that he a) has never posted here, b) is not defending his inaccurate comment (he might have used the edit button were he posting today) and c) is dead?

My point was that Evolutionists ALSO believe (and have publicly stated) that Evolution and Abiogenesis are SPONTANEOUS......and you were working yourself into a sweat over me using the word SPONTANEOUS and Evolution in the one sentence........and demanding retribution from PDN, even though all I said, was what a Nobel Laureate Biochemist and Evolutionist had ALSO said about Abiogenesis/Evolution!!!!:):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There. Are. No. Spontaneous. Evolutionists. Here.

Just because you quote some biologists using the word "spontaneous" will not make evolution spontaneous........

.....it proves that some Evolutionists use the term Spontaneous to describe Materialistic Evolution.......and if there are no Spontaneous Evolutiuonists on this thread......then that may be a good thing .......because that could be their first step in starting to question the entire crumbling Materialistic Evolution edefice!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In science, what speaks for him, for all scientists, is the data. Their publications, their conclusions and the attacks, rebuttals and confirmations of their conclusions. This is where the fight ought to be taking place.

Why is it that you refuse to fight there? What are you afraid of?

......that is what I have been trying to do for the past 725 pages......but the paucity of scientific evidence presented for Spontaneous Evolution has been vanishing to the point of non-existence!!!!:)

Akrasia

J C wrote: »

Special Creation is the Creationist equivalent of BOTH Spontaneous Generation / Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution.......and BOTH the original Abiogenesis AND the Proto-cell to Man Evolution are supposed to be 'spontaneous' according to Materialists.....i.e. BOTH emerged from matter using only the Laws of Physics and Chemistry to produce them....and without any intelligent input!!!

.......so for Atheists to truly have an intellectually satisfying Materialism.......BOTH Spontaneous Generation / Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution need to have some scientific validity.......and NEITHER have so far succeded in achieving such a distinction!!!!:eek::D


.....you DID mention that Spontaneous Evolution and Spontaneous Abiogenesis are separate.....but as NEITHER have been scientifically validated.....you haven't progressed your argument very much!!!!:D

......the discovery of the vast specific information densities of DNA is actually one of the prime scientific reasons why Spontaneous/Matreialistic Evolution is WRONG.....and so Sir Arthur Keith's belief that Evolution is unproved and unprovable.......remains completley valid today!!!!
Equally, his conclusion that both himself and his fellow Materialists believe in Evolution because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable......ALSO remains valid today!!!:D:)



......the dogma starts where the observations stop......and Materialists start speculating about 'Muck evolving into Man'.....when all they have observed are finches with different beaks.....and Moths with different coloured wings!!!!!!!!!:eek::D



My point was that Evolutionists ALSO believe (and have publicly stated) that Evolution and Abiogenesis are SPONTANEOUS......and you were working yourself into a sweat over me using the word SPONTANEOUS and Evolution in the one sentence........and demanding retribution from PDN, even though all I said, was what a Nobel Laureate Biochemist and Evolutionist had ALSO said about Abiogenesis/Evolution!!!!:):D

Abiogenesis has been recreated in a laboratory. (organic matter arising from non organic compounds)

Yet you still don't believe there's 'any' scientific basis for it?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I doubt Ken has ever claimed his personal interpretation of the Bible is incapable of error.
Have a read again of his eye-wateringly pompous SOF, where he says that the bible is "inerrant throughout".

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that he's talking about his own personal interpretation, rather than a different one belonging to somebody else.

No, Robin, he said: The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Not that his interpretation of the Bible was inerrant throughout.

The Bible; his interpretation of the Bible - not the same thing. Therefore the former can be inerrant and the latter subject to error.

When you trip up over such simple logic, no wonder you guys fall for the whole abiogenesis/evolution thing.

Time for clearer thinking/the removal of prejudices that skew your thinking. Start with the possibility that there may be an actual Designer to account for the apparent design you see around you.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

If god doesn't want to send us to hell, why doesn't he just stop sending us to hell? If his past decrees are a problem for him why doesn't he just decree that he shouldn't have decreed what he decreed before and that from now on there's a new decree that replaces any past decrees the new one contradicts? He's supposed to be omnipotent after all.

God COULD stop sending people to Hell.......but this would mean that He would have to remove our free will to decide to believe on Him......or NOT, as the case might be......
.....which would mean that we would become robots dancing mindlessly to His tune!!!
God wishes to have a personal relationship with each of us......and because all true relationships must be freely entered into.......He has given us the free will to accept or spurn this relationship!!!!!

........so God waits patiently and hopes that you will turn to Him......He lays the choice of eternal life or eternal suffering before everyone and asks (but doesn't command) everyone to choose life!!!!!:)

wolfsbane

iUseVi said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You're welcome.

You have pointed to the immediate causes. Example of immediate an cause: a bullet to the brain causing death. It would not be a good defence for the accused gunman to plead it was the bullet, not him, that killed the victim. The accused was the real, determining cause.

Likewise, a loaf of bread may well sustain your life and it in turn be caused by the money you earned at work. But it was God who both enabled you to work and sent the harvest that produced the bread.
What, so you just keep going back until you cannot trace the human causes, and then say "God did it"?

I think you would differ to most Christians in not thinking that God would act directly.

God is able to intervene at any stage. Sometimes He uses a long string of intermediate causes; at others few or none at all. Two examples to illustrate, the first an immediate intervention, the latter using means:

Acts 5: 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”
She said, “Yes, for so much.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

Acts 12:20 Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country.
21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

J C

bonkey wrote: »

As for life on Mars...pfah. Should we find microbacterial life on Mars, I predict a link from Wolsfbane to a "respected scientist" questioning whether or not we were finding something we brought with us on our own spaceship. Rapidly-kindifying smilies from JC will follow.

......the most LIKELY source of bacteria on Mars IS probably from contamination .........
BUT
......when it comes to ETs I can confirm that they EXIST.......because I have had close encounters of the first, second and third kinds with the things......so please avoid the temptation to second-guess my replies!!!!!:eek::D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......when it comes to ETs I can confirm that they EXIST.......because I have had close encounters of the first, second and third kinds with the things

Tell that to wolfsbane. :pac:

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

If god doesn't want to send us to hell, why doesn't he just stop sending us to hell? If his past decrees are a problem for him why doesn't he just decree that he shouldn't have decreed what he decreed before and that from now on there's a new decree that replaces any past decrees the new one contradicts? He's supposed to be omnipotent after all.

We are sent to hell because of our sins and refusal to repent of them. For God to ignore that would make Him guilty too: His holy nature requires Him to punish evil.

No, it's clear he must quite like sending at least some of us to hell or he'd just stop, what with the debt having been settled up when he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

That is a problem for those who believe in an unlimited atonement, I grant you. I'll leave it to them to answer for themselves.

As a Calvinist, I can say that Christ settled the debt for al who will repent, and only them. The unrepentant will pay for their own sins.

Oh, but hang on, isn't he supposed to love us?

He is supposed to love His people; His Bride; His sheep. He does good to all, but He loves His own with a special love.

No matter how you spin it this whole 'he died for our sins' angle doesn't stand up. How can anyone die for anyone else's sins anyway, god or not? What's that even supposed to mean?

It means Christ stood as the substitute for His people - He bore the punishment due for their sins. God changes their natures, makes them holy and will eventually bring them home to Himself.

And even if he could and did, how come our sins are still a problem two thousand years later? He sacrificed himself for us and it didn't even work. Now that is a bit of a disaster.

I agree - if that were the case. But see above regarding limited/unlimited atonement.

In fairness he could have made a better job of creating us, surely, if only he'd applied a bit of the old omniscience to the task.

No, all things are being worked out for His glory, and the good of all who love Him:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
......when it comes to ETs I can confirm that they EXIST.......because I have had close encounters of the first, second and third kinds with the things

Tell that to wolfsbane.

I'm sure JC is not speaking of biological ETs. I too believe in spiritual ETs: the angels, good and bad, are not terrestial beings.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure JC is not speaking of biological ETs. I too believe in spiritual ETs: the angels, good and bad, are not terrestial beings.

........the ET technology that I have seen, manifested itself physically..........and it was enormously sophisticated.....it was one of the reasons that I became a Christian!!!!

........expect the 'slides conditioning' to click in.......and Wicknight to become fearful........and avoiding the subject AT ALL COSTS!!!

.........this is a 'guidstones type' area.........that must not be discussed!!!!!:D

...bonkey, 2Scoops, Wolfsbane and Wicknight.......what HAVE you stumbled into here????
....Wicknight and the 'Men in Black' will NOT be pleased!!!!

......remember the number one priority is to avoid 'frightening the horses' on this particular issue!!!!

......discuss the Ziggurat at Ur, the Pyramids of Egypt.......even 'safe little' Martian bacteria...........but DON'T discuss ETs who are right here right NOW!!!!!
.......and who may not have our best interests at heart!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, Robin, he said: The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Not that his interpretation of the Bible was inerrant throughout.

Yeah because you guys are over flowing with consideration for you being wrong about how you interpret Genesis.

The vast majority of Christians do not interpret Genesis as meaning a young Earth. You guys do. And you think you aren't, and can't, be wrong.

:rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

God COULD stop sending people to Hell.......but this would mean that He would have to remove our free will to decide to believe on Him......or NOT, as the case might be......

No it wouldn't. How did you come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Again you are putting the cart before the horse. God doesn't have to send people to hell because they don't believe in them. He sends people to hell because they don't believe in him. It is a consequence not a cause. It is his choice to send them to hell. To be saved means to be saved from his choice, saved from him.

He could just as easily do the opposite. But then you guys wouldn't have a religion would you :rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No it wouldn't. How did you come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Again you are putting the cart before the horse. God doesn't have to send people to hell because they don't believe in them. He sends people to hell because they don't believe in him. It is a consequence not a cause. It is his choice to send them to hell. To be saved means to be saved from his choice, saved from him.

He could just as easily do the opposite. But then you guys wouldn't have a religion would you :rolleyes:

If you want to be technical about it, God sends people to Hell as a punishment for their sins......and the only way to have your sins forgiven ....and therefore avoid being sent to Hell....is to repent and believe on Jesus Christ!!!

......it still involves us in freely entering a loving relationship with God......the alternative, which you appear to be suggesting, is that everyone, even those who hate God, should be forced by Him to spend an eternity in His presence in Heaven !!!

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Great Ziggurat of Ur; the Egyptian Pyramids.

If only one of those were made of wood and floated, you might just have something.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

If you want to be technical about it, God sends people to Hell as a punishment for their sins......and the only way to have your sins forgiven ....and therefore avoid being sent to Hell....is to repent and believe on Jesus Christ!!!

That is the only way we can be saved BECAUSE God sends people to hell.

If God didn't send people to hell that wouldn't be an issue. God is the only being that sends people to hell. We don't send ourselves to hell. See annoy God by disobeying him, and he sends us to hell because he is pissed off.

To be saved from hell we need to be saved from God's action.

J C wrote: »

......it still involves us in freely entering a loving relationship with God......

Certainly. But only because God demands that from us otherwise he sends us to hell. God could simply stop sending those who don't to hell. Doing so would not effect our free will at all. It would have little to do with our free at all.

J C wrote: »

the alternative, which you appear to be suggesting, is that everyone, even those who hate God, should be forced by Him to spend an eternity in His presence in Heaven !!!

I never suggested that was the alternative. Your lack of imagination suggest that is the only alternative. You underestimate your own god, which is rather silly.

I have no problem with God not wanting people who don't worship him being heaven. I wouldn't put me in heaven if I was God. Heck I don't even want to be in heaven. But the idea that the only alternative to that is the lake of fire and suffering in hell is nonsense.

Those are not the only two options, hell or heaven. It would be only that way because God designed it that way. He could have designed it any way he liked. There could be 3 options, or 3 thousand.

God is God, he could created the universe any way he liked. The idea that the only two possible options are prefect bliss in heaven or perfect suffering in hell, is laughably ridiculous.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Your lack of imagination suggest that is the only alternative. You underestimate your own god, which is rather silly.

....it is not my imagination......it is the Word of God that there are only TWO alternatives....Heaven and Hell.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have no problem with God not wanting people who don't worship him being heaven. I wouldn't put me in heaven if I was God. Heck I don't even want to be in heaven. But the idea that the only alternative to that is the lake of fire and suffering in hell is nonsense.

....as I have said, I'm not making it up.....it is the Word of God on the matter!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

Those are not the only two options, hell or heaven. It would be only that way because God designed it that way. He could have designed it any way he liked. There could be 3 options, or 3 thousand.

....He could, He didn't.....so there are just 2 options!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

God is God, he could created the universe any way he liked. The idea that the only two possible options are prefect bliss in heaven or perfect suffering in hell, is laughably ridiculous.

......perhaps it is laughable to you......but it is nontheless TRUE!!

.....anyway you are staying remarkable quiet about my ET encounters!!!!

......is this going to be another 'guidestones' experience.......where you stay all curled up and fearful .......and the subject drops like a 'lead ballooon'!!!!:eek::D

......I have a message for you from the Holy Spirit......come out.......and believe on Jesus Christ to save you.

rockbeer

J.C., I'd love to hear about your ET encounters...

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

J.C., I'd love to hear about your ET encounters...

I was hoping someone would bite, otherwise I was going to ask him.

Come on, JC, we are all ears.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....it is not my imagination......it is the Word of God that there are only TWO alternatives....Heaven and Hell.

Yes but it doesn't have to be this way. It is God's decision it is this way.

J C wrote: »

....as I have said, I'm not making it up.....it is the Word of God on the matter!!!

You are saying that God had to set things up this way, which isn't true.

J C wrote: »

....He could, He didn't.....so there are just 2 options!!!
...
......perhaps it is laughable to you......but it is nontheless TRUE!!

Its not true, you just admitted it isn't true.

He could have set things up another way. He decided to set things up this way. He could change his mind if he was bothered or you know, actually loved us as your religion claims.

J C wrote: »

.....anyway you are staying remarkable quiet about my ET encounters!!!!

Your what in the what now?

J C wrote: »

......I have a message for you from the Holy Spirit......come out.......and believe on Jesus Christ to save you.

No thanks.